All heterosexual sex is rape due to the inherent power imbalance between men and women in society

Seeth more
All Foucault works revole around the fact that he is an homosexual and that he can't stand it

Ok this is based

But the concept is an internalized form of their own subjugation, it is perhaps the most insidious expression of the gender power imbalance

I'm merely extending Foucault's views beyond his own misguided radical libertineism

I wonder since when did we start to value social prestige by sex

Since the sexual revolution of the 1960s extended the domain of the capitalist struggle into the sexual realm

I honestly cant think of a reasonable or rational way to explain to my gf why I just dont like or care that much about sex yet I still do it.

The sexual act is one of the power relation of dominator/dominated, penetrator/penetrated. 'Twould be foolhardy to think one come ever come to an equilibrium of pure equality, but instead of domination, there should be a free play of non-dominative power moves
Fellatio is the biggest perpetrator here, the evil act par excellence (and not the good kind, the daemonic simulacral act - sodomy).

Hmmm. Indirectly addressed in my story.
I need to get back to writing it.

BDSM is consensual. Rape is not.
Some people are bottoms, some are switches. Society has seen a patriarchal domination thus far, it’s really funny seeing user deny this is still the case, but it seems subconscious, almost involuntary for for it to be otherwise.

So long as women take cocks in their vaginas, they will never be equal to men

This only makes sense if we're talking about men being raped by women.
The immense amount of power held by women over men via the sexual impulse is the greatest unacknowledged truth of all times. This deception is of course baked into that power so cannot be removed independently.

You can't reject the "misguided" radical libertinism. There's notting beyond it worth defending. You're denying the existence of autonomous subjects based on their desires. Just accept it.

#1 greatest thing about homosex is that it can, if wielded correctly, kill off arrogant french pomo theorists.

>BDSM is consensual

No, it isn't. There is no consensual sex between men and women. The male thought-experience is so totally incompatible with the female that nominal consent from either party is inadmissible in the thought-sphere of the gender opposed. And moreover, subtextual thought-spheres are omnipresent and exist for racialized and other minorities, implying that, for instance, same sex interracial relationships cannot be consensual in any meaningful sense either.

In general, the penetrative act, as describes, contains within it an abominable, primordial power relation that cannot be reconciled with notions of a just or liberated society and people

Attached: foucault.jpg (223x226, 7K)

We really do live in a society don't we?

Based and redpilled
I wish more people understood this.

>You're denying the existence of autonomous subjects based on their desires

The subject is a social construction, its autonomy is by definition non-existent

>power relations
Consent is consensual by definition. I already addressed this. Some people are bottoms. I prefer switches as they are optimal partners of equality. As rare and undesired as it is by most, it does exist.

Attached: 3672AFFC-32CC-452F-9BAB-C6160D265A4E.png (185x255, 88K)

This is stupid. So you’re low sexed, fine. Don’t belittle others for not having the same hang ups as you.

>consent is consensual by definition

Go back to r/benshapiro or whatever you fucking reactionary troglodyte

ITT LARPing liberalism

Go read

>everything I don't like is liberalism

This is why you're the most hated poster on this board

Attached: 13CCAEE6-B489-4C3A-A13D-5FC7C2445238.gif (500x380, 994K)

It's more that you're hypersexualized and belittling others who point our how this is bad for equanimity and cultural stability.

I am actually a very horny individual and I agree with that user's sentiment

>being low-sexed means cultural stability
Christian, please.

Are you getting any sex? You know it fades with age, right?

>Christian

Attached: pythagoras.jpg (600x900, 88K)

Yeah I get sex regularly, I just think it's a waste of time and makes me less able to do cooler stuff

There are metaphysical reasons as to why being low-sexed makes one more likely to experience enlightenment or even 'salvation', but considering you are most likely a materialist into debauchery, you wouldn't understand.

I get laid every weekend, is that considered low sexed these days? I only do it since social status hinges so hard on it.

Good for you. Do get a hold on it certainly, but know the urge and ability will fade with age.

“Salvation” is the opposite of enlightenment

Attached: CD9AD4F9-12B2-4E01-8B6A-E66369492666.jpg (660x811, 63K)

>10mins of morning sex is a waste of time
Lmao at your life nigger
Daily reminder foucault was a sexual degenerate, and is actively used to undermine Traditional family values.

Is Anonymous pretending to be Anonymous again? No that’s not low sexed.

>“Salvation” is the opposite of enlightenment
They are one and the same.

youre a fucking dunce. sex isn't merely the act but the cultural preoccupation, it's atavistic and unproductive

'Enlightenment' as a concept is phallo and euro-centric and doesn't properly give oppressed ppl a chance to self-actualize

What "power imbalance" makes it socially acceptable for one sex to rape the other?

