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.

451 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 451   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

You can't get laid so you blame women for not being fair traders. You need a long look in the mirror, you can't get laid because you're an immature asshole.

Alex said...

So by this logic...

If a gay man is not able to get as much sex because other men around him won't "put out" for him, he should be allowed to rape other men, because they have "sex" and he does not. So if a man rapes you, that's okay, and helps him be equal.

martin dufresne said...

The trick to Mr. Berge's anti-woman tirade is his poor opinion of men, a collective self-abasement which appears to give women a dominant position, that would then "need" to be annulled by violence.
"Without external things a man's body is worthless, while a woman has great intrinsic value just because she is female. If you take away men's resources and status in the interest of "equality" then we need to introduce sexual coercion to reestablish sexual fairness, if not equality, which is actually impossible because women are inherently worth more than men (think "women and children first" etc....)"
This is parently false - men's body has been extolled for centuries - and indeed not believed by any significant number of men or women.
It shows Mr. Berge to be in need of therapeutic help.

Anonymous said...

You're a disgusting piece of shit. Go kill yourself.
-From a rape survivor.

Unknown said...

I blame religion and the belief in the supernatural for rape/sexual oppression. Think about. Its been ingrained in to civilized society that "sex" is a bad thing. If it was more accepted in our culture Rape crimes would dramatically decrease. Think 1930's alcohol prohibition. After they re-legalized it all that crime went down. Just sayin'.

Sassy said...

Do I hear a mountain man and a banjo? OH, and he has a Coke bottle. My gosh, but you did ask for rape by what you were wearing. And of course, the way you did your hair, where you parked your car.

If rape is equality, than you certainly deserve what you get. Get a life and come out of the closet. This is a cry for a vigina.

Eivind Berge said...

@LT

You're talking about ugly chicks being undesirable.

Not to me. I really don't demand much, other than, for a long-term relationship at least, a woman of childbearing age (for casual sex I have no standards at all). Youth is pretty much synonymous with beauty as far as I'm concerned and there is no such thing as a young ugly woman. I was just talking about "ugly chicks" for the sake of argument to explain to some idiot that rape is about sex.

You don't give credit to exceptions. Are all women open-game? Considering I've not benefited from affirmative action, I haven't taken anything from men, and I'm in a relationship with an ugly man by most people's standards; would I be fair game for rape by you?

I was making an abstract argument and haven't yet worked out the details of affirmative-action sex. Perhaps you aren't fair game. We need to think about how to define sexual equality and how much sexual coercion is called for. Perhaps measure it by the correlation of when you want sex and when you have it for men and women? And take into account that this goes down when a woman is raped, not just up for a man. So equality would be when this correlation is equal for both sexes. Or there might be better ways to do it. Suggestions, anyone?

Now, regarding your claim that women use female genital mutilation as a way to increase the value of sex, you cited Cultural Suppression of Female Sexuality, p. 6. You have synthesized this source. That claim is not made in this paper.

Baumeister does at least make that claim in "Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Exchange in Heterosexual Interaction":

"In other cultures, surgical interventions that curtail women’s capacity for sexual pleasure are supported, performed, and initiated by women rather than men (e.g., Boddy, 1989; see Baumeister & Twenge, 2002, for review). Moreover, it is consistent with the social exchange analysis that these practices are mainly found in societies where women are at severe economic, legal, educational, occupational, and political disadvantage compared to men. As we have emphasized, women need to maximize the exchange value of sex when it is their primary resource for obtaining a good life. In contrast, when women can support themselves, they do not need to restrain female sexuality as rigorously, and so they soon abandon the genital surgery and similar practices." (p. 358)

Women may not use genital mutilation in relatively equal societies since they don't want to hurt themselves so much, but they sure employ other means (harming men only) to drive up the price of sex, as witnessed by Norwegian women criminalizing the buying (but not selling) of sex two years ago and applying this law to all Norwegians anywhere in the world, making it literally impossible for me to have sex without being a criminal. That alone is reason enough to make me feel that Norwegian women deserve rape.

Unknown said...

Wait, so what about cases where other types of affirmative action such as anti-discrimination laws which protect black, gay or asian people, for example?


Black people have more melanin than you, so are you going to skin them and wear them as coats and claim this is just? Are you going to make gay people choose your curtains because they have more style than you, and are you going to kidnap Japanese people and force them to live in your kitchen and make you sushi, so that their resources are shared?

The above examples I just gave are retarded, and so are you.

By the way, women (as a whole)aren't having more sex than men, because, in case you haven't noticed, it takes one person of each sex, to have sex, except in the case of gay people, which you seem to be discounting anyway.

Anonymous said...

Seriously, you have the right to die! No one can take that from you and as an expression of your commitment to the principle of rights you should exercise that right. Die now and show the world what a strong libertarian you really are!

LT said...

"Baumeister does at least make that claim in "Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Exchange in Heterosexual Interaction":"

Right. A claim. You're taking someone else's claim, their thesis, and promoting it as fact. What he's included to support that thesis does not do a sufficient job.

To determine the purpose of female genital mutilation, one has to go further back to determine the origin. Currently, it is predominantly women who support this practice. How was it started, though? These practices have been carried out for centuries, predominantly in countries where women have been violently oppressed. It is not speculation that they began (and remain in most cases) a religious tradition. Men have overwhelmingly been the religious leaders in nearly all religions world-wide since the beginning of time.

As such, it is a reasonable assumption that female genital mutilation was born from men as part of their tribal religion and over the centuries has become religious tradition blindly followed by the women who went through it themselves, or who later became followers of the religion or traditions of their community.

Until greater research is done, it is an unsupported claim to make. You come off as an intelligent and educated--albeit psychologically disturbed--individual. It is unfortunate that you do not read such research with a more critical eye.

That said, you made a comment that with the Norwegian women outlawing the purchase of sex by Norwegian men world-wide that it is literally impossible for you to have sex without being a criminal. If you were a stronger man, more in control of yourself, more confident in yourself, and better able to handle responsibly and reasonably the stresses you encounter in life; you would be able to find a female companion, particularly considering you have unusually low standards.

I mean, really. Your personality, like your logic, sucks.

Anonymous said...

I have never in my life read something so utterly disgusting! To compare women earning a fair wage for services she provides a company to men being allowed to rape because, according to YOU, his value has been lowered is, at best, the most retarded logic there could ever be. In fact, there is no logic. Some women are single parents w/no help from the dead-beat assholes who provided their sperm, & thus NEED to make enough money to sustain a family. It isn't fair for Bob to be paid 2x as much as Mary just because he has a dick, & that right there is part of the root that started the feminist movement. The feminist movement is about the right to survival & independence, & to be seen as human beings & not just objects. Maybe we don't want to be "provided for" because, in the end, the man who's supposed to be providing can, & often does, abandoned us.

Invading a person's body against their will is NEVER okay. It, in no way, can be compared to men being paid less. The way you talk about women is the reason you aren't getting laid. I don't care if you had 5 billion dollars in the bank, as I still wouldn't touch you. I can say, however, that there are a number of men in my past who had nothing when it came to material things, but I loved them because they were beautiful, inside & out. So, not only are you saying that women deserve rape, but you're also implying that they're soulless & only interested in a man's money & status. I can assure you that that logic doesn't apply here, you sick-ass freak of nature.

So, here's my wish for you. I hope some big, burly, ex-con who's been "deprived" of his basic human rights rapes your ugly little ass. Let's see how you feel about it then. I doubt you'd still argue that not getting laid is just as damaging as rape. BELIEVE ME WHEN I SAY, IT'S NOT!

Rape & molestation is NEVER okay! And, for the record, most men (or women) who do sexually abuse another is out for POWER, not SEXUAL GRATIFICATION, so this argument of yours bares no merit. You are repulsive!

kelley said...

this is crap...you cannot seriously compare RAPE to money and power! Like they are not even close to being alike. Men already have money and power, if women want to gain more money and power it puts them equal to men, they arent taking the money from any individual man, they are just earning the same amount. As for power, there are always people competeing for power, if a women happens to beat you and gain more power get over it, it just meant she was better for the job.

Rape is an attack on one individual, it emotionally, physicaaly,psychologically destorys them! It isn't something you can take lightly! And how can you say mens bodies are useless? In case you havent noticed to have a baby you kinda need both! The womans body does a little more work but the male isnt totally useless.
I am honestly shocked that people like you even exist. I seriously thouhgt anyone with a heart or a brain could see the inhumanity of rape. The thought that you would compare the dignity of a human life to material things is just plain sad.

Anonymous said...

Also....

If beauty is a woman's resource, what of those women who aren't seen as beautiful by men. Do they therefore have the right to disfigure the "beautiful" women so that they are more appealing to men? If a man can rightfully physically violate a woman, according to your logic, then the ugly women should be allowed to do something to make the beautiful ones less appealing, too. After all, they, too, are suffering from non-consensual celebacy. Right?

So, your dream world would be one that involves a lot of crime? SICK!

Also, b4 women's lib was in full effect, women were still getting rape. Women will always be raped, whether they're paid equally as men or not. How you can trivialize something so traumatic is beyond me!

Eivind Berge said...

@LT

Right. A claim. You're taking someone else's claim, their thesis, and promoting it as fact. What he's included to support that thesis does not do a sufficient job.

Fair enough, but you don't present any hard evidence that female genital mutilation was started by men, either. And are women so foolish they just blindly continue such cruelty to their own daughters without pressure from men if it is truly pointless? In any case this is only very tangential to my argument. It is overwhelmingly clear that sex is a female resource, which is to say that rape is equality. Forcible equality normally isn't justified from a libertarian point of view, of course, but the fact that feminists have instituted coerced equality for women, and thereby made female sexuality even more expensive or inaccessible to more men, has led me to regard forcible equality as justified where it benefits men, too.

Eivind Berge said...

