Let’s start with the obvious:
A person’s decision, choice, or preference is not some metaphysically “real” property of the universe so much as a human compression of local conative equilibria.
All such preferences develop endogenously within an array of external factors beyond the actor’s understanding or control, and are never unitary instantiations of volitional will so much as amalgamations of countervailing forces that in practice are fabulously unstable and subject to post-hoc revision but experienced subjectively as narratively significant “personal choices” we identify with because doing so is socially adaptive and necessary for higher-order identity formation.
Thus we experience the world and each other as though we have Free Will—and functionally speaking absolutely do at the individual level—whereas as you zoom out mankind is increasingly better modeled as a race of exquisitely complex roombas.
The Problem of Consent is that realistically we need some legal basis for designating certain instances of womanfucking as illegitimate and grounds for social removal, while in practice no such basis exists in any kind of analytically consistent way.
Sadly the issue is impossible to litigate in good faith because women don’t experience the natural process by which they precognitively align with power (which men do too, but more cynically and consciously as opposed to moralistically a la women) as anything but neutral recognition of the True and Beautiful, and instinctively parse any sort of mechanistically rigorous male systemization of their preference-formation as either nefarious and maladaptive or as pathetic cope and grounds for epistemic foreclosure either way, such that explaining the game disqualifies you not just from playing but from dignified existence itself in their eyes.
This creates a severe epistemic distortion effect, as it basically never advantages an individual man to publicly privilege causal accuracy over positive status coding when discussing sex and consent, which means that while many individual women end up coming around to a reasonable position after getting sexually conquered by a verbally gifted feller who can capably explain the ackshual grammar in private without getting undermined from the getgo by incel-coding the acceptable public discourse is game theoretically locked into a flattening Liarocracy operatively guaranteed to produce long-term enmity between the sexes.
One of the biggest things that stood out to me when I first started getting pussy was that the more overtly aggressive I was with a chick during smex the less likely it was that she’d feel taken advantage of or exploited in some way.
The thing is when it’s competently executed women don’t experience male aggression as actual aggression in any manner consistently indexed against actual behavior. If she somatically registers you as a certain quality of man—which aggression makes her do in a way that’s far easier to consistently signal-hack than any woman wants to admit—your behavior is just ontologically in a different category for her: disinterest becomes optionality, deception becomes roguish charm, sadism becomes boyish hijinks, etc.
Thus precisely the same behavior that would inspire disgust and indignation from a stable boyfriend will often be eroticized coming from a sufficiently high-status casual hookup and genuinely understood as a wholly different category of action.
Now when stated nakedly like that this fact embarrasses women like nothing else, and they tell themselves all sorts of ridiculous stories and do all sorts of mental gymnastics to provide an account of their sexual behavior more dignified than being essentially a retarded little paleolithic warbride who’ll enthusiastically drink the pee of whoever’s most capable of murdering everyone else. '
There are two prongs to this behavior: moralization—in which womyn create a bunch of arbitrary normative categories in which the guy whose pee they’re drinking is ackshully a “good person” or at least aesthetically supreme in some important way—and epistemic foreclosure, in which any man who accurately describes their behavior becomes subject to ferocious social reprisal based around a ratchet effect where just noticing a phenomenon genetically worthy men are incentivized to ignore or justify becomes proof ipso facto of disqualifying social discontent.
Of course, the most concentrated ire is reserved for men too visibly high status and erotically successful for epistemic foreclosure to work on—hence the vicious response to Trump’s pussy tape, which women interpreted as him “bragging about assault” even though he very conspicuously said they LET you do it.
Womyn were furious with Trump because by verbalizing the dynamic so explicitly and gauchely he was breaking the implicit compact between women and high-status men to keep their retarded hotdog boyfriends out of the loop.
Women socially impose a deep obligate solemnity around Rape that masquerades (and is most of the time sincerely experienced as) being about “consent” as such when it’s functionally a lot more about maintaining their feminine dignity as sexual selectors with a socially ratified erotic sovereignty against the grievances of low-status men and default interpretive claim on the meaning of shared sexual experiences.
A lot of times the two overlap perfectly.
In situations where they fail to overlap or implicate some subaltern class useful to affluent white women as a moral conduit—think mothers pimping daughters, Muslim grooming gangs, black pimping of white girls, and especially male prison rape—you don’t see the same solemnity holding up basically at all; the issue is minimized or in the last case actively mocked and deployed implicitly as an instrument of state power.
Functionally speaking “consent” is a moral wedge deployed almost exclusively against male peers or near-peers as a social-reputational bargaining chip and insurance policy.
Anyone who’s fucked a girl with a boyfriend also knows how evil women get behind closed doors in those scenarios, with “good girls” literally always being worst about it.
The thing is women have a deep and acute sense of eugenic sadism where they enjoy and eroticize the humiliation of low status or otherwise maladaptive men.
And men of course are sadistic as well, and probably more so—wanting to humiliate and assert dominance over others is a natural and normal human impulse. But with us it’s overt and consciously accessible, and when we’re sufficiently high status people will generally experience our sadism as funny and coo, whereas women are a lot more reputationally porous and can’t socially survive being seen as responsible for another’s pain, which means they tend to let high-status men act as plausibly deniable conduits for their own aggression and then figure out some narrative post-hoc that shifts the blame to the deficient man.
