Manosphere Marijan Šiklić (ThatIncelBlogger)

Who is Smarter, TJ Church or Marjan Šiklić?


  • Total voters
    342
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you need me to send you links to places that'll sell you penis enlargers? I'm sure I have a ton in my spambox.
 
Holden has as much peer-reviewed evidence supporting his bizarre rape statistics as he does for his goofy incel nonsense.
 
@Holden

Send us pictures of what your mom looks like.

3680428608_38869645d4_z.jpg
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Bob's Fries
@Holden I don't think I caught it, or you ignored it, but what exactly is your definition of the act of rape and the crime of rape. Because, as I said, this forum has rape survivors in it and we really would like to know how you define this word you throw around like candy out of a piñata.

And as I asked before, please do not use words like feminism and whatever because your definition of these kids of words are not the same as ours.

And again: for example: most people agree that Rape (in crime and in act) is any person forcing another, against THEIR WILL, to engage in some sexual act.

As far as I can tell, your definition is: "any woman having sex with any man that isn't me." (- not a direct quote, obviously, but really, it might as well be at this point)
Sorry, didn't reply before.

Rape as an act - In A Natural History of Rape, Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer define rape as "Human copulation resisted by the victim to the best of her ability unless such resistance would probably result in death or serious injury to her or others she commonly protects." I agree with this definition and would add that homosexual rape is also possible, with the same requirement to resist to the best of your ability. But under no circumstances can a woman rape a man. This is also compatible with the common-law definition which is "carnal knowledge of a woman not one's wife, by force and against her will." Anything else is feminist corruption of justice. Nowadays a lot of people think lack of consent is sufficient, but that is something I can never accept. Rape is sex accomplished by force, and that means the victim has to resist to the best of her ability; otherwise she is letting him have it. There needs to be a causal relationship between the violence and the sex, and that is not the case if the woman doesn't bother to resist to the best of her ability. Pretending women also can be rapists is a red herring employed by feminists to obfuscate the harm done to men by feminist rape law reform, to get useful idiot males to legitimize their persecution of men.

Rape as a crime - was always directed against chaste or married woman. It was a property crime against woman's father or husband. It never applied to sluts. Female whims like "consent" were rrelevant.
 
Sorry, didn't reply before.

Rape as an act - In A Natural History of Rape, Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer define rape as "Human copulation resisted by the victim to the best of her ability unless such resistance would probably result in death or serious injury to her or others she commonly protects." I agree with this definition and would add that homosexual rape is also possible, with the same requirement to resist to the best of your ability. But under no circumstances can a woman rape a man. This is also compatible with the common-law definition which is "carnal knowledge of a woman not one's wife, by force and against her will." Anything else is feminist corruption of justice. Nowadays a lot of people think lack of consent is sufficient, but that is something I can never accept. Rape is sex accomplished by force, and that means the victim has to resist to the best of her ability; otherwise she is letting him have it. There needs to be a causal relationship between the violence and the sex, and that is not the case if the woman doesn't bother to resist to the best of her ability. Pretending women also can be rapists is a red herring employed by feminists to obfuscate the harm done to men by feminist rape law reform, to get useful idiot males to legitimize their persecution of men.

Rape as a crime - was always directed against chaste or married woman. It was a property crime against woman's father or husband. It never applied to sluts. Female whims like "consent" were rrelevant.

So how's your mom? Was she disappointed by your micropenis?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coldgrip
That would be documented rapes, you ignorant fuckwit. Do you know how hard it is to get rape prosecuted in an Islamic country, even one as "civilized and westernized" as Saudi?
That's the thing, though. Saudi Arabia actually measures what is real rape. Not drunk sluts regretting their consent later or some nonsense about "marital rape".
 
Wait so you're arguing that rapists are worshiped by Western women and women want rapists. But then you say you want to help protect women from rape and create a less rape society. Why are you trying to protect women from something you think they want. .?
Because what women want now is not what is good for them or humanity.
 
I don't understand. I am supposed to kill him, fight him or what?
He challenged you to a fight. You just pussed out and everybody saw it.
Why would I need balls?
Well that's fair. I mean you've been living your life without any all these years so why would you need them now?
What thug?
The one that stole your girlfriend away from you. You spent so many hours here crying that some big bad nigga just swooped down, knocked you over, and made off with your girl.

Though me and several others suspect that you were just jealous that he took her away and not you.
Because, you know, you love the cock.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back