Equating bodies with material wealth is the basis of slavery. Your world vision sees women as sex slaves - you clearly see women as having no value other than sexual.

No, women have the same value as men for the things they do unrelated to sex (which happens to be less great things than men have accomplished, but that is beside the point). The point is that women have another immensely valuable resource in their own bodies just for being born female on top of everything else. This is why you can't call it equality when women have parity in every nonsexual endeavor. What you get then is profound sexual inequality, but female sexual power is always left out of the equation when equality is discussed. Until now.

Women are widely regarded as having sexual power because the world refuses to view them as anything other than sexual beings - like yourself, as you babble on about women's "feral sexuality", clearly attempting to justify rape with the old "women love it really" chestnut.

Firstly, women's sexual power is vested in them by nature, not social construction. And if women's value as anything other than sexual beings largely goes unnoticed, then that may be because women don't accomplish very much outside of being sex objects and having babies, which probably has a lot to do with innate differences between the sexes. Secondly, you misunderstood what I mean by female "feral sexuality." Women's feral sexuality is characterized by hypergamy and extreme choosiness. Feral female sexuality means attraction to alphas and contempt for any beta who makes any sexual advances. From the point of view of most men, the essence of women's sexuality is rejection, and now unfortunately women are so independent they can reject any and all men they want to. I most certainly do not mean to imply by "feral sexuality" that women enjoy rape. Quite the opposite. I know a lot of women fantasize about rape, doubtless by alphas, but there is no way they can enjoy actual rape as I define it. Rape is intercourse without consent and resisted by the woman to the best of her ability unless she would otherwise be killed or seriously injured. I find it difficult to grasp how anyone could ever enjoy that, even theoretically. Now if you define rape the way feminists and the feminist-corrupted legal system does, then yes, women often enjoy rape. To obtain a conviction these days all a woman has to do is regret some consensual drunken sex, which she probably enjoyed. And girls definitely love a whole lot of statutory rape. But all this enjoyable "rape" is outside of any definition I can accept, so I know rape is a horrible experience for women. But it is justified nonetheless for the reasons I have stated and because celibacy is also a horrible experience for men, and this I know from personal experience.

Unknown said...

"I think you should see someone about evaluating you for obsessive compulsive disorder and or social anxiety."

I'm guessing: 1) social anxiety, 2) NPD, and 3) clinically secondary and unfortunately still undiagnosable madonna/whore complex MASSIVE.

One thing I've noticed about a lot of MRAs and PUAs is that they're all ridiculously possessive and jealous. They act as if they are not only entitled to the most gorgeous girl in the world, but also one who is sexually naive, preferably a virgin, whom they can control, manipulate, and lord over till death do they part. The real reason these types hate feminism is because feminism has ensured that they're no longer promised, at 18, marriage to some 15-year-old girl who will spend most of her natural life pushing out a bunch of kids for them; one who has no option to leave and doesn't know that there may be greener pastures (read: bigger cocks) elsewhere.

That's my outsider's take anyway.

LT said...

"Fair enough, but you don't present any hard evidence that female genital mutilation was started by men, either."

I didn't claim it as fact. I said it was a reasonable assumption that required further research.

"And are women so foolish they just blindly continue such cruelty to their own daughters without pressure from men if it is truly pointless?"

People blindly follow a lot of crazy shit for their religion. Look at the Islamic rules for sex. Surely a man like you, absurdly consumed by his sexual desires, would find such limitations impossible and unnecessary to follow, yet many Muslims do.

For another very basic example, there are many religious limitations on food. To anyone with a shred of common sense, it's clear that such rules were designed to protect people from dangers that no longer exist in a world of refrigeration and processed food; but they are still followed by many to this day, despite being pointless.

"And if women's value as anything other than sexual beings largely goes unnoticed, then that may be because women don't accomplish very much outside of being sex objects and having babies, which probably has a lot to do with innate differences between the sexes."

The fact that women are able to accomplish more is what you're pissed about. Not only do we produce and sustain life, but we can successfully run businesses, function in the military, entertain... any number of things. I mean, women were once prohibited from performing in theater. In ancient Greece and Rome, males played the female roles. The same started in Japan in the premodern era. I mean, the number of things men will bar women from if given the chance is countless. Just everything.

That ignorant comment of yours is precisely why feminists have to fight so hard for equal rights. Because stupid individuals like yourself are incapable of valuing women for anything more than sexual objects useful only for carrying on your worthless seed.

The fact that male dominated societies so frequently don't want to give women the opportunities afforded to men is what feminists are pissed about. I'm not a feminist, but I do support women being paid equal for equal work and being given equal consideration for equal credentials. I have been a victim of gender-bias when an under-qualified male co-worked who had been with the company I worked for less than half the time I had--a worker who I trained--was given a promotion over me. He was also given credit for my work and made more money than me from the day he was hired. That, you fool, is bullshit.

By your standards, I have just as much right to attack you in the street, rip off your pants and shove a beer bottle up your ass. Sexual gratification, blah, blah, blah. Not even most men are as consumed by sex as you. Many have more respectable desires and goals. That you blindly believe poorly supported claims (propaganda) about the underlying desires of rape makes you no better than those you insult for blindly believing feminist propaganda.

That any value you may hold goes entirely unnoticed by everyone, particularly women, is what makes you a bitter troll. You care more about sexual gratification than anything else in life, to the point that you're willing to cause permanent emotional damage and physical pain to women.

You're foolish in your views, your life priorities are pathetic and do you no favors, and you are in desperate need of serious psychological treatment. I pity you and all who know you personally.

Amii said...

You keep advocating biological drives over rational behavior as an excuse for violent and illegal acts. You shouldn’t rely on biology and nature so much in your arguments as it is clear that biologically, you have been selected not to mate. If you are sexually worthless as you say, then you should not be spreading your seed around.

Since you advocate the violent rape of women, is it safe to assume that you will be attempting it yourself (if you haven’t already)?

Advocates of illegal behaviour shouldn’t incite people to criminal acts unless they’re willing to admit they commit those crimes themselves. I’ve noticed you’ve stopped short of doing that, and I assume it’s because you don’t want interference from law enforcement. Nevertheless, it marks you as a coward. I smoke marijuana and I believe it should be legal. Let me help you out of your cowardice by example: I, Amii Lockhart of Reno Nevada, USA, smoke marijuana on a regular basis. There, now admit your sex crimes, Eivind.

Eivind Berge said...

@naddy

I'm guessing: 1) social anxiety, 2) NPD, and 3) clinically secondary and unfortunately still undiagnosable madonna/whore complex MASSIVE.

NPD and Madonna/whore complex are completely off the mark, and while I obviously don't have great social skills, I'm pretty sure I don't have social anxiety, either. And in any case, I am expounding a general political and ideological argument here, which would be equally valid even if I did suffer from some disorder. A feminist society creates so many male sexual losers that you can't explain all of them with some mental disorder or anything seriously wrong with them. It is a fundamental structural problem inherent in feminist gender equality that I am exposing and proposing a remedy for. Some men have serious mental issues that prevent them from being successful with women, sure, but I am not one of them and no amount of therapy can fix this sexual dystopia for men as a group because women hate betas and now they can afford to reject them.

I've actually tested myself for narcissism already after being accused of it by another clueless blogger, and am in fact less narcissistic than average:

"Your total: 8. Between 12 and 15 is average. Celebrities often score closer to 18. Narcissists score over 20. Here's how you rated on the seven component traits of narcissism: Authority: 2.00, Self-Sufficiency: 1.00, Superiority: 1.00, Exhibitionism: 0.00, Exploitativeness: 1.00, Vanity: 1.00, Entitlement: 2.00."

ms.brown said...

Good to read that some commenters have jumped straight to the root psychology of Eivind's bizarre claims. I am voting for NPD 'Fanatic type'
Eivind your initial premise is not based on a professional consensus about rape or sexuality by researchers but one or two kooks that are probably ostracized within their field. This is what all conspiracy theorists and hardcore denialists do.
Remember our brains are not perfect thinking machines, we can easily delude ourselves.

Alex said...

"...Or I could get a woman and I would have no argument about rape being equality."

There's the crux of the flaw in your arguement. Because you cannot get a woman, you believe it has to do with the inherent nature of all women, and nothing to do with yourself.

Apparently, "getting a woman" to you means "getting sex", which is likely one of the first reasons why you are having issues. If it was really the case that as men and women become more equal in society with matters not regarding sex, men become less capable of "getting women" (or 'getting sex' since you seem to use the two interchangeably), we would be having some serious issues with our population decreasing.

If you look at countries that do have population issues, and do have many men that can't get women, look at Japan.

Trying to say that men are supposed to have more money and power, and women are supposed to bargain with sex is clearly flawed because you are still saying that men should have more "power" alongside money, while women should only have "sex as currency" (quite an interesting assertion that women should be prostitutes).

So you're argument is really that men should have money, power, and sex, in order for women to have only money- because if the woman has power, man cannot have sex. No matter how you state it, women are still getting the short end of the stick.

Also, you seem be be applying this as though it were a global and timeless logic, as opposed to a product of the issues with our current society. I do no understand how one can say that male beauty is worthless when they look at Ancient Greek artwork. It is important to acknowledge that, in our society, being "beautiful" is seen as being "feminine" and therefore taboo for men. Just as is dressing "metrosexual". This ideas of what is aesthetically preferable, who is beautiful, and what characteristics are beautiful has changed drastically over time across the world.

In short, you are combining entirely subjective feelings into an arguement you are trying to make objective. It is a shame that you rely so much on sex, and could become so frustrated with your inability to get it that you blame the nature of every member of the sex that you are attracted to.

It actually reminds me of events several years back with my older sister. You and her are very similar. She was unable to get a boyfriend, and began to assume it was because she was too successful and too intelligent, all stemming from an article she read about men being intimidated by intelligent women, and believing it was just the nature of men to only be attracted to women who seem unintelligent and less capable- i.e. less powerful. She also has a very high sex drive of which I heard entirely too much about, and was very, very frustrated.

