-puts paid to the notion that Weinsteins would be enabled, although it might’ve only applied to Jewish women (who Weinstein still targeted).
3254 words. In a conservative society, saying any of this would be unnecessary.
Apropos the discussion of the obligation to allow oneself to be killed rather than engage in forbidden sexual intercourse, the Gemara notes that Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: There was an incident involving a certain man who set his eyes upon a certain woman and passion rose in his heart, to the point that he became deathly ill. And they came and asked doctors what was to be done with him. And the doctors said: He will have no cure until she engages in sexual intercourse with him. The Sages said: Let him die, and she may not engage in sexual intercourse with him. The doctors said: She should at least stand naked before him. The Sages said: Let him die, and she may not stand naked before him. The doctors suggested: The woman should at least converse with him behind a fence in a secluded area, so that he should derive a small amount of pleasure from the encounter. The Sages insisted: Let him die, and she may not converse with him behind a fence.
Voyeurism/cuck culture from Jewish (or Fake Jew, YMMV) pornography has addled the brains of many men. Blame the enemy, not your tribal women.
No rape or fornicating. Better God strike you down for your lust.
Now that’s the God I recognise from the Old Testament and Jesus’ orders to look away.
It is also evil for men (doctors) to enable or encourage sin, which checks out. A lot of ‘therapists’ encourage self-destruction, body and soul, to this day. It is likewise, wrong.
Modern men should be ashamed if they lack basic impulse control, ancient men saw women literally walking round with their tits out (Greece, other places) and were man enough not to rape anyone. Clearly, you can’t blame clothes. While God made tits for babies, that doesn’t include crybabies. Like, lesbians don’t want to rape women in the gym shower? Man up.
Or is the muh dick “sexual emergency” sodomy of that Muslim in a white country to a little boy suddenly righteous?
Moving the goalposts won’t work. It’ll just enable gays and pedos to rape you…. a ….slippery slope… indeed….
Entitlement is physical, whether it’s Communists wanting your coin or rapists wanting your, ahem, ‘dignity’. It’s rank materialism and thus rejects all claims or ties to spirituality as a matter of course.
When you think about it, from fat acceptance SJWs to so-called incels, who both wish to impose, they’re all Sexual Communists. It’s Brave New World bullshit. Nobody else cares about what you want, snowflake.
Strangers owe you NOTHING. It’s like Commies who feel entitled to a job from the ‘evil capitalist scum’.
You hate them, no?!
Slavery is illegal, all the actions of it too, like rape or stealing labour. Human rights aren’t going anywhere without you all being drafted to die gored on barbed wire for Israel’s profit margins in the barbed wire sector.
This sexual begging will astonish historians. Especially when they have porn, specialist toys and hands. Their T-levels are pushed even higher with masturbation, why it was called self-abuse. A sexbot would reject them, and probably kill them – Terminator prequel?
Ask them how many gay guys would feel entitled to their hole if ‘everybody belonged to everybody else’, they might get the point. Women have minds and feelings too, like people! God’s people! If women can’t say no to the Darwinian unfit, neither can you because out there, somewhere, is a man who wants to sodomize you – I guarantee it. The standard of most homo men is “they possess an anus” based on the count statistics (100s-1000s, if allowed) so they might get a nasty surprise if any of this actually happened, legally. Actually, is this how Sodom started? Pretty sure.
This type of entitled male complains about prison rape (I’m a victim but not directly attitude) but hey, aren’t they saying it’s okay and even moral if a man feels lust? They’re directly justifying prison rape.
Since you don’t need to consent if a man wants to injure your body, right?
“I want” is a train of thought even a toddler should be shamed for. When your brain develops beyond this, they’re just taking the piss falling back on it. Either get over it (simply by looking away, as Jesus wisely prescribed) OR they’re so brain damaged (poor impulse control is a dominant sign of low IQ) that they belong in an asylum where the wicked existence of the world won’t ‘tempt’ them to be predators (monasteries are also an option, although probably just a more open model of asylum on the same grounds).
