Sunday, October 18, 2009

Feminists believe women can rape men

Feminists, the abuse industry and even some misguided MRAs sometimes claim that women can be rapists. It is really too ridiculous to even consider, but since some people apparently say it with a straight face, I took the time to explain what is wrong with the notion of the female rapist. Feminists don't tolerate much dissent, however, so when I posted my views on this in a thread titled Can Women Rape Men? over at the Feminist Critics blog, my comments were deleted. So I shall post them here instead:

It is my unconditional opinion that women can never rape men, for the simple reason that sex is a female resource. Sex is obviously something women have and men want, and any man claiming to be raped by a woman is not a reasonable person and cannot be taken seriously. It is the height of arrogance to claim a woman raped you and as a man whose life has been ruined by involuntary celibacy I find it incredibly offensive. Nobody who takes the concept of the female rapist seriously is a friend of mine.

While women are extremely valuable sex objects, male sexuality is worthless or (usually) worse, having a negative value; there is no intrinsic value in the male body, unfortunately. Most men are sexually invisible or disgusting to most women while most men find most women at least somewhat attractive. Sex is the transfer of value from a woman to a man; it is the woman giving something precious to the man in all cases. Female-on-male “rape” would thus be like a reverse robbery, analogous to someone forcing money into your pockets or breaking into your home to leave a pile of money. I used to compare it to the stealing of garbage, but the reverse robbery analogy is more apt, as the man is always getting something objectively valuable. A man getting sex from a woman is lucky, period, even if he was forced, and I categorically condemn anyone who thinks he is a victim of a woman’s sexual acts. Sympathy is the last thing such a man would get; the normal reaction is jealousy and then hate if he tries to pass himself off as a victim and get the woman prosecuted. I categorically refuse to see it any other way.

I also very much disagree with the feminist redefinition of rape condoned in this thread. Only this is actually rape: “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.” This is the definition used by Thornhill and Palmer in A Natural History of Rape. Feminists and the law now use a corrupted, vastly more inclusive definition. For instance, here in Norway it is sufficient to threaten with starting a rumor about a woman; then it is legally rape if she has sex to avoid it, and it is rape if a husband threatens divorce to obtain sex from his wife.

Daran said: “It’s not the severity of the threat which is the issue, but it’s nature as something that does or does not lie within your discretion to do.” If the threat is not about death or serious injury, then it is not true rape but a lesser form of sexual coercion. Feminists, of course, call everything rape to demonize men maximally, with the inevitable result that the whole concept gets trivialized. Here in Norway, since the latest feminist corruption of the legal concept of rape in 2000, the threat can most assuredly lie within your discretion to do, such as reporting the woman for a crime she has committed, such as theft. The threat can be about something perfectly legal and honorable; that’s how far the feminists have succeeded against men. They also removed mens rea for rape that year, so now a man can be a rapist without realizing it or intending to. Women mostly use this to get men convicted when they regret consensual sex while intoxicated (women are not responsible for their actions because they are drunk, men are responsible despite being drunk — so the asymmetry goes), as I have gone to court and seen with my own eyes, engendering profound antifeminist hatred in my heart. We can also thank feminism for corrupting the concept to allow for male victims of women, which is a red herring introduced to obfuscate the fact that the all-inclusive, ostensibly gender-neutral rape law is all about hurting men and empowering women. I can’t believe you guys fall for it.

The common-law definition of rape was a good one that we should return to: “Carnal knowledge of a woman not one’s wife by force and without consent.” The sex has to be accomplished by violence; lack of consent is not enough, so the woman has to resist to the best of her ability (unless this would likely get her killed). As a man, this is the only definition of rape I can accept, and I cannot ever accept that sexual coercion by women on boys or men can qualify as rape or any kind of crime.

[Now some people thought I was trolling and even a misandrist, to which I replied:]

I just expressed my sincere opinion and am assuredly not a troll.