She is currently engaged and getting married in November, and has long since moved on from that stage. Her husband-to-be is rather meek until he knows someone well. Most importantly, they share most of their intellectual ideas and find each other physically attractive.

Of course, that is one isolated set of circumstances, but the more I read your posts the more you do remind me of her, and there maybe something similar occurring psychologically. Also, a major difference is that, despite the fact that she wanted sex, she wanted it with someone she really cared for, not just any sex.

Eivind Berge said...

@Alex

If it was really the case that as men and women become more equal in society with matters not regarding sex, men become less capable of "getting women" (or 'getting sex' since you seem to use the two interchangeably), we would be having some serious issues with our population decreasing.

No. Haven't you heard of polygyny? Women can have as many babies (or more!)with fewer men, and the problem is that this is exactly what they are doing -- a sort of soft polygyny. The percentage of men childless at age 40 has gone up from 16% to 25.6% from 1984 to 2004 in Norway and this is a statistic the feminists themselves acknowledge is due to female selectivity and serial monogamy because surveys show men are just as interested in having children and families as before. But women prefer to share the more desirable men and reject more beta men. This is direct proof of sexual inequality exacerbated by feminism.

I do not understand how one can say that male beauty is worthless when they look at Ancient Greek artwork.

Who cares if some gay artists appreciated male beauty? They still make homoerotic art, but that is irrelevant to straight men. There has never been a time or place where women appreciated male sexuality the way men treat women, and never will be unless we re-engineer human nature, because in a heterosexual context, sex is something women have and men want. This is the inevitable result of the disparity in the minimum investment needed to reproduce. Sperm is so cheap to make that it is copiously overproduced and offered to all takers and more. The supply of sperm in the sexual market exceeds demand so much that the mating market is an asymmetric one where the balance of sexual power is so skewed in favor of females that the law of supply and demand does not even apply: sex is a female resource.

Also, a major difference is that, despite the fact that she wanted sex, she wanted it with someone she really cared for, not just any sex.

I want it most with someone I really care for too, but failing that I will settle for just any sex. Your sister at least could have had casual sex any time she wanted and her frustration was a sham compared to male sexual frustration.

A.N. Other said...

Dear Mr Berge

Thank you for this interesting and informative blog post. It spoke to me, as a man, in a way few blogs have. I agree with you completely.

That's why I went out this morning and ploughed your mother.

LT said...

Hopefully this doesn't double post. I submitted and it hasn't shown up...

"I am expounding a general political and ideological argument here, which would be equally valid even if I did suffer from some disorder."

It's neither a general argument nor a valid one. Your logic is flawed and you support your claims based on synthesis of sources limited to very few authors and of questionable credibility.

"A feminist society creates so many male sexual losers that you can't explain all of them with some mental disorder or anything seriously wrong with them."

There is a difference between being a sexual loser and a sociopath with batshit insane ideas about rape and equality.

"Some men have serious mental issues that prevent them from being successful with women, sure, but I am not one of them and no amount of therapy can fix this sexual dystopia for men as a group because women hate betas and now they can afford to reject them."

You are one of them. You are clearly suffering from some psychological disorder(s). Overly preoccupied with sex, an unwarranted sense of entitlement oddly coupled with cripplingly low self-esteem, a warped view of rape, and a fundamental disregard for basic human rights.

It's been pointed out to you several times by multiple people that the reason you don't attract women is not because of politics or because women are becoming economic equals, but because you're deplorable. Therapy could be intensely helpful for you. Furthermore, you do not need to procreate. Seriously.

Tonedeaf said...

Two wrongs dont make a right. Using force to create equality is wrong, but that does not make using force for sex right. Aggression breeds aggression, so you may find that cases of rape increase in areas that have affirmative action laws, but I dont feel like doing research to prove/disprove that correlation.

i recommend masturbation and if that's not enough, hire someone. The market can answer this problem, no need to resort to the use of force.

Rape goes against the ideas of libertarianism. He paints it as the lesser of 2 evils. its like voting republican.

MGB said...

You libertarians are so obsessed with your flawed principles of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY! LIBERTY! LIBERTY! that you are blind to morality, justice, kindness, and common decency. Your vision of libertarian utopia is not how a just world works. Time for a reality check. You are defending rape.

Lily said...

You're funny with your whole "ooh, look! Serial monogamy! I understand that!"

When a heterosexual couple with children gets divorced, the woman goes off down the dreadful and painful road of single motherhood. If she gets married again the likelihood of her having kids again is small. She may marry one of you so called 'betas'. But she's already got kids, and this may drive him away.

The man goes off and finds an impressionable twenty something who doesn't mind being with an older guy and likes the fact that he's successful. The problem lies in the fact that men are marrying outside their age group. That's why you're having trouble with your sexual conquests, older dudes feel the need to snatch up all the younger women. If you want there to be more women around for you, either take away divorce or tell dudes to stick with their age group.

You act like it's impossible to get a woman to sleep with you. Aren't you still in school or something? Don't they have parties?

I also find it kind of funny that you think women only want 'alphas'. First of all, this is a horrible way to characterize people. Second, I am on my way to becoming a doctor. I weigh more than my long term boyfriend and yet we're still of equal height and I'm still rather thin. He's a typical nerd. Conventionally he's not a very sexy guy, but I find him quite attractive. He also looks really good in drag, and he plans to spend the rest of his life digging up dinosaur bones. That's how nerdy he is. Kind of like you.

Except he's a diehard liberal, and pretty feminist too. And that's why I'm attracted to him, because he doesn't just pretend we're equals, he knows it. Maybe if you got off your computer and stopped jacking off to news articles about women getting raped and tried being a decent human being, you could find someone. Stop trying to be a 'pua', because we all think guys like that are major tools. Stop hating women. Try walking a mile in a pair of our uncomfortable shoes.

Most women want sex just as much as you do. We're just better at suppressing it. We were raised to be like that. Stop believing all the evopsych crap and try looking at some real science.

Simon said...

To clarify...all women, by definition, are femme fatales who only want money and use their sexuality to get it. What if, though, what if a woman had neither a desire for sex or money? What if a woman was completely asexual, lived in a rustic cabin in the woods, alone, with nothing but books or something? But then she walks out one day, happens upon some male hikers, and asks them for a match to light her fireplace or whatnot?

Would it then be okay to rape that woman, who has never used sex, and has never asked for anything of anyone of any gender her entire life?

Or, better yet, a woman becomes a CEO of a company completely on her own merits, because she was most suitable. In the process, however, her promotion, without her knowledge, left a male worker in another office without a job. Would he be allowed to rape her?

latsot said...

LT wins this thread:

"The fact that women are able to accomplish more is what you're pissed about."

That pretty much covers it. Women have shown that they can be at least equally successful as men in pretty much every field *despite* the undeniable fact that their activities have been suppressed throughout history. Anectodal but instructive: the first person to win two nobel prizes was a woman (Marie Curie). She is to date one of only two people to have recieved two nobel prizes in two different fields and the only one to have recieved two nobel prizes in two different *scientific* disciplines. An extraordinary person.

Lots of women have done extraordinary things. Ada Lovelace, for example. Many female politicians including heads of state. Many female heads of companies.

They accomplished this *despite* the fact that it was more difficult for them to do so than it would have been for a male.

And *that* is what you (Berge) are scared of, you little prick.

You didn't answer any of the points I made other than the 'rape is not only about sex' one, which you answered in an astonishingly childish way. Other people made many of the same points and went unanswered as well.

I don't know about Norway, but we have a phrase in the UK: "LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING." Pretty much describes your conduct on this thread.

As for female genital mutilation, LT is spot on again. And in addition, how can it possibly matter whether men or women started it? Does it even matter that much whether one sex or the other perpetuates it? What matters is that a) it only happens to girls and b) the girls it happens to don't get to decide whether it happens to them.

Eivind Berge said...

No, I'm not pissed about female accomplishment. It just doesn't amount to much. In total, women make up 2.8% of the 537 Nobel laureates in science since 1901, and 1.5% of those in physics or chemistry. It isn't getting much better, either, despite women now having every opportunity. If anything, women have shown that they can't be anywhere near equally successful as men even with affirmative action, in the sciences at least at the highest level.

I don't know about Norway, but we have a phrase in the UK: "LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING." Pretty much describes your conduct on this thread.

I am listening and responding, just don't have time to answer everything immediately with so many comments. Also people keep repeating lies that I've already debunked above, like the hateful feminist propaganda about rape being motivated by power rather than sex. I am so sick and tired of that calumnious lie.

@heartinakiln

You seem to have forgotten that 90% of female rapes happen to women by someone they know.

Even if this is true (and I doubt it if you define rape properly; most of these women probably didn't resist adequately), it in no way proves that rape is not motivated by sex. You really think men are incapable of wanting sex from women they know?

Eivind Berge said...

@Simon

Would it then be okay to rape that woman, who has never used sex, and has never asked for anything of anyone of any gender her entire life?

Not really. But feminists seek to punish men collectively for perceived injustices in the past, so if I were to apply that kind of logic, she would still be fair game.

@kate

What if the woman is not a feminist?

See above.

I'm still very curious to know what you would do if someone raped your mother or sister.

Any man would naturally protect women he cares about, but the logic still applies. From the point of view of the rapist, he might be justified by equality.

Unknown said...

Thanks for ignoring my last post.

'most of these women probably didn't resist adequately'

What do you define as 'adequately' then?

Do you think saying 'No' is adequate, or not?

What if the attacker is armed, or the victim is drugged so cannot physically resist?

I think there may be something wrong with your brain. You may want to get that checked.

Eivind Berge said...