If 10 mins is enough for your significant other to be happy then im jealous

Whenever I have sex, I can feel something like a Demiurge's "pull", and I do not feel that this is my body. I can feel the murmurings of demons whispering in my ears, and there is like a background of red. The will, the impulse, that pushes me towards sexual gratification is not mine, it is something else. It offends me, especially those who fetishize it.

Attached: despicable_humanity.jpg (1425x1246, 493K)

What an academic pussy. Imagine Foucault going up to an African tribesman and saying this shit. "You shouldn't rape, power imbalance." and then Focault gets fucking killed illustrating the fact that him and everything he has ever written or said is completely worthless.

Post-coital tristesse is something only the wise experience because we understand how we are puppets for something nefarious, something truly evil. Sex is not a true form of escape, it is a deeper enmeshing into the Will of some kind of process akin to the Demiurge.

Salvation always implied getting in good stead with others, to me.
Enlightenment needs no other for approval
Just my perspective maybe.

Naw. It’s just lifting your head out of the dark ages of faith in the imaginary. It’s available to all now.

Materialism/physicalism is equally about faith too, given it is unfalsifiable. The point is, you attach to the body and identify certain impulses as your own, but it may be that you are a puppet of something more nefarious. Why find sex pleasurable? Why simply take it at face value rather than asking for the full causal story and how the con job was biologically ingrained for some kind of objective, which is akin to a Demiurge?

based
cringe

that being said, there does seem to be a practical kind of consent, where a girl wants to have sex with you and you have sex with her and afterwards she doesnt accuse you of rape, and it is just agreed to be 'consensual' in the societal sense, even if you can come up with a psycho-etymological reason it isnt. Also Foucault was adamant that power structures arent necessarily negative.

Not far from the truth. I posted this a while ago:

>All men ARE rapists in the sense that women are not conscious in the way men are and cannot consent as such. A man always self-identifies, from the top down, whereas a woman's identity is merely emergent from the most intense and most common Phenomena she is presented with, from the bottom up.

>From the top down as in man is his own monarch. He minds nothing and no one by default, and only does so either because he proactively wants to, or because that something or someone prevents him from doing what he wills. Whereas woman is the opposite. She minds everything and everyone by default, and only through introjection of the most intense and/or common experiences does a semblance of a will emerge, by which the lesser experiences are then parsed. A woman is essentially always raped, not just sexually, but raped as in having her "will" superseded by an other; directly by a man or by the world as such and/or inasmuch as it is molded by men. She is raped by default, simply by existing. She is never not raped. Rape in the legal sense being comparatively minor and, indeed, most men not being rapists in this sense, but all men and, indeed, all things not woman, inextricably rape all women in the Ontological sense.

The French treat it as something superfluous, superimposed onto "real" or "good" sexuality, even something funny. But this is all sexuality is, and tragically so.

Attached: tumblr_n0ztnux5ZJ1t43e29o1_640.jpg (640x484, 195K)

Feeling the testosterone and endorphin boost through the day is unbeatable. But keep feeing ashamed and overthinking your natural instinct to reproduce.

>natural instinct
What is natural vs. unnatural? In truth, since we do not truly know anything about the true nature of reality, and thus, we could in some sense consider everything as unnatural, especially the desire to reproduce. This entire world could be a Lynchian nightmare for all that you know. You are basically a naive realist.

>true nature of reality, and thus, we could
true nature of reality, we could thus*

what if my wife fucks me with a strapon?

What is nature and was is a common characteristic within nature? Reproduction.

*Goes and rapes children*
The postmodernist cries out in pain as xhe strike you

I don't know what is the true nature or ground of things. It could be there is a more nuanced ontological answer to all of this. You are just a naive realist who assumes reality is what it presents itself on a surface-level.

I would like to have all the metaphysical answers in life before I take pleasure in such actions like sex, which is fundamentally a con job involved in manipulating humans into procreating. Why should I take pleasure in tricks of the mind when I don't know anything about this reality? You come to this world without any clear answers and just react to stimuli without asking where it all leads to? No one knows what happened before birth or what will happen after death.

So because I don’t know the origins of the universe, sex is bad?

Attached: 3389A6B5-941D-4C20-B254-3601536A994B.jpg (702x1024, 73K)

There’s always a degree of mutual rape in sex, creation is violent.

>So because I don’t know the origins of the universe, sex is bad?
precisely, except it's worse- everything is bad

Okay, everyone to ever procreate is a rapist. And?