Entitlement is a sick combination of practically every sin, especially pride, envy, greed and obviously lust. Anyone trying to justify it as moral is at best a moral relativist and at worst a rapist looking for social approval.
Sex is not a human need. It never has been (especially for women but I digress). You do not need it. You do not need it to live, either. That is a pleasure rhetoric myth from the 60s Free Love hippy bullshit. “Love is all you need” – okay, stop beating your Asian wife first, John. Same guy: “Imagine all the people, living life in peace…” – apply it to your own house first, you abusive prick.
It’s a sign of the backward atheist times that even guys deriding Muslim rape gangs in one breath will use the next to justify their own aspirations to rape a woman for ‘tempting’ them.* This isn’t India or Pakistan, it’s the First World. We don’t negotiate with sexual terrorists, we shoot them. Women looked better in the 50s (1750s, 1850s, and 1950s) and men weren’t catcalling, harassing, stalking and raping them as punishment for being feminine (which have no doubt, is exactly what it is). They can just go live in places that do punish women for femininity (move to Saudi Arabia) but it won’t make them happy either. You’re not entitled to attention from anyone, which is really what the AA for men guys actually want: to jump up the masculine hierarchy without earning respect.
Woman: <is feminine>
Rapists: it’s free real estate.
“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife” or daughter or sister or aunt…… etc.
[*Actually, how many fakecels are non-white? Where’s that survey? If most of them are browns who feel entitled to white wimminz, because they moved West, that might explain a lot.]
Applying ghetto culture to white societies has and will be the death of us. Catcalling was just the start. White men should be shamed for acting black like that, it’s so immature, like a dog chasing a car. White people use indoor voices, we don’t ‘holler’. Incels don’t dare turn on rap for brainwashing and insulting white people, a notable omission.
The expansion of the discussion of this story is interesting.
The Gemara comments: Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi and Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani disagree about this issue. One of them says: The woman in question was a married woman, and the other one says: She was unmarried.The Gemara tries to clarify the issue: Granted, according to the one who saysthat she was a married woman, the matter is properly understood. Since the case involved a severely prohibited forbidden relationship, the Sages did not allow any activity hinting at intimacy. But according to the one who says that she was unmarried, what is the reason for all this opposition? Why did the Sages say that the man must be allowed to die, rather than have the woman do as was requested?
Women aren’t whores unless forced by slavery, simple. God made women with dignity, not as sex toys.
The creeps tend to have three motives – physical obviously, social in bragging about their ‘conquests’ (pathetic) and stealing intimacy, forcing a loss of dignity (that humiliating is pathological, specifically psychopathic).
Naturally, the pathological always claim to be normal and even good, evil lies.
Rav Pappa says: This is due to the potential family flaw, i.e., harm to the family name, as it is not permitted to bring disgrace to the entire family in order to save the lovesick man. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, says: This is so that the daughters of Israel should not be promiscuous with regard to forbidden sexual relations. Were they to listen to the doctors’ recommendations, Jewish women might lose moral restraint.
Proof narcissists have always existed and saner cultures stamped them down like the cockroaches they are. Rapists (inc. would-be rapists) will literally try to hold society to ransom like we should give a damn about their ‘problems’. Sexually perverse extortion. We don’t negotiate with sexual terrorists, again. White people are simply too civilized and high IQ to consider our own people property, our women aren’t poker chips – not to Western creeps or Middle Eastern ones.
Yes, it is degrading, to the family and the woman, who is also a member of said family.
Ordering round women you aren’t related to is… sad, to say the least. Controlling men are always ironically weak in character, it’s reaction formation.
Nobody should follow the weak, neither women nor men. Appeasement of the freaks is r-selected.
These efforts to corrupt women, in this story or the various incel “I deserve/women should…” posts are depraved.