Chloe, I meant to respond to your last post:

Wait, so what about cases where other types of affirmative action such as anti-discrimination laws which protect black, gay or asian people, for example?

I am certainly against other kinds of affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws, too. But the damage they do is not as severe as affirmative action for women, and they don't call for such a drastic response. They simply need to end.

Black people have more melanin than you, so are you going to skin them and wear them as coats and claim this is just? Are you going to make gay people choose your curtains because they have more style than you, and are you going to kidnap Japanese people and force them to live in your kitchen and make you sushi, so that their resources are shared?

I can live happily without these things or make my own sushi or whatever. But I can't be happy without a woman.

By the way, women (as a whole) aren't having more sex than men, because, in case you haven't noticed, it takes one person of each sex, to have sex, except in the case of gay people, which you seem to be discounting anyway.

This is true, but sex only happens on women's premises (except rape). Women are the gatekeepers of sex. Whenever a woman wants sex, she can simply have it. Sexuality belongs entirely to women. Men have no sexual agency, and this is what sexual equality would address.

What do you define as 'adequately' then?

To the best of the victim's ability.

Do you think saying 'No' is adequate, or not?

Certainly not! Lack of consent is only one half of the definition of rape. Rape is sex without consent and by force. If she just says "no" and doesn't bother to resist, then she is letting him have it and there is no rape. The essence of rape is that it is accomplished by force, and there is no way to establish that causal relationship without resistance or threat of serious injury.

What if the attacker is armed, or the victim is drugged so cannot physically resist?

If the victim is credibly threatened with death or serious injury, then she may not resist and it would still be rape. If she is drugged by the rapist against her will for the purpose of rape, then it can also still be rape without further resistance. If she is drugged or unable to resist and the man finds her by chance and takes sex, it is sexual abuse but a much lesser offense than rape. If she went along with the man and then allowed herself to be drugged and they have sex with her unconscious, then it is neither rape nor any other kind of offense and the man is completely innocent.

I think there may be something wrong with your brain. You may want to get that checked.

My definition is simply the common-law one that has been used for centuries until feminists corrupted the legal system. It is you who are sick if you think just saying "no" makes it rape. We need to quash feminist rape law reform and restore the only reasonable definition: Rape is "carnal knowledge of a woman, not one's wife by force and against her will."

Unknown said...

I really hope someday you get raped and the person who raped you is acquitted because you didn't 'resist adequately'. You're a sick sick individual.

Otoki said...

I'm scratching my head as to why the OP thinks forcing a penis into an unwilling woman's vagina is not a form of violence, and thus not "force". Eivind Berge, do you really consider the physical trauma (abrasions, bruising, possible torn muscles) that result in this forced penetration to be outside of the realm of violence and force? Because even if a woman "only" says no and doesn't kick and scratch etc, that injury is still happening because of the rape.

And you seem really hung up on the semantics of rape being about sex vs power (as if it couldn't be a mixture of both), but in the end, when a person decides that another person's unwillingness doesn't matter as much as their own desire, that's a decision based on entitlement (I deserve to have this sex that this person doesn't want to have), and willingness to take away another person's liberty (physical autonomy), which is about power.

On another note, you may want to do some better research on the definition of Libertarianism. You don't seem to understand what individual liberty means. Or, rather, you only seem to want individual liberty for people who don't have vaginas.

Mostly I have to thank you for writing this blog under your real name. It's rare that rapists give women this much warning. You're also effectively removing yourself from the gene pool, and for this I also thank you.

Eivind Berge said...

@Otoki

Eivind Berge, do you really consider the physical trauma (abrasions, bruising, possible torn muscles) that result in this forced penetration to be outside of the realm of violence and force? Because even if a woman "only" says no and doesn't kick and scratch etc, that injury is still happening because of the rape.

This doesn't qualify as serious injury and you are exaggerating. If you want rape to be a serious crime rather than just sex with a woman who is not in the mood, she must resist to the point of serious injury. I would avoid this by going slowly anyway.

Women who cry rape without resisting adequately need to be exposed as the false accusers they are. Frequently they don't even allege any trauma at all, just that they didn't really consent because they where too drunk or something, so by your own standards of what characterizes unwilling sex, they are false accusers. I have attended a rape trial and seen with my own eyes that all it takes is for a woman to regret drunken sex with no injury to get men convicted. This greatly contributed to making me the hateful antifeminist activist I am and there is no way I could sympathize with any so-called rape victim until we turn back feminist rape law reform.

And you seem really hung up on the semantics of rape being about sex vs power...

The distinction is extremely important because feminists usually claim rape is primarily motivated by power and use this falsehood in a highly dishonest way to demean men. This myth is so entrenched that I remember buying it myself at one point -- when I was six or seven years old. I have since realized how astonishingly full of shit the feminists are on this and how they promulgate the lie in maliciously bad faith (and then as a result of all the brainwashing some morons and little kids actually believe it, too, but the more intelligent feminist pundits are liars).

I am fully cognizant of my own motivation and know perfectly well that what I want from women is sex and love -- and I am familiar with the scientific literature in which this feminist lie is exposed, so I know I am just like most men. It would be just as absurd for me and most men to rape a woman for power as going to a prostitute out of a desire to give her money. We entirely lack the motivation to rape for power just as we would prefer to keep our money: What we want is sex and that is all.

...and willingness to take away another person's liberty (physical autonomy), which is about power.

Robbers and kidnappers also have a willingness to do harm to get the goods, but it would be highly disingenuous to claim that robbery is about power rather than money. But when it comes to rape, this kind of intellectual dishonesty passes because despicable feminists such as yourself are so concerned with insulting male sexuality and efface it by rhetoric.

Anonymous said...

Wow, you're just all kinds of stupid, aren't you?

Please let us know when you plan to kill yourself, so we can coordinate our celebrations.

Anonymous said...

Was it your own rape trial you attended? Who was she? Are you just pissy because you got arrested?

Coyotemike said...

Is rape fantasy the only way you can get it up? You might want to talk to a psychiatrist about that.

Eivind Berge said...

Was it your own rape trial you attended? Who was she?

I have never been accused myself. The defendants were Marius Warberg and André Turøy, and the false accuser was Yngvild Kristiansen (not sure if I spelled that correctly, could be Ingvild? -- none of these names are mentioned by the media, but I will). They were later acquitted on appeal though.

Are you just pissy because you got arrested?

I am pissy because I am a men's activits. You are perhaps too egotistical to understand the concept of activism for injustice not directly harming oneself?

Is rape fantasy the only way you can get it up? You might want to talk to a psychiatrist about that.

Here we go again with the lie that rape is not about sex. As I have repeatedly pontificated, I am not aroused by rape per se and just want sex -- at any cost, and most rapists are like that. Rape fantasies have nothing to do with it.

Eivind Berge said...

Here is just a synopsis of the trial I was referring to for reference:

Gulating lagmannsrett
INSTANS: Gulating lagmannsrett - Dom
DATO: 2007-03-01
PUBLISERT: LG-2006-140668
STIKKORD: Voldtekt, erstatning og oppreisning. Frifinnelse. Straffeloven § 192 første ledd bokstav b jfr. annet ledd bokstav a jfr. tredje ledd bokstav a. Skadeserstatningsloven § 3-1 og § 3-5 jfr. § 3-3.
SAMMENDRAG: 2 tiltalte hver dømt for voldtekt i tingretten til fengsel i 2 år, herav ett år betinget. De ble også ilagt solidarisk erstatningsansvar for lidt og fremtidig tap samt oppreisning. Etter anke til lagmannsretten ble begge frifunnet både for straffekravet og erstatningskravet.
Henvisninger: LOV-1902-05-22-10-§192 , LOV-1969-06-13-26-§3-1 , LOV-1969-06-13-26-§3-3 , LOV-1969-06-13-26-§3-5
SAKSGANG: Bergen tingrett TBERG-2006-48641 - Gulating lagmannsrett LG-2006-140668.
PARTER: A (Advokat Aksel Kayser) mot B (Advokat Bjørn Cato Rosenberg) mot Hordaland statsadvokatembeter (Statsadvokat Jarle Golten Smørdal).
FORFATTER: Lagdommer Nils Skaar, lagdommer Guri Elisabeth Molven, sorenskriver Stein Husby.

And here is, in part, what the appeal court (Lagmannsretten) writes about overturning the convictions, exposing Yngvild Kristiansen as the liar and false rape accuser that she is:

For samtlige erstatningskrav er det et hovedvilkår at det foreligger kvalifisert sannsynlighetsovervekt for at C var bevisstløs eller av andre grunner ute av stand til å motsette seg den seksuelle omgangen.

Lagmannsretten er kommet til at dette hovedvilkåret ikke er oppfylt. Ved vurderingen har lagmannsretten vektlagt den sakkyndige, professor dr. med Jørg Mørland, sin redegjørelse om alkoholens virkning på hukommelse og bevissthetsgrad, samt hans supplering og konkretisering av dette under forklaringen i lagmannsretten. Mørland opplyste i lagmannsretten at han hadde gjennomgått saksdokumentene, og han var til stede under deler av C forklaring.

Den sakkyndige kunne ikke utelukke at C hadde fått blackout da den seksuelle omgang fant sted, og at hun således var ved bevissthet, men uten hukommelse om det som skjedde. Mørland kunne heller ikke utelukke at C hadde gått inn i en hjelpeløs tilstand. Slik lagmannsretten forstod Mørland holdt han ikke det ene som mer sannsynlig enn det andre.

Den usikkerhet om hendelsesforløpet som den sakkyndiges vurdering åpner for, støttes av den umiddelbare bevisførsel under ankesaken. Lagmannsretten viser herunder til forklaringen til D, som var nytt vitne for lagmannsretten. D bodde i leiligheten og var delvis til stede den aktuelle morgenen. Hun var edru, og har blant annet forklart at hun hørte at det pågikk et samleie der C var aktiv. Lagmannsretten viser også til rettsmedisinsk journal av 19.01.2005. Journalen indikerer at C på dette tidspunktet hadde flere opplysninger om hendelsesforløpet enn det hun i ettertid har kunnet huske.