Naturally, they’re only able to do this because men enable and indulge them—it feels good enough to be the conqueror that men seldom act in concert (esp these days) to punish female defection, the idea being that it’s on you for failing to keep her on a tight leash and that on some level everything in romance is just Vae Victis.
Because ultimately most men realize on some level that Women Don’t Have Agency.
That’s most plainly true in the game theoretic sense that women can functionally abrogate their accountability in erotic and romantic situations for basically zero cost to themselves (again, due largely to male indulgence), which means rational male actors have no choice but to model women as eternally capable of exercising such options—and of endogenously repricing him around them as circumstance permits.
But it’s also true in the much thicker sense that in erotic scenarios especially women are profoundly roomba-like, and tend to respond to male aggression and visible status with little to no sense of dignified adult human discernment.
If babygirl ends up behind closed doors with a sufficiently high status dude, it doesn’t especially matter how propositionally “loyal” she is on a conscious level. Your mistake was letting her get into that position in the first place—hence the classic “it’s not that I don’t trust you, I don’t trust him,” which makes zero sense in a dumdum egalitarian grammar but makes perfect sense when you accept that women don’t have agency.
Same reason you have to go through your girl’s phone: a modern girl especially can easily entertain multiple backup dudes without experiencing herself as flirting with any of them, calling anyone who moves too quickly delusional while branch swinging to the best of them the instant her beau fucks up, and basically any dude who dates around these days will by the time he’s thirty have been on both sides of this dynamic multiple times; it’s just part of the contemporary erotic grammar.
You just have to treat them a little like middle schoolers… they’re not bad people, but they’re dragged around by their clits in a hilariously impulsive way, and unlike us boys niggerishly justifying it as muh dik are obliged to come up with a fake and gay moral Reason for it that if we aren’t careful will inevitably leave us sitting in the crosshairs.
Now womyn of course find this phenomenon deeply embarrassing and will invariably call you a deluded incel for saying it out loud, completely ignoring the fact that for all their bluster ackshual incels tend to have a far more romantically innocent notion of women deep down whereas the men who are most convinced in their bones about this facet of female nature can usually only vocalize it so unsentimentally because they’ve witnessed it firsthand and found it profoundly destabilizing.
Because ultimately men are the romantic sex—and also the behaviorally elastic sex, as while women will basically always be good bitches for Power and do what they’re told while internalizing its writ as morally binding, men tend to become useless pieces of shit the moment they stop benefiting from an arrangement, and will quietly defect on all of society the moment they stop seeing girls as innocent and wifely.
This is essentially what’s happened to Zoomer boys.
The sexual revolution was based around the obviously stupid premise that women can be legally accountable for their sexual decisions as autonomous agents.
Every man knows in his bones that this premise is irredeemably retarded, and even if he’d consider it obviously true propositionally because he’s a stupid normalfag almost certainly ACTS like it’s obviously false, while treating men who fail to do so as oafs.
Hence normie-male heuristics like “take women seriously but not literally,” “she belongs to the moment,” “it’s just your turn” and so on.
The problem is that the prevailing institutional prestige grammar makes it impossible to discuss how any of these dynamics ackshully work without castrating your points with language that flatters women, as the entire apparatus backsolves for a retarded and unscientific idea of phenomenologically symmetrical equal liberal personhood that doesn’t hold up through any edition of Cosmo or Amy Schumer special.
Thus you can’t talk about how in any scenario that’s ambiguous by its own lights felt “consent” is almost always hilariously underdetermined at the point of actual coitus, with the woman’s resting-point narrative invariably being more a function of felt dignity and salience to her personal reputation filtered through her subsequent determination of the man’s actual versus putative status than about e.g. how forceful he was with her.
You can’t talk about how given a sufficient felt status differential certain neurotypes of women become LITERALLY INCAPABLE of exercising diachronic discernment once they’re behind closed doors with Bill Clinton and he starts licking their ear or w/e.
You can’t talk about how being palpably overconcerned with chickie’s comfort reads precognitively to her as a lot more rapey than just nonchalantly taking what you want.
You can’t talk about how women will totally organically flip the valence of protector and predator in a love triangle as is narratively convenient, discovering that the dude who got brained against the cave-wall was ackshully neglectful or abusive while the guy currently peeing on them is their Knight In Shining Armor.
You can’t talk about how female vindictiveness is A LOT more reliably triggered by regret, anxiety, and general blood in the water than by overt male cruelty or neglect.
You can’t talk about how basically all sexually normal women enjoy being with a man who takes them without asking permission, and must instead frame the dynamic as a particularist fetishistic thing because women obviously find the idea of submitting to a low status man disgusting whereas fake and gay notions of liberal personhood can’t just admit that low status men simply inhabit an intractably undignified lot in life as Liemaxxing is a far more stabilizing (at least in the short term) social technology.