Why do you think human children scream when they're born? They are being raped into existence. There is no bigger sadomasochist than our very own bodies. When your brain and body decay, you will understand. There is nothing more surreal than aging. The Demiurge is real, and you are entirely clueless to its existence because you are asleep.

A gross exaggeration of the disparity between men and women in society. Women can refuse sex with a man without consequence. What could a man do to ruin a woman's life another woman couldn't do? What could a man do to ruin a woman's life he couldn't do to another man?

>implying you can't dominate someone by riding their dick

>raped into existence
Assuming you really exist in the way you think you do, and aren’t just attaching ego to your mortal existence. But that’s beside the point. The point is that procreation is good, and having sex is good because it creates more of who we are, and enables us to continue on in a search for higher consciousness in order to fully understand the nature of our reality.

Imbalances in power do not nullify consent. They only do if the imbalance is so great the more powerful partner can effectively 'punish' the weaker partner if they refuse, which simply isn't the case for 90% of people in a given society.

>mfw
Shit like this makes me firmly believe you can be well read, educated, intelligent and still really dumb at the same time.

Attached: 8rbnx.jpg (620x465, 33K)

Completely wrong, what a callous interpretation. The implicit societal standards that accompany consent subvert the essence of the notion even when it is supposedly present; the female subject has no true autonomy to consent in this sense

>female subject has no true autonomy
So then women are subhuman and bothering with consent is a waste of time.

I've never met someone who was able to use so many words to say absolutely nothing of value. In what way do women not have true autonomy? A man can ask for sex, a woman can refuse. If the man continues with his sexual advances he's charged as a criminal and shunned as a member of society. How is the woman's consent (or, rather lack of consent) irrelevant in this scenario?

imagine being this gay, I dont consent to your flagrant faggotry raping my board

Yes, yes it is, babe. Yes. It. Is.

:3

Idiot

don't believe everything you see here

>Imagine caring about sex. I say this as someone who has sex regularly but only to fit in

This is one of the funniest things I've read on here

Foucault didn't even believe as sexual identity. He called it a symptom of capitalism or something

I like how Foucault regretted all of the "sex" at the end of his life and intentionally propagated his AIDS (the virology was not established so it is correct to say this) so more degenerates would get it. Basically he admitted in one of his books that Pythagoras was right and he was wrong.

What's wrong with power imbalance? Ethics of consent are degenerate, and the logical conclusion is "dude what if the child consents tho? t. ancap". Clearly something has gone wrong here.

Big brain and based.

>i wish i were a bird

Attached: makemeabird.gif (500x219, 998K)

Was this from that lion movie with Robert Duvall?

It's better to frame things in terms of right sexuality/wrong sexuality, at least in the Catholic tradition (just an example) you can explain what constitutes right sexuality and other uses of sexuality constitute wrong sexuality on a sliding scale of wrongness. Otherwise you get the aforementioned scenario or worse, "What if the dog consents tho, t. Justine from Toronto"

Agree.

Unfortunately under liberalism you can't really articulate right/wrong because we all just have our different visions of what brings up Happiness (tm) and we need to respect Plurality and avoid being Discriminatory. Affirming any sort of teleology or right action is just a hop, skip and a jump away from Auschwitz.

Wrong dude

Do you even analytic ethics

redpill me

No, and I don't think anyone else does either outside of academics writing for each other in phil journals.

Read Martha Nussbaums wikipedia page

If the biggest redpill on analytic ethics you've got is something written by a woman then I'm pretty sure I can disregard the entire field.

>Imagine caring about sex. I say this as someone who has sex regularly but only to fit in

Attached: Screen Shot 2017-10-10 at 12.28.59 PM.png (466x332, 263K)

>She was married to Alan Nussbaum from 1969 until they divorced in 1987, a period which also saw her conversion to Judaism, and the birth of her daughter Rachel. Nussbaum's interest in Judaism has continued and deepened: on August 16, 2008, she became a bat mitzvah in a service at Temple K. A. M. Isaiah Israel in Chicago's Hyde Park, chanting from the Parashah Va-etchanan and the Haftarah Nahamu, and delivering a D'var Torah about the connection between genuine, non-narcissistic consolation and the pursuit of global justice.[24]

Absolutely disgusting, who converts TO Judaism.

That's from Forrest Gump, a young Jenny after gaining awareness of the repulsive nature of sexuality and establishing the trajectory of her life as a perpetual victim with an inevitable tragic end.
>inb4 some autismal incel claims she was the villain

She was a victim of herself. Not an incel btw

Just explore power imbalance.

I just thought she would be relevant to the thought at hand.