Under henvisning til foranstående kan ingen av erstatningskravene føre frem. Både B og A blir etter dette å frifinne, også for de borgerlige rettskrav.

Dommen er enstemmig.

Coyotemike said...

So, by your diseased reasoning, if a woman is unconscious, from, say, a date rape drug that has been put in her drink by an asshole like you who wants sex at any cost, it isn't rape because she didn't fight you off?

Do the world a favor. Go hurt yourself.

A.N. Other said...

"I can't be happy without a woman"

So basically, this is a lonely, misogynistic man railing against the world which has denied him access to pussy. Not some great philosophical genius - a blue-balling Norwegian with a propensity for narcissistic behaviour.

Have you considered that maybe you can't get a woman not because there is a MASSIVE FEMINIST AGENDA but because you're ugly, support rape, generally loathe women and are in fact one of the most despicable examples of a person I've ever seen? Although it's debatable whether "loathing women" came before or after the whole "not getting at the pussy" thing.

Rather than a massive feminist conspiracy preventing you from getting laid, maybe it's because, newsflash, YOU'RE A HORRIBLE PERSON.

Anonymous said...

So men who rape children or old women, what are they trying to make equal? What have these women/children taken from the men who hurt them?

Anonymous said...

If only you were richer than women, they would sleep with you. I'm crying my eyes out over your sad, sad fate.

Anonymous said...

Men have a resource that women do not -- they have penises. Therefore, by your theory, it should be acceptable for women to take *by force* the resource they lack. Think about *that* for a while.

LT said...

I am certainly against other kinds of affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws, too.

You’re opposed to anti-discrimination laws, but you don’t believe women have a right to be selective when choosing a mate?

What do you define as 'adequately' then?
To the best of the victim's ability.


So, let’s say you manage to get some chick to go out with you. You go out for dinner and then invite her back to your place for, say, a movie. She says “Oh, I don’t know. It’s just our first date, I don’t think I should go back to your place.” And you tell her it’s fine. “It’s just a movie!” So you get there and half way through the movie, you make your move. You put your hands on her, try kissing her… maybe she kisses back, maybe not. Either way, at some point she says, “No,” and you persist. You try unbuttoning her blouse, and she pushes your hands off and tells you to stop. You lean against her and she turns and leans away, and you continue in your pursuit. Pausing for a moment, has she not adequately indicated that she does not want to have sex with you? Do you seriously contend that because she has not, to this point, attempted to claw your eyes out, she has not adequately resisted?

This is true, but sex only happens on women's premises (except rape). Women are the gatekeepers of sex. Whenever a woman wants sex, she can simply have it. Sexuality belongs entirely to women. Men have no sexual agency, and this is what sexual equality would address.

Demonstrably false. I’ve had sex when I did not want to, but because my partner did, and I’ve been denied sex by sexual partners (and yes, they were men) who were not in the mood. So, again, your claims are wholly unsupported personal opinions that have no basis in reality.

Generally speaking, men are more preoccupied with sex, much more easily aroused, and care more about the physical aspects than the emotional. This imbalance is not our gender’s doing. It’s biological. Your desire is for women to do all the compromising when it comes to sex. That’s bullshit.

In normal, healthy relationships between sane people, there is a compromise by both. If the man wants sex far more than his women, in my own experience, it has been a matter of him having sex less often than he’d like, and me having sex more often than I’d like. Mind you, this was a previous relationship and he wasn’t a good lover, so sex really did nothing for me.

That brings us to an topic we haven’t yet discussed. All the reasons you’re undesireable to women have been covered, but let’s speak for a moment on why sexual encounters you have experienced didn’t lead to opportunities for sex with that same woman again. Perhaps you’re a shitty lover. You’re intensely self-centered, so it seems likely that you’d also be selfish when it comes to sex. If the sex isn’t good for her, she’s not going to be interested in it again. That simple. My current relationship… let’s just say I want it.

The best lovers derive pleasure from giving pleasure. The best men enjoy the power of inflicting back arching, toe curling, screaming orgasms in their women. Pathetic losers with small penises, low self-esteem, and no skills in the bedroom derive pleasure from the power they experience from dominating a woman by raping her.

That said, judging by your responses, I’m guessing you haven’t raped a woman. Among other reasons, you clearly don’t appreciate that while dry sex is extremely painful, emotionally traumatic, and physically damaging to a woman; it’s not pleasant for a man either.

I would like for you to explain how chafing one's penis while forcing it into a woman who is pinned to the ground, screaming, tears streaming down her face, is sexually gratifying for someone who is not a sadistic fuck who derives pleasure from the dominance aspect of the rape. Can you explain that to me, please?

Otoki said...

Don't you understand, LT? Even if you're not turned on by rape, having your victim cry and be in pain is totally not a turn-off once you get her penis inside of her! Magic!

LT said...

Also people keep repeating lies that I've already debunked above, like the hateful feminist propaganda about rape being motivated by power rather than sex. I am so sick and tired of that calumnious lie.

Where’s this science? Because there is plenty of scientific evidence to show that power is a motivator in rape. This isn’t a matter of 100% of cases, but you’re calling it a myth, as if to say that power is never a motivator in rape, and that’s just patently false.

Gillen, K., & Muncer, S.J. (1995). Sex differences in the perceived causal structure of date rape: A preliminary report. Aggressive Behavior, 21, (2), 101-112. This study found that males’ need for dominance a clear motivator in date rape.

Wolter-Warmerdam, K. (2008). Rape. University of California at Santa Barabara. http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/article/rape. This one explains the various motivators of rape, including sexual gratification as well as power and anger. Also makes good points about prison rape, a fate for which you’re headed in the right direction.

Baumeister, R.F. (2001). Social Psychology and Human Sexuality: Essential Reading (Key Readings in Social Psychology), p. 229. This is your favorite author, right? This article is one you’ve probably read and serves as a good example of why Baumeister is not a reasonable source for these matters. His arguments, much like your own, are often flawed and poorly supported. His questioning of other studies is weak, at best, regarding this issue. I use this example, however, because I don’t believe you’re worth the effort for me to go find the source he cited for the piece of information I’m interested in, which is:

“84% of the rapists cited sexual motivation “solely or in part” as the cause of their acts.” Baumeister appreciated that specific bit of information, despite the fact that the pesky 84 is a few short of 100; but he easily explained that away by saying the rapists themselves were unreliable sources when it came to their motivations. I mean, really… that’s absurd. But I do understand why you like his work on this topic so much.

Knowles, L. (2009). Acquaintance Rape Motivation: Sexual vs. Power & Control. A Case Formulation, abstract. Now, this is just a dissertation, but it was a case study of a rapist. “It was found that, in this case, power and control was the primary motivator but that duality of the motivators was also highlighted.”

Scully, D. (1994). Understanding Sexual Violence: A Study of Convicted Rapists. This book gives many examples of power and dominance being a key motivator in rape, and it includes testimony from convicted rapists. I’d like to snag a couple quotes, though.

“The idea that rape is impersonal rather than intimate or mutual appealed to a number of rapists, some of whom suggested that it was their preferred form of sex. The fact that rape gave them the power to control and dominate their victims encouraged some to act on this preference” (194).

”Rape is always a symptom of some psychological dysfunction, either temporary and transient or chronic and repetitive” (41). And that was actually a direct quote of Groth from his 1979 work Men Who Rape: The Psychology of the Offender, p. 5.

You may want to read that last one again.

Where are your scientific sources that show sex as the sole motivator in rape? And, if you don’t mind, I’d like to see work from someone other than Baumeister.

Otoki said...

Hey, LT, do you want to gay marry me?

Seriously, though, I respect that you went through so much trouble to point out the immense amount of FAIL in Berge's argument (and the pathetically small number of sources he uses to "back them up").

Otoki said...

I also find it interesting that Berge is ignoring what I said in my first post: that rape may be partially motivated by sex, but that you cannot force sex on someone without there being an issue of power (overruling another person's will and physical autonomy for one's own benefit). Does he not see that power and sex are not mutually exclusive? Why is he so immensely dense? And why is it that someone who is in fucking college thinks that ONE SOURCE somehow makes an argument infallible ?

LT said...

@Otoki

Thanks for the proposal, but it's not legal where I live. ;)

"... power and sex are not mutually exclusive ... And why is it that someone who is in fucking college thinks that ONE SOURCE somehow makes an argument infallible ?

If you stop and pay attention to your surroundings in the world, you may quickly realize that you're swimming in a sea of stupid. While few idiots make it through college, some do, and more at least try.

Otoki said...

I know that plenty of idiots make it through college. I just don't get how you can be a student at 32 (I'm assuming he's working on a masters) and seriously think one source is enough. And I thought America's education system was bad.

Oh, marrying you wouldn't be legal where I am either. Yet. We should do it just so we can cut down on the available women in the world, thus increasing the competition for the already unattractive, incompetent, sociopathic ax-murderer in the making. Ooh, wait, are you white? Because if you are you should marry one of the "privileged races" so they get "more than their share" of white women. It's a win either way!

Anonymous said...

She already has; she's with a strapping black man. LT, get back to fucking bed. The kids are crying. Oh, and make me a sammitch before I rape you.

Eivind Berge said...

LT--

I am going to reply in detail to your last couple of posts, but just wanted to say quickly that I am not just using one source. My favorite source on rape is in fact not Baumeister at all, but Thornhill and Palmer's A Natural History of Rape, and it has 31 pages of bibliography. They spend chapters 5-6 debunking the feminist explanation of rape, including Groth and the others you cited. You can read some of it here on Google books right now if you don't have access to it. Chapter 6 is most relevant.