Spot the r-type:
The Gemara asks: But if the woman was unmarried, let the man marry her.The Gemara answers:His mind would not have been eased by marriage, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak. As Rabbi Yitzḥak says: Since the day the Temple was destroyed, sexual pleasure was taken away from those who engage in permitted intercourse and given to transgressors, as it is stated: “Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant”(Proverbs 9:17). Therefore, the man could have been cured only by engaging in illicit sexual interaction.
Scorn degeneracy or it defiles society, one example at a time. A rotten apple spoils the barrel.
“let him marry her” implies she or her family wants to let her remain with the lech (Jews, being civilized, didn’t have forced marriage, the woman chose)
Logically, if it was illicit 1. he’s wronging society, 2. he should be punished (stoning should do it) and 3. then it shouldn’t matter what other men or women (inc her father) think, since it wouldn’t be illicit if they approved any intimacy.
You’re not entitled to anything from strangers, anything, from men or women.
This shouldn’t need be explained to adults.
Being logically sound, they also enforced death penalty as a punishment equally for male or female sinners, it was purely based on the crime.
The prohibition and punishment apply both in cases
You can’t run a society on 50% degeneracy.
If men are the moral authority, their immorality is more evil, since their standard is higher by choice.
Even if all women shut their legs tomorrow, men would still sin and probably just with each other (like the Navy).
Take responsibility for your own feels, weaklings.
The baraita continues: Lewdness is stated here, with regard to the punishment: “There shall be no lewdness among you” (Leviticus 20:14), and lewdness is stated there, with regard to the prohibition: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; you shall not take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness; they are near kinswomen, it is lewdness” (Leviticus 18:17). It is derived by means of a verbal analogy that just as there the prohibition applies to the woman’s daughter, and the daughter of her daughter, and the daughter of her son, so too here, the punishment of burning applies to one who engages in intercourse with the woman’s daughter, and to the daughter of her daughter, and to the daughter of her son.
See the tie-in to Christian society, this is germane.
So that Jewish story explains Leviticus.
Also, playing Man Card to rape relatives is obviously evil, no “But muh Patriarchy” isn’t get out of Hell free.
Execution by burning is more severe than execution by stoning
That explains Jesus telling the lustful how they’ll burn.
Interestingly, they killed sinners prior to rape (i.e. damaging the woman).
The baraita taught that the word “sin” is referring to women who are forbidden to a man by a prohibition the violation of which renders him liable to receive karet. From here it is derived that a man who attempts to rape a woman who is forbidden to him under penalty of karet may be killed.
And Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the Merciful One says that a rapist must be killed because his victim is prepared to sacrifice her life rather than yield to rape.
Well, yeah. Rape is worse than murder to women. Men would feel the same if they had the same anatomy and/or could get pregnant. The film Alien was a horror film about one man’s fear of rape and being pregnant, true story.
Let the rapist be, she is saying this so that he should not kill her, and therefore the rapist is not killed.
Let the rape victim decide if the rapist is killed, sounds totally fair. He took away her right over her body, it’s kosher she should get a right over his. There is also the common connection between rapists also murdering their victims, so this acknowledges that in a poetic way.
The same laws Christianity is based on also allow self defense to save a life including prevent crime (such as rape).
So killing a rapist as they attempt it is kosher too, but also mentioned in the Bible as crying out (for the mob to kill him).
The ‘doctors’ were appealing to that valid breach of the law (where it was invalid) to prevent death but an entitled degenerate isn’t going to die from lack of sex or all monks would’ve keeled over in six months. The incels who kvetch “but I’ll die without an Asian GF” should just off themselves if they really believed that. I wonder how many are borderlines, because threatening suicide (even to strangers) to manipulate people is textbook borderline personality (and this apparently happened in ancient times).
“But I’ll die because muh Dick”
“Okay, die.” – society.
Naturally, their bluff is false because they come back to it over literally years.
Aren’t you dead yet? Weren’t you supposed to be dead in like, the 90s? Promise?