Here, let me pull a quote from Thomas Nagel's preface to Anarchy, State, and Utopia which I have literally in front of me at this very moment

Here's Nagel talking about him, Rawls, Nozick and a group of other analytic philosophers who began to write about moral and political philosophy in the second half of the 20th century:

"What united us were two convictions. One was a belief in the reality of the moral domain, as an area in which there are real questions with right and wrong answers, and not just clashing subjective reactions. The other was a belief that progress could be made towards discovering the right answers by formulating hypothesis at various levels of generality and subjecting them to confirmation or disconfirmation by the intuitive moral credibility of their various substantive consequences, as well as by their coherence in explaining those consequences."

So no, these men, who operated in the liberal and libertarian tradition, did not believe in complete moral subjectivity at all.

Analytic ethics is where the frontier is today, my friend. Read Parfit and have your mind melted.

Obviously not.

You're an incel that has never had a relationship with a woman. Foucault didn't either because he was a cock sucking faggot. Anyman that is in a relationship with a woman or married to own knows that women have a lot of power in the relationship.

Ok faggot...

t. Otto Weininger

Have kids

Nigger

Attached: 1559574820149.png (298x300, 84K)

Just to understand this, are you saying women lose their agency because of societal standards?

Watch it, buddy.

Ummmmmmmmm, but I don't want, like, society in my bedroom???????? Why do you care????? Its, like, 21st century???????????? Hello???????

>What could a man do to ruin a woman's life another woman couldn't do?

rape her, for one

Where did foucault say that? mind giving the exact reference?

Yeah sure it's page 213 line 24 of the history of sexuality volume 2

read 1984 by George orwell

Attached: 1984-Big-Brother.jpg (180x257, 22K)

Not drawing exactly from Foucault but from many feminist theorists you might say that the woman occupies the position of the object while the man occupies the position of the subject.
Every consensus is made from the base of some position any subject occupies, so every subject is subject to its position, so true consensus based on true free will between (naive view of) free subjects is imposible, as the free subject is non-existent.
And therefore this thread suffers a reductio ad absurdum.

Based and redpilled, props for the Ernst Fuchs

Attached: 2d0d0f1dc39f24400348b3d705c85c62.jpg (590x420, 64K)

Nice bait fella.

There's no serious feminist theorist that would say this.
Rape or sexist violence is the extreme of the continuum of the heterosexual matrix, where the man and his action are the epiphenomena of power.
Consensual sex is not rape as it is consensual, even between master and slave.

But a nominal definition of consent is worthless; without adequate analyses of social influences it cannot truly be said that 'consensual' sex is consensual. When we attempt such analyses we quickly see the potential for embedded power relations to subvert the traditional conception of consent and justice more broadly

Oh hello there Mr Strawman.

He is not wrong. Evola makes a similar claim in Metaphysics of Sex. Sex that does not result from direct violent physical coercion is ultimately the woman's will succumbing to the man's.

Only if you conveniently leave out the "without the consent of the victim" part of the definition of rape.

>Impotent virgin coping with his inability to find a mate.

Read my previous replies. It’s bullshit

It might be bullshit but your replies in this thread don't form a good counterargument

>bottoms
>switches

These words kill any notion of romantic love

No she’s right, bud. The best relationships are had from male and female cooperation.

Men forcing themselves on women is over. And I don’t want to be with a woman who views sexuality like that either :3

Men and women cannot cooperate; the very notions of masculinity and femininity represent two irreconcilable worlds. In particular, femininity is constructed expressly for subservience as a deficient form of masculinity. Any 'cooperation' will display characteristics of the abusive power relation.

It is admittedly possible to conceive of a future where this will not be the case. Nevertheless, its inevitability is not guaranteed and the most ethical and virtuous approach one may take to heterosexual relationships is to avoid them altogether such as to avoid perpetuating an abusive system

>people ITT still categorizing Foucault as a 'post-modernist'

Attached: pigged.png (1077x971, 454K)

If women were made to be subservient then how is it "abusive"?

Because the societal construction occurred according to the male interest, not the female interest

>Men and women cannot cooperate
AHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAH

Hold. Hands. :3

And?

PATRIARCHAL POST-FEMALE ARTIFICIAL WOMB WORLD WHEN??

I guess we should all just stop fucking and die like retards then, fucking idiot.

Forcing your own interests onto someone is a form of abuse

Masculinity and femininity are just the spiritualization of the sex organs. Saying they can't cooperate by design is as retarded as saying the penis and vagina can't cooperate by design. They are MEANT to cooperate by design.

Lol, read Foucault

everyone, please. stop replying to the butterfly.