Also, I'm not saying rape is NEVER about more than sex, but sex is the primary motivation behind most rapes and the sole motivation of the kind of affirmative-action sex that I am talking about.

LT said...

VShe already has; she's with a strapping black man. LT, get back to fucking bed. The kids are crying. Oh, and make me a sammitch before I rape you.

He's neither strapping nor black! Haha.

Also, I'm not saying rape is NEVER also about more than sex, but sex is the primary motivation and the sole motivation of the kind of affirmative-action sex that I am talking about.

Okay. Thanks for the clarification, but that still makes no sense to me. Perhaps your response to my question that includes the descriptive bit about the act of rape will bring further clarity.

Anonymous said...

My boyfriend is blind and I frequently pay for things he needs, and yes, I earn much more money than he does. My mother married a man who was building a business... he borrowed money from her and paid her back after the business took off. These are two examples that counter your argument.

All human beings have a right to bodily security. Rape is a vile act that violates the confines of a person's body. I was almost raped in college by a stranger who broke into my house and I was devastated for months afterward (I even had to drop out of school for a while). What you are suggesting is not only lacking in logical soundness, but also vile and disgusting. You should think more carefully about your position. Really.

Teresa said...

Dude, you don't deserve pussy. You are not entitled to any. You earn it by being someone worth fucking!

Chris said...

You fucking disgust me.

AW said...

well, this is the best corroboration of Nietzsche's maxim "fight not with monsters lest ye become a monster" i've ever seen.

Anonymous said...

I would just like to point out that rape is about POWER not sex, so raping someone would not help men have more sex it would help them rape more women. Also, affirmative action does not "victimize" men, it allows people to have opportunities to do the jobs they want to do and are best at.

Anonymous said...

The day you try to rape me is the day you end up one dead motherfucker.

Valkyrie607 said...

I ask you how long a similar post about "Lynching is equality" would stay up, and how many people would respond with "Hmm, maybe you have a point."

Melanie said...

Your ridiculous views reflect your complete lack of any real world experience with rape.

You really need an education that apparently all your years of schooling haven't yet taught you.

I find your existence to be sad and pitiful. I would pity you if you weren't so dangerous to me and other women who are just trying to live their lives.

Why do you want sex so badly anyway? You're clearly not interested in any sort of good sexual experience if you think rape is a substitute for sex. If you think the two are interchangeable, this may account for your lack of success, since a man who thinks rape is a substitute for sex is likely to be an incredibly lousy lay. No woman will want to fuck you twice unless she's desperately horny and out of options.

You seem to crave sexual contact with a woman but I can't imagine what it is about the experience that you want badly enough to resort to rape.

If you just want an orgasm, cum into a tissue or something, or buy a fleshlight (Google it if you're unfamiliar)- it'll feel more realistic. If your goal is to have a child with the woman, then you'll have to go through serious therapy because you are in no psychological state to be a father to anybody. If you're looking for love and companionship... you'll never find it, because you're a creep. And if you're looking for wild, fun, pleasurable sex with a partner with whom you have mutual attraction... that's not rape, that's sex... so your solution fails. Rape will never ever provide that experience nor will it be anything close to a substitute.
What exactly does rape solve, except that it allows men to treat women as nothing more than cum receivers? And why do you need a woman for that job? Just use your hand and your imagination like other sexually frustrated men do.

summerrain said...

Would you still be saying rape is equality if you were a female?

Eivind Berge said...

@LT

You’re opposed to anti-discrimination laws, but you don’t believe women have a right to be selective when choosing a mate?

I do believe women have the right to be selective. That is their nature and not what I am arguing against. What I don't believe women have a right to are laws facilitating female selectivity by making them more than naturally equal so they can be more picky with men than they otherwise would be. The men sexually rejected as a result have as much right to redress by force this as women had to forced equality in the first place.

Either way, at some point she says, “No,” and you persist. You try unbuttoning her blouse, and she pushes your hands off and tells you to stop. You lean against her and she turns and leans away, and you continue in your pursuit. Pausing for a moment, has she not adequately indicated that she does not want to have sex with you? Do you seriously contend that because she has not, to this point, attempted to claw your eyes out, she has not adequately resisted?

She has probably adequately indicated that she does not want to have sex, but she has certainly not resisted enough to make it rape if she gives up at this point and lets me have it. This does not mean that I would necessarily not respect her wishes or recommend behaving in such a way that women always have to fight to avoid sex. What you and feminists don't seem to realize is that there is an area between completely courteous behavior and what is supposedly, or used to be, a very serious crime. You feel so entitled that you can call it rape and get the man locked away forever as soon as things don't go your way, and you expect to not have to lift a finger or risk any injury to attain the status of rape victim. This is completely unacceptable to men.

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." Why do you think they define it thus, and not as any sex unwanted by the woman where this is simply made clear to the man? These researchers are not men's rights activists, merely honest. Rape has always through entire human history meant forced sex. Feminists have completely redefined the concept and make it include all unwanted (and regretted) sex, a vastly greater concept that means the crime has been trivialized. It leads to contempt for women, such as mine and lack of sympathy for real victims. It leads to the kind of absurd trials that I have witnessed taking place every day and men being convicted simply for women regretting sex, or with no evidence beyond her word. It means that women are legally feeble dimwits who constantly have to be asked for their consent and no matter how absurd the accusation, the justice system will only be concerned with maximizing the conviction rate. This is incredibly empowering for women, so I understand why you support it, but MRAs will oppose it and hopefully there will be a backlash.

Eivind Berge said...

@Ioana

Would you still be saying rape is equality if you were a female?

Yes, because this is objective fact. Sexual opportunity is profoundly unequal by nature, so rape is to women as affirmative action is to men. But I would support neither, because as a woman I would fear the consequences of men demanding equality, too. I would not be a feminist and I think feminism will harm women in the long run, when men start applying the logic of forced equality where women have the advantage by nature.

LT said...

The two definitions you've given are both extreme. Classifying regretted sex as rape is absurd. Saying that it's not rape unless the woman violently fights back is not only absurd, but it depicts men as blithering idiots who are more concerned with getting off than with the life of another human. And while that clearly defines you, it does not define men.

A more realistic definition is that rape is "penetration against the victim's will of a bodily orifice (vagina, anus, or mouth) by a penis or other part of the body, or by an object." Short of penetration, you'd have sexual assault.
http://grc.nd.edu/resources/definitions.pdf

So, a female has a man forcing himself on her, and you and other stupid men want to toss in this ridiculous "to the best of her ability" bullshit about her resisting. It basically suggests men are too stupid to understand that a female simply resisting means she's not interested in sex with you; and that says a lot about a man's opinion of his own gender.

The reality of the matter is, for the women, there's a determination they have to make. If they get violent, does that risk the rapist becoming more violent? Probably. For the women, the decision of whether or not to *fight* back could be the difference between being raped or being raped and murdered.

Curiously, you didn't answer my question: I would like for you to explain how chafing one's penis while forcing it into a woman who is pinned to the ground, screaming, tears streaming down her face, is sexually gratifying for someone who is not a sadistic fuck who derives pleasure from the dominance aspect of the rape. Can you explain that to me, please?

Eivind Berge said...

@LT

I’ve had sex when I did not want to, but because my partner did, and I’ve been denied sex by sexual partners (and yes, they were men) who were not in the mood. In normal, healthy relationships between sane people, there is a compromise by both.

Sure, but the point is that sex is vastly more available to women, and has exchange value for women and not for men. There will be mutual compromise within couples, but the market as a whole is overwhelmingly ruled by women.

Perhaps you’re a shitty lover. You’re intensely self-centered, so it seems likely that you’d also be selfish when it comes to sex. If the sex isn’t good for her, she’s not going to be interested in it again.

No woman I've been with has called me a bad lover, and some of them have indeed been interested in it again. I had a relationship last two months back in 2002, and I've had one girlfriend for a month and another for six weeks. That the rest have been one-night stands is not because I am selfish when it comes to sex, which I'm not. However, at a time when no women want anything from me at all and I get so much hate, it would be rather absurd to speak about pleasing women.

Among other reasons, you clearly don’t appreciate that while dry sex is extremely painful, emotionally traumatic, and physically damaging to a woman; it’s not pleasant for a man either.

One can use lubrication.

I would like for you to explain how chafing one's penis while forcing it into a woman who is pinned to the ground, screaming, tears streaming down her face, is sexually gratifying for someone who is not a sadistic fuck who derives pleasure from the dominance aspect of the rape. Can you explain that to me, please?

It would be much less gratifying than consensual sex and I have never said anything else. Of course men prefer consensual sex, and only the idiots who believe rape is about power disagree with this. The point is that raping is better than getting no sex at all.

Eivind Berge said...

@LT

Where are your scientific sources that show sex as the sole motivator in rape? And, if you don’t mind, I’d like to see work from someone other than Baumeister.

My claim is that sex is usually the primary motivator in rape, and I have cited Natural History of Rape, which in turn cites a lot of evidence. Did you look at it, and do you still disagree? Do you want more sources? This is not a controversial point in biology, only in the social sciences, which are mostly based on feminist ideology rather than reality. Just to mention one more book The Red Queen by Matt Ridley also argues that rape is motivated by sex. And he pretty much comes across as a feminist ideologically, just a little more intellectually honest than most feminists.

Anonymous said...

Since when are you a biologist? Do you honestly think you can understand the complexities of biology and human evolution enough to safely say all this crap you've said about rape?

I know an alarming number of men who would rather have a date with Jill Palmer than rape a woman. What makes you so special that your sexual needs are more important than theirs? And, you know what else is funny, almost all of them get laid on a regular basis. Maybe there's a correlation.

Mickey B said...

The point is that raping is better than getting no sex at all.

So you think it's "better" to commit a serious crime, risk a long prison sentence and traumatise another person for years if not decades than it is to go without sex?