The First World should mock Muh Dicks the way it did historically when it was proud and coincidentally successful. Victim culture bleeding into sex/rape is predictable but evil. Rapists in prison claiming they dindu nuffin started it. No, men needn’t lay SJW fatties. No, white women needn’t lay smelly Muslims. No no no no no.
Muh Dicks – putting the mental in victim mentality.
The fact many claim to be libertarian (your rights end….!) is uniquely hilarious.
Your agency is crap and you should feel bad. A lot of people don’t get laid, including religious types, they don’t obsess over it or threaten to hurt anyone. And aren’t libertarians claiming any degeneracy as a social good if there’s consent? So their one true evil would be anyone who violates consent…. like SJW fatties or the bitter rapey majority of ‘incels’.
When both Jesus and his sage forebears from his ancestral religion say the same thing: you are responsible for being tempted, not the thing you ogle, then it’s pretty clear what’s what.
Ogling is a sin.
I say thing because art, billboards etc. They even do this to things, hence object in objectification. We call them wankers for a reason.
“allow” the pitiful excuse for a man to die
God wants the weak to perish, he goes on and on about it and how the way is narrow et al. He sends tests all the time.
“rather than have the woman do as was requested?” Implies she wanted nothing to do with the creep, even as his wife. So basically you had a predator with a personality disorder (but I repeat myself) trying to force a random woman into letting him (by the power of the law!) rape her instead of killing him, as was her legal right to self defense.
I could ‘request’ a lot of things from men, it doesn’t make me entitled to them.
Other people are not wish genies.
Bloody losers. I bet he’d malinger to dodge the draft, too. Coercion is immoral, a sign of low character.
Having freedom of choice is THE freedom of white, First World societies. THE liberty our ancestors died for.
Both employers, the military (and women) can tell you, NO, you’re unsuitable for this role.
And you have to accept that, rejection is a fact of life. Women get rejected all the time, including in CV studies. We also get rejected at the HR level for being too attractive according to the SJW hags residing therein, so this alleged advantage is pure fiction.
We can reject and be rejected. You can’t nag the system of evolution into changing – the bird that picks up no stone has no mate.
This can include if there are no other applicants. There is no obligation to just accept anyone. Plenty of women are single rather than settle for a whiny entitled soyboy who’d dodge the draft. I wonder if the incel subs (which is not all celibate people obviously* as they claim, anymore than LGB bullshit represents most gays) have polled their attributes. e.g. How many so-called incels choose to be fat? Choose not to shower? Choose not to work?
Can those choices really be called the fault of women? They have no qualms blaming fat SJWs for their own weight, even in true medical cases where it’s morally grotesque e.g. permanent Pill damage, thyroid issue, genetic disorder.
*On the contrary, most celibates I’ve met were really happy about it. No drama, no stress, no disease, plenty of time for sublimation into hobbies or work or the family they already have. Maybe the innocuous (minority of internet) incels are just sick of virgin shaming, which is a very real and precise issue (very small but brutal and wrong) to do with sexualisation and objectification of people based on their sex life (and what Hollywood tries to force us to think it “should” be). However, they contribute to that culture by assuming that women are sleeping around without them (and verbally abusing them for the imaginary slight) when statistically their peers are having less sex than their parents and you know most of that’s the minority of thots skewing the already low data a bit higher. If society praised the virtues of the innocuous ones, their chastity, would they be miserable? Doubtful. I put it to you those are not ‘incels’ because they’re not misogynists or rapists or anything like that, they’re not trying to control others either, they’re just sick of Hollywood’s culty pressure to dictate what they do with their dick. That is 100% justified.
The Sages raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ami: Is a descendant of Noah,who is commanded to refrain from idol worship, also commanded about the sanctification of God’s name, or is he not commanded about the sanctification of God’s name?
It’s interesting to read their little tizzies to understand later metaphors and tie-ins to Christianity later.
Funny to note: no report of the wannabe rapist actually dying. Borderlines bluff.