Schala, men can be raped, but only by other men. And I am an MRA, not a misandrist. A gender-neutral concept of rape hurts men because it gives feminists a red herring as I explained above and because it makes a mockery of male sexuality and insults most men, who have the opposite and real problem of not enough sexual attention from women.

[The Feminist Critics uphold James Landrith as an example of a man who was supposedly raped by a woman. She threatened him with accusing him of rape if he didn't have sex with her.]

James Landrith had a luxury problem. I and most men would only be delighted to wake up and find a woman straddling me and demand sex. There is no way I can take that situation seriously as rape.

Now the ease with which women can destroy men's lives with false accusations of rape is a serious problem, but acknowledging female rapists is not the solution. It only makes it worse because then gullible men won't see the feminist-corrupted justice system where everything is rape and anyone can be a victim as the pure misandry it is. Landrith is barking up the wrong tree. He should instead focus on reversing feminist rape reform to where allegations of rape backed by nothing but the woman's word and no corroborating evidence will go nowhere. Then he could just ignore the woman's threat if he really didn't want the free sex.

Feminists think they are smart, but expanding the concept of rape to include female rapists will backfire and hurt women in the long run. If being forced to have heterosexual sex is similar for men and women, then men are compelled to conclude that raping women, too, is a trivial crime. The only way I can maintain the belief that rape for a woman is a horrible experience is to accept that women's experience of it is radically different than mine, as the thought of any woman forcing herself on me is sweet or neutral at worst if she is really ugly. Homosexual rape is another matter, of course, but we are talking about being raped by a person of the opposite sex here. So be careful what you wish for. If you want real rape victims to be taken seriously, then trivializing the crime like this is a bad move.

Clarence asked, "I also wonder what he’d consider it if a really really unattractive woman put a gun to his head and made him have sex with her?" I would consider it neutral or a mild nuisance at worst, but I could never consider it rape or even think about pressing charges. Clarence also brought up cases where "men have been unconscious and women have had sex acts with them that resulted in children and they’ve had to pay up." I agree this is wrong, but the problem is not "rape" but child support. Of course these men should not have to pay, but they were lucky to get sex.

Apparently I have been banned, so I guess I will have to post these comments to my own blog instead. What is the point of even asking the question "Can women rape men?" if you can't handle arguments to the contrary?

I also find it unreasonable to delete comments based on something else I have written elsewhere. I have not said anything to the effect that "men should be free to rape" here and my argument that rape is equality is a little bit more nuanced than that. But I guess that is the kind of moderation one should expect from feminists so extreme they believe getting sex by threatening to end a relationship is rape.

***

Even a woman at that blog, Ana, worries that she raped her boyfriend by threatening to end their relationship:
I had a situation when I was 16 and wanted my virginity removed, where I threatened to break up with my (17 year old) boyfriend if he would not have sex with me. We did it, but some months later he told me that he believed I had raped him.

It bothers me deeply to this day, because I did not think that it was rape.

I don’t know whether the situation could have been prevented with better education, although the concept of females raping males was certainly nothing I had ever heard before. I still don’t know how to talk to him about it, so I just don’t talk to him anymore. I still don’t understand why it was rape.

Could someone address these concerns for me? I promise I’m not trolling.

This has got to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my life. This was indeed rape by the feminist definition, to ensure that men can be imprisoned in the more typical cases where the roles are reversed. The solution to this corruption of justice is not to apply this absurd definition to men as well, but to reverse feminist rape law reform, and I hope most sane men can see this. The last thing we need is protection from having to take the virginity of 16-year-old girls, whereas being convicted of rape ourselves on the basis of the flimsiest threat is a very real possibility with feminist justice.

***

Norwegian readers might want to check out me discussing this with a feminist bitch, Rannveig Svendby, here. She is straight out of women's studies and has been well trained to promote the feminist agenda by pretending women can rape men. Don't fall for it, gentlemen, or you will be useful idiots for the feminists.