Quite aside from being a proposition so idiotic that it raises serious questions about your mental health, no able-bodied individual need go without sexual relief. Personally, I think masturbation is infinitely preferable to sexual contact with someone I don't care for that much.

Incidentally, I thought of you last night when making love to my wife - one of those perfect encounters where we were so turned on that we didn't even need to use our hands, and the genital contact was a very small part of the whole emotionally overwhelming experience. I bet you've never had sex like that in your life - and I'm certain that you never will unless you make drastic changes to your present mindset.

Eivind Berge said...

@LT

The two definitions you've given are both extreme.

No, they are not. They are perfectly reasonable and consistent with how rape has been defined by all of humanity up until the last few decades when feminists have managed to corrupt justice. It is your definition that is extreme. "Penetration against the victim's will?" This creates a reign of terror for men, where everything hinges on the internal state of the woman and she can claim it was rape with no evidence. It also makes a lot of rape very trivial indeed. Suppose the woman does not want sex, but she doesn't feel strongly enough about it to lift a finger in resistance and merely says no. It is just a slight nuisance to her, say with a longtime partner. If you want to trivialize the crime to this degree, then you have to live with alleged victims not being taken seriously. Currently it is best to assume a rape accusation is either false or trivial until we know the details of the case.

If they get violent, does that risk the rapist becoming more violent?

They better take some risk if they plan to accuse the man of rape! The line is drawn at threat of serious injury. Either rape is a serious crime comparable to horrible violence, or it can be as trivial as the slightest scratch and we need to adjust the punishment accordingly. You can't have your cake and eat it.

It basically suggests men are too stupid to understand that a female simply resisting means she's not interested in sex with you; and that says a lot about a man's opinion of his own gender.

Understanding has nothing to do with it. Men can understand perfectly well that the sex is against her will, but that still does not make it rape. Rape is not just sex without consent. Rape is also forcible sex. Period. This is very banal and shouldn't be so hard to understand.

Incidentally, men are hardwired to oversexualize women's intentions and interpret willingness to sex where there is none. A mere smile from a woman is usually interpreted as sexual interest, while the truth is that most often women are just being friendly, and I can cite references for this bias if you want. It is adaptive because it helps us not miss sexual opportunities, however unlikely. So in a sense, it is indeed true that men blithering idiots when it comes to sex, and often a woman will consider herself violated when a man thought she wanted it. Feminist have addressed this by removing mens rea from the legal definition of rape (happened in 2000 here in Norway) to put more innocent men in prison.

Eivind Berge said...

I should add that women are blithering idiots about sex too -- in the opposite direction. Women are hardwired to undersexualize men's intentions. This is how they are able to fool themselves into thinking men help them out just to be nice or pay for dates because they believe it is the right thing to do.

Ladies, you can try a simple experiment yourselves to see how men oversexualize the world. Just go out and smile to strangers, and you will get some very creepy behavior from men in return.

Anonymous said...

You're an idiot. You think women don't interpret every smile and every kind gesture as romantic or sexual interest?

Eivind Berge said...

You're an idiot. You think women don't interpret every smile and every kind gesture as romantic or sexual interest?

I think women interpret significantly less of men's behavior as sexual interest than is actually the case. It helps them take more advantage of male resources without putting out.

Anonymous said...

Wrong again. It must be nice to live a little deluded world where you think you know exactly what women want without being one.

Anonymous said...

I see. Women take your money? By force? Frequently enough for you to make an issue of it? Get a tazer and zap the next woman who beats you up for your lunch money.

Or do you mean, you pay for dinner for a girl, then she doesn't put out, so she stole from you because the social contract said that dinner = pussy time for your dick? Next time get a hooker. Seriously, dude, people aren't generally in long-term relationships just for the sex.

On a realistic note - If a guy ever tried to rape me I'd take it as attempted murder. I don't know what diseases he has. I don't want his germs. I'd kill him, in a heartbeat, without thinking twice or feeling the least bit sorry. And if a guy came up to you and wanted to stick a potentially herpes-ridden dick up your ass, you'd kill him too.

Rape isn't like arm-wrestling, or mugging, or beating someone up a little. It can kill a woman or get her pregnant. Or both - she might die in childbirth. The baby might die too. It happens. If you rape a woman you choose the consequences of that act, forever. And I don't just mean jail for you.

Or, worse still from your rather self-centered point of view, you could pick some sweet-looking girl to duct tape and rape and end up with genital warts (I've heard one in six people have the virus), and your dick could end up looking like a cauliflower. You've have to have them frozen off with liquid nitrogen every so often.

Or you could pick someone off the street and end up trying to rape a guy. I've heard guys really freak out when they find a penis under a skirt instead of a vagina.

So many ways it could go horribly wrong.

I think the worst way it goes wrong is this: you're assuming that genitals matter. That there's some fundamental absolute always difference between men and women. Guess what? There isn't. Innie or outie, man or woman, xx or xy, it doesn't matter. The differences are minuscule. Sometimes literally. Some men are feminine; some women are butch. Some people are gay or straight or bi or asexual, some have both sets of genitals, some have ambiguous genitals. The world is much larger than you have allowed it to be, in your mind.

Committing rape isn't about sex, anyways; it's about power. Your blog shows your fear and the fact that you feel powerless; rape won't actually solve that for you. It's a temporary physical exertion of your will over someone else - that's all. Just like holding a gun to someone or drowning a kitten, it lasts a moment in time and goes away. When you get done you're nothing more than you were when you started, except you're missing a few sperm. Like washing dishes, there's always another dirty one in the stack. It'll never change, never end for you because you're looking the wrong way. You're looking at the world outside to fulfill your needs, to give you recognition. The world will never give you enough recognition to make you happy. Things from outside wil never fix what's inside you.

I'd suggest you find someone to talk to. If you go on like this, advocating violence and feeling helpless, you're going to hurt someone or be hurt.

I'm posting this anonymously because I'm afraid you're not rational. Please talk to someone, ok?

LT said...

I don't think intelligent women are unaware that most everything men do for them is sexually motivated. Many women, I think, consider it sort of ridiculous how consumed by sex men are. I mean, the average man, in my experience, will freely admit that he thinks about it all the time. When it gets to the point that you're at, though... it's really more pathetic. You're so overwhelmed by your own sexual desires that you can't function in society in any sort of healthy way.

Anyway, I also think most women are probably incapable of fully grasping just how consumed by sex men are, because our minds don't work that way; but like I said before, you think that women should make all the compromises when it comes to biological differences between the sex drives of men and women.

Your way of thinking is just so absurd I can't even begin to process it. You have these short little relationships and think that's somehow indicative of you being someone women want to be in a relationship with. No. My current relationship just passed a year. The one before that was over eight years. If you want sex on a regular basis, become the type of person a woman wants to be with.

Another issue that hasn't been discussed here is the double standard with sex. Men who get laid often are studs. Women who do are sluts. Society teaches women not to be promiscuous while teaching the opposite to men. And you cannot make a claim that the feminists are responsible for that one.

Furthermore, with the risks of sexually transmitted diseases (or, less accurately, but more pc, "infections") constantly rising, it's not safe to be promiscuous. And you stated you don't like whores so much because they usually won't let you stick it in them without a condom. Gross.

The more I read from you, the more convoluted the whole thing becomes. There is just so much you don't consider. So much you completely disregard. You're not making an objective argument. It's impossible for you to. You objectify women, your logic is shamefully flawed, and you're morally bankrupt.

I hope that you someday realize your desperate need for psychological treatment, not to mention the serious need for medication to curb your sex drive.

Otoki said...

You know, LT, I sort of glossed over the prostitution-condom remark before because there was so much else to respond to, but I seriously don't get why he finds unprotected sex with strangers to be an attractive notion. Does he think condoms are a Feminist conspiracy to oppress his sperm or something?

pecunium said...

Eivind: You have a problem. It's that you think sex = something concrete, and a limited resource you must compete for. I don't know how to address your misunderstandings of evolution.. E.g. he ideas you have regarding hidden ovulation are, for want of a better word, inane. They require almost Lamarckian mechanisms.

Your intense focus on sex (and your lack) is twisting your thinking.

So I have a few questions.

1: Are women people? If the answer is yes, explain why they are not entitled, to economic equality?

2: Hypergamy is a cultural trait (just read the wikipedia article you linked to... societies with high levels of gender inequality are more likely to have women who "marry-up" for the benefit of their children, and more likely to have men who "marry-down" to ensure that their mates have a higher incentive to remain faithful. It's, in short, an attempt to balance the books, because women are social disadvanted.

3: Your anger is, apparently, fueled by a sense of not being top-dog (and yes, I am reading for comprehension.. the comment about being willing to reconsider lynching minorities if they are getting an "unfair" share of "white women", and your statement that "older feminists deserve" to be raped, are purely about dominance; and show a latent hatred you are trying to hide, perhaps even from yourself, but this argument you make, it's not about sex, it's about anger, and power, and how you have one, and lack the other). Well, that's part and parcel of the MRA mindset. There are only so many Alpha's out there. It looks as though you are just a Beta.

Mind you, this is only a problem if the MRA/Game model of the world is correct. I would argue, from some 30 years of being sexually active, that it's not. That charm, confidence, and an honest approach to dealing with women as people, are more than enough to get all the sex one might want. It helps to like them, as people. To see them as equal human beings, but even if you can't do that (which is pretty much needed to maintain a healthy relationship... for at least the partner one has), you can still get laid, a lot.

Your, "logic" about the mechanisms of the enactment of affirmative action laws is part of this too. You complain that women have lobbying groups, that they petition for the redress of grievances and use their majority in the population to get things passed. In short you are upset they are being treated like human beings, with rights, and everything. ( I am also amused at your dismissal of how women were treated in the past (and if you think women had it so well in Norway that no need to balance the present playing field is needed, I suggest you go and read some Henrik Ibsen,).