Also in the case that we define every heterosexual sexual intercourse as rape, as neccesarily consent is a determined response someone gives in the light of the power relationships that determine their position, not only heterosexual sex would be rape, but all sex would be rape as long as difference (and power) exists. So ultimately rape would mean nothing.

It's only abuse if you view men and women as equal beings but they're (evidently) not. Men are human, women are subhuman. Their express purpose in life is to serve as an extension of man and if it weren't then either they'd have won the gender war or there wouldn't be an imbalance to allow for such conflict. Therefore, imposing your will on a woman is no more abusive than using a hammer or driving a car.

I prefer them to dom and sub. (Switch being either) there’s no need to use such terms when making out though.

When a male/female relationship is consensual it is permission. It isn’t rape. It is rape when the male decides to be violent and no listen to “no” and “stop” or when he keeps her locked up or isolated. Taking rape to these weird corners isn’t helpful in stopping actual rape.
Either we’re not getting the full context of what he’s saying or I stand by what I said and it’s dumb.

Dumb.
There’s all sorts of things considered “feminine” and I don’t care for a bunch of it, and wouldn’t mind a future without so much timidity for instance. But what about the women, straight women, who take on tougher rolls, or men who like them to peg them etc. they can cooperate just fine

Stfu

I'll get around to it eventually. If the OP is relevant to him though, I don't think I'll think much of him due to

But this primordial 'will' - the construction of femininity - represents a deviation of the status of female-sexed persons from the hypothetical natural state where they exist free of constructivist barriers. Thus to impose will on them /would/ be unethical, as they have not been forcefully resigned to subservience yet.

Looked familiar. Wasn't a big fan of Forrest Gump to be honest. Overrated film.

He wouldn't have said OP quote in particular, but he puts out related notions

please stop posting under a trip code

Please stop posting anonymously so I can lose the trip

Attached: C763AEB5-E438-40B4-AA40-BB70A269233A.jpg (500x500, 54K)

Are you implying Foucault said this? Please provide a quote or a reference. This is a literature board, let's not forget.

>represents a deviation of the status of female-sexed persons from the hypothetical natural state where they exist free of constructivist barriers
I think the fact that there are women on this planet having heterosexual sex right now all while not considering it rape means they'e given up such pretenses. Unless you believe men have successfully brainwashed women into bending to their will. At which point men would also be able to force his will all the way down to her core therefore ingraining it into her "will" and it can no longer be considered abuse since the construction of femininity ceases to exist.

Attached: 1537906532_giphy.gif (500x216, 999K)

>actual rape

What is actual rape? We talk about consent, and, as of late, 'enthusiastic' and 'informed' consent. But these words lend themselves to several interpretations. Their usage implies that the consent should be free of qualifications. We understand that it should be free from pressure. We chastise sexual relationships between those in an obvious power dynamic as immoral due to the pressure that the dominant party can apply on the dominated. Consequently, we must discuss and analyze the ultimate power dynamic - gender - which underpins the heterosexual relationship itself.

Heterosexual relationships are built on a power dynamic that is constructed precisely to be unequal. Thus,

1) any consent given by the dominated feminine party is inherently qualified.

And since,

2) any consent that is not free from qualifications is invalid,

therefore

3) any heterosexual sex is rape.

The core of the human subject is unmolestable in that sense; at least, not with present technology. Though the persistence of the constructed gender power dynamic into the more technologically advanced future raises concerns of such a sort.

Well then what would actual consensual sex be like and how would it differ from the way it is now?

I personally can't conceive of it. Nor do I care to do so

That's very masculine of you to say

To add onto that, the best example would probably be mutual non-penetrative intraracial intercourse between two similarly aged men of similar social standing

Imagine two Wojaks jerking each other off, basically

I forgot to specify but I meant heterosexual
But now that you mention social standing what happens if you were to put two people (girl and boy) into a room and let them have sex without informing them about the other's socio-economic status? Would that be consensual?

butterfly please go.

No, the female has already had her identity constructed for her as subservient to the male

this makes no sense. the female is prior to and more essential than the male.

That's not true either

>You're right. Women only ever rape men.

The fact that something along those lines wasn't the first reply to this thread... fuck every single one of you.

Attached: DAB02753-8759-4A52-A016-622DE7B6A235.jpg (1079x1376, 180K)

I don't agree.
What a scary world heteros build for themselves if this is what its to devolve into.
You've given me some fodder for my story though. thanks.

Attached: 1379290280464.jpg (653x945, 157K)

Man, this shit is getting way too convoluted. In reality it's a simple matter. If someone consents, that means they want it, end of story. Rape is sex someone didn't want but was forced to have.

>when a woman rapes a man, he is really raping her

Women can't rape men

the official crime statistics say otherwise

based