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Never trust a cop


The police force in Norway and other Occidental countries is basically a special interest group for the feminists. They enforce the feminist definition of rape, age of consent and all the other misandrist feminist laws that make my blood boil with hatred. Now Norwegian cops are even empowered by the feminists to arrest me for being a john (while the whores of course are innocent) and this applies anywhere in the world. For this reason, I viscerally despise cops and wish them the worst. Killing at least one cop is on my bucket list. Whenever the pigs try to interrogate you, keep this in mind:
Abstract:
The police routinely rely on deception when questioning criminal suspects. Because the United States Supreme Court has placed so few limits on the use of deception, the variety of deceptive techniques is limited chiefly by the ingenuity of the interrogator. Interrogators still rely on the classic "Mutt and Jeff," or "good cop, bad cop" routine. They tell suspects that non-existent eyewitnesses have identified them, or that still at-large accomplices have given statements against them. Occasionally, an interrogator will create a fake lab report purporting to link the suspect to forensic evidence. Most often, interrogators lie to create rapport with a suspect. Thus, an officer with feelings of revulsion toward a suspect accused of a horrible crime may speak in a kindly, solicitous voice and profess to feel compassion for the suspect. The officer may suggest that the victim, even if a child, should share the blame for the crime. In the end, virtually all interrogations involve some deception. At the very least, the successful interrogator deceives the suspect by allowing him to believe that, somehow, it will be in his best interest to undertake the usually self-defeating course of making an uncounseled confession.

Because most deception is employed only after the suspect executes a valid waiver of Miranda rights, Miranda imposes few limits on the use of deceptive interrogation techniques. Thus, commentators have increasingly looked to the voluntariness requirement of the Due Process Clause as a basis for urging drastic limitation on these techniques. Commentators who focused on due process rationales such as equality, trust, morality, and dignity have not been able to mount persuasive arguments for limitation. Reliability, however, as the chief rationale for the voluntariness requirement, is an appropriate concern in setting limits on deceptive interrogation techniques. Deception should not be permitted when it creates an unreasonable risk that an innocent person would falsely confess.

Some commentators have asserted that there is a significant problem with false confessions. In fact, the evidence of false confessions, both in the academic literature and in the popular press, is entirely anecdotal. Statistically sound research on a random sample of confession cases should be conducted. At this point, however, drastic limits on the use of deceptive interrogation techniques are not justified. Such limits would impose substantial costs on society in terms of lost confessions from guilty persons. When guilty persons do not confess, additional resources must be expended to obtain convictions, some guilty persons are able to plead to lesser charges, and some guilty persons simply go free and have the opportunity to commit new crimes.

Although the wrongful conviction of any innocent person is a terrible failing of the criminal justice system, it does matter whether such occurrences constitute rare tragedies or an epidemic.
Laurie Magid is on the feminist side, but thanks for telling it as it is.

Citation

Magid, Laurie. "Deceptive Police Interrogation Practices: How Far is Too Far?" (March 2001). Michigan Law Review, Vol. 99, 2001. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=272659 or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.272659

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Rape is equality

When men have something women have less of, such as money or power, women simply take it by force. It's called affirmative action and feminists believe it's right. I am not going to argue against that. I accept that as a lost cause. So instead I am going to embrace forced equality and demand it for men as well.

What women have that men don't is of course sex. If anyone doubts that sex is a female resource, go here and request the PDF file Baumeister, R.F. & Vohs, K.D. (2004). Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 339-363.

In light of feminism, or if you believe in equality, this article makes such a compelling case for rape that Baumeister felt obliged to include the otiose disclaimer, "Our analysis should in no way be construed as excusing sexual coercion and we roundly condemn any such acts."

So let us give women equality if that's what they really want. Remember that due to the hypergamous nature of women, men get less sex as women get more money and power. Women are generally incapable of feeling attraction for men who are not better than they are, and soon men are no better than equal. So it is about time men in feminist countries such as Norway stop thinking of rape as wrong. I have previously argued this point e.g. here as Arpagus, and no one has been able to justify why affirmative action is right when it benefits women and hurts men but is wrong when it helps men and hurts women.