You can’t talk about how every normal heterosexual couple develops a bespoke erotic script that the woman nakedly flattens to her friends at brunch, in most cases not even experiencing the disconnect as deceptive because women naturally and automatically Nice-Launder essentially all of their experiences as a socially stabilizing mechanism.
You can’t talk about how women will narratively dignify the guy they settle down with by flattening out past indignities they participated in with tremendous exuberance at the time but have no interest in repeating with the feller who’ll give them a ring as a meaningless “slutty phase” or as their exploitation by a toxic narcissist.
If you’re a woman you can maybe do the Louise Perry thing and discuss some of the above in the language of e.g. high agreeableness and low-sociosexual women being functionally victimized by hookup culture in a way modernity has no language for, or alternatively do the Aella thing and mechanize it in a kind of jejune sexpositive perma-2011 way that appeals specifically to high status autistic women, but notice even these frames are insanely gynocentric and STILL considered heterodox by normalfags. Any frame that actually foregrounds male interests would be somatically experienced by virtually all interlocutors as disqualifyingly incel-coded at the gate.
You’re basically just locked into a durable Gaslightocracy.
And at the micro level this is probably a good thing.
Moralizing adaptive arbitrariness is how nature cuts off dead branches efficiently.
You don’t want low status men becoming broadly convinced that consent is a stupid concept or they won’t be able to love women in the same way and will become useless.
But it’s equally retarded for elites in charge of actual policy to persist in the delusion that women are capable of meaningful sexual agency as autonomous sovereign actors.
The historic solution to the Problem of Consent is obviously patriarchy—which is to say men formally absorbing responsibility for their woman’s behavior while also maintaining quasi-propertarian access to her sexually.
That said Trads get kind of retarded about patriarchy because they try to turn it into a propositional legalistic thing where you’re allowed to Invoke Your Rights like it’s a button in Crusader Kings 3 when the real thing is entirely about felt somatic power; in a normal and healthy heterosexual dyad the woman will literally never experience you taking hole as “rape” and would find the very idea of such a thing preposterous, which is why men within such a dyad find the idea of “marital rape” completely nonsensical in a way libtards misinterpret as being a lot more barbaric than it ackshully is.
The thing is most girls these days aren’t able to get a man they actually find attractive to commit to them, and so end up sexually policing whatever inadequate male they settle down with in a register comparable to hooking or a lesbian relationship while attempting to impose that same humiliating grammar on society at large.
But ackshual patriarchy never disappeared; it just became more plausibly deniable and accessible to a shrinking cohort of men because the fraction of men capable of inspiring that kind of somatically plausible submission just isn’t going to hold up in a world where women are increasingly capable of supporting themselves financially while relying less and less on male physical protection. Increasingly the men capable of doing that will be either the ones calibrated for winner-take-all social games or the ones able to create an arbitrageurial bubble for themselves where at least locally they exercise genuine hard power. But in an advanced industrial society that sort of thing just isn’t realistically attainable to the average man—and note even historically prior to the conditions of mid-capitalist postwar modernity the rate of nonprocreative men was around 30%, with a similarly huge fraction of urban women engaging in various forms of prostitution, both of which you also see in Zoomers today.
In any case, the Paradox of Trads is that the folx most likely to propositionalize these dynamics are simultaneously the peepo least capable of inhabiting them organically; Trad men are overwhelmingly nerdy and incel-adjacent while Trad women are by and large high-maintenance viragoes who generally find it a lot harder to submit to a man that isn’t Batman than their neurotic libtard feminist sisters, who constantly flick the bean to rape media like The Handmaid’s Tale and pretty regularly fantasize about an ordinarily competent dude coming in to fix their life.
Meanwhile most normal and masculine guys kind of just fuck their wife like she’s property without it ever becoming a Thing.
The more you make anything a Thing the less real it becomes.
And this, incidentally, is why sentience itself was inherently a mistake.
There isn’t a neat solution to any of this.
The topic is a deep epistemic hazard where the correspondent understanding of female sexuality and consent is so socially maladaptive and game theoretically untenable that there isn’t a stable and broadly legible way for Reality to discipline opinion formation.
The womyn-institutionalist position is profoundly self-sealing at the level of basic phenomenology, and so experiences any accurate modeling of its epistemic blinders as itself profoundly self-sealing, making the resulting impasse thoroughly intractable.
Obviously it’s trivial to get a woman to acknowledge 2+2=4 once you’ve fucked her, but outside of that context she’ll defer to the Femborg on basically everything and literally doesn’t have any meaningful capacity to form her own opinions, whereas once you have established stable dominion over her there’s not much of an incentive for you individually to disallow womanly brunchlying, which at the micro level can only stabilize your dyad against her sabotaging fat friend.
And ultimately Loving Women does consist on some level in letting them believe fake and gay dignifying lies about themselves—and even in internalizing some of those lies yourself, in exactly the way babygirl will internalize your own fables about your manly competence and status position, with that shared delusion being deeply self-serving on both ends but operatively constitutive of the only stable form of human happiness.
At the same time:
There needs to be at least one place where men say clearly and distinctly that 2+2=4.
Women don’t have agency.
They’ll never not be property.
And consent isn’t real.