Really, do you think, in your present condition that were you able to make "Rolling back" rights such that women will be dependent on a man and thus more likely to trade sex for resources indirectly," happen (which you said ought to be tried, even by violence), you would have enough of those resources to get laid?


5: Let's try a little thought experiment. You are about to be born, today; right this very moment. You are given the choice to be male, or female. Which would you choose?

http://pecunium.livejournal.com

Eivind Berge said...

@LT

You're so overwhelmed by your own sexual desires that you can't function in society in any sort of healthy way.

I don't have an abnormal sex drive, and am perfectly able to function in society as long as I am in a relationship or somehow get sex. But I am not able to function in the long run living in involuntary celibacy, and don't want to, as that would be highly maladaptive. The rage, hatred and violence bred by celibacy is a healthy reaction; it is nature telling you to do something about your dismal fate of likely becoming an evolutionary dead end.

like I said before, you think that women should make all the compromises when it comes to biological differences between the sex drives of men and women.

I never said this. What feminists are doing is both denying biological differences and refusing to compromise at all. I am simply attacking them for that, and what you said about compromise within couples I agree with.

Men who get laid often are studs. Women who do are sluts. Society teaches women not to be promiscuous while teaching the opposite to men. And you cannot make a claim that the feminists are responsible for that one.

This is true; feminists are not responsible for the double standard. The exaltation of studs and shaming of sluts are just reflections of biological sex differences. I hate slut shaming myself and try to discourage it, since I depend on female promiscuity to get laid, but must admit that everything else being equal, I would prefer a woman with a more restricted sexual history over a slut. That is just how men are. Women don't actually face much shame for being sluts anymore here in Norway though, but a recent study shows they are just as selective as before. So getting rid of the double standard doesn't make women more like men anyway. Their weaker sex drive, extreme choosiness and hypergamy are just the ugly truth about female sexuality. To the anonymous social constructionist just posting above, how do explain away that study? Women don't lie about the number of past partners anymore, at least on an anonymous survey (it was equal to men, as it mathematically must be), so we know they are honest, yet they report as limited desire for more sex compared to men as ever.

Anonymous said...

You know who else is denying biological differences? Anti-discrimination laws based on race. I mean, it's obvious that blacks and whites are different. Whites are smarter and better at jobs requiring thinking, while blacks are kind of stupid but really strong. By allowing blacks to perform intellectual jobs that should be reserved for whites, we're destroying equality and basically ruining the differences in resources. Whites need the blacks to perform the stupider jobs like picking cotton and heavy lifting, and when blacks steal the money and power the whites rightfully have the races are no longer equal.

We're just biologically different, is all.

That's why we should enslave blacks again. Those damn civil rights activists are denying the natural order of things. Blacks do manual labor, and whites do smart stuff. That's just how we evolved to be.

(A hundred, even only fifty years ago this was pretty common thinking. Some idiots even still think like this today. Have you gotten deja vu yet?)

David Cummer said...

Some one may have already said this, but you're assuming that only women get raped.

Eivind Berge said...

Some one may have already said this, but you're assuming that only women get raped.

And I have already answered it: Gays are already equal, having as easy access to sex as women, so my argument only applies in a heterosexual context. Homosexual rape is as wrong as ever.

OK said...

"I don't have an abnormal sex drive, and am perfectly able to function in society as long as I am in a relationship or somehow get sex." - you think not being able to function within society if you're not getting laid is "normal"? It's not. If you can't function without pussy, you DO have an abnormal sex drive.

Otoki said...

Yeah...if you can't function relatively normally without sex, your sex drive is NOT normal at all. See a therapist. Seriously.

Eivind Berge said...

Otoki, functioning normally without sex is in no way a goal -- that would be idiotic defeatism -- and I would never seek therapy for that purpose. On the contrary, I would violently resist it to my death.

Women can function normally without affirmative action. It is mere luxury to them, and they can have relationships and kids and everything without equality. Sex, however, is a basic need right there at the bottom of Maslow's pyramid. Don't you see how hypocritical it is to ask me to just deal with not getting it?

Anonymous said...

I pity every woman with whom you ever have contact.

LT said...

You mentioned a potential fate of becoming an "evolutionary dead end." There's a reason things evolve a certain way. Evolution doesn't get it wrong.

It's not normal to be unable to function in society without sex. It's not. It is very much abnormal. And, to remind, the reason you can't get laid is because of your personality.

Anonymous said...

Eivin: "Excuse me, but I decide which topics are appropriate on my own blog."

Yes, you do, but you're not doing a very good job of it. I know at least one person has written to the head of your department urging that your contact with female students be restricted because they believe you pose a serious threat the their physical security. Personally, I think I could beat you senseless with one hand tied behind my back, but who am I to judge how much of a threat you are? News flash: expressing a desire to rape women in a non-anonymous blog is bad for your career.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like somebody is frustrated and doesn't understand boundaries. Whatsa matter? You can't handle "No" ? You think you're entitled to nooky because "she led you on?" Maybe you couldn't register "no" the first few times she said it. Maybe you can't handle the fact that she has the right to end the act at any point. Maybe you have no concept of discipline and controlling yourself. You are so pathetic and weak to think you can manipulated by "must have the sex because her body, her clothes, her moves, compels me to do so."

Aaron Pettigrew said...

"I am the male response to feminism..."

"More feminism will only produce more men like me."

I have to say, as a man, that I heartily disagree with these statements. In fact, I am ashamed that you can pretend to my support for your incredibly offensive argument by dint of our shared gender.

There are many male responses to feminism, most of which I expect (and indeed hope) are much more level-headed and sympathetic than yours.

Further, I don't get why you argue this way at all. I mean, even if I don't agree with it, I think I understand your basic premise: affirmative action hurts men. Fine, but I don't see why you insist that the appropriate response is to say it's okay to hurt women. Does hurting women help put an end to affirmative action? I would say that our experience tells us, in fact, that it does the opposite.

Anonymous said...

Dude, it is just not that hard to get laid.

I'm a 30-something guy of below-average height and slightly above-average income with a not very interesting career. I've slept with about 40 women, all attractive and including a few who should have been "out of my league."

And I didn't rape them, drug them, lie to them or buy them shiny things in order to get my dick wet.

This includes several long-term relationships, two threesomes, and my wife, who btw, I don't cheat on, because I'm not an asshole.

Your problem isn't feminism. It's hatred - of women and of yourself.

If you do want to go the "sex is a product" route sex-workers do exist in every flavor and price-range you might be interested in, but you should know, in that world, the customer is not always right. You want good service? The rules are the same as on the dating scene: act like a human being and treat women like they are too.

Eivind Berge said...

@Terry Karney

E.g. the ideas you have regarding hidden ovulation are, for want of a better word, inane. They require almost Lamarckian mechanisms.

No, they are mainstream theories without any Lamarckianism. See concealed ovulation.

Are women people? If the answer is yes, explain why they are not entitled, to economic equality?

Of course they are. But no group of people are entitled to economic equality if it involves force, which affirmative action is. This is basic libertarianism. And if they are, then forced equality for men is equally right. Everyone should have equal opportunities, but forced equality of outcome is wrong, just like rape.

Really, do you think, in your present condition that were you able to make "Rolling back" rights such that women will be dependent on a man and thus more likely to trade sex for resources indirectly," happen (which you said ought to be tried, even by violence), you would have enough of those resources to get laid?

No, but then I would have more motivation to work hard to get enough resources. Anyway, I am making an abstract argument independent of my personal situation.

Hypergamy is a cultural trait

It appears to be much more than that.

Let's try a little thought experiment. You are about to be born, today; right this very moment. You are given the choice to be male, or female. Which would you choose?

I have no desire to be a woman, but that is irrelevant to my argument.

LT said...

This includes several long-term relationships, two threesomes, and my wife, who btw, I don't cheat on, because I'm not an asshole.

^ Real man. Sort of slutty, but that's a man.

Anonymous said...

Haha, you are an extremely broken person and you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. If you're actually serious about this, I sort of wish you get raped yourself. Maybe it'd give you some perspective. Foolish ignorant boy

LT said...

http://worstpeopleawards.com/

Check out #8.

Unknown said...

Anonymous, that was a fantastic reply. I think you have hit the nail on the head. As much as he says rape isn't about power, he obviously feels powerless in a society where there are strong women and wants to use rape to reclaim some power for himself. He is the perfect example of what he is arguing so vehemently against.

Otoki said...

I haven't seen so much science fail from one person in a long, long time. I'm impressed. Hypergamy "appears to be" a non-cultural trait? Seriously? Fail. Find ten resources from scientific journals (not people making money off of "boo hoo men don't have rights waah" activists) and I'll give you a fucking trophy.

Anonymous said...

Oh, kiddo. At first I was pretty angry at you, but it sounds like you're hurting a lot. If lack of sex makes you enraged, you're not ok, you're not healthy, and all this "pyramid of needs" talk is not helping you get any better. Even animals who don't get sex don't get enraged about it.

What you think is normal is so far afield from reality - you keep saying how normal it is, but if it were normal, other guys would be agreeing with you. Loads of guys have dry spells. Long, long dry spells, with no sex at all. Sometimes years go by. I know it's not popular in the media, because having sex is more interesting than not having sex, but seriously - in real life, guys can go for a long time without getting any nookie and be just fine. A little depressed, a little addicted to porn, a little jittery - but not enraged, not like you.

You need help and you need it soon. Talk to a psychologist. Please. You're going to do something stupid and criminal, if you haven't already done so in posting these.

Carrie said...

How do women take money from men by force?

Anonymous said...

I'd still like to know what you would do if you got raped yourself. You have a hole a penis can go in. Women don't hold a monopoly on sex, what about all the gay and bi men who are turned down by all the "straight" men who are probably at least a little bit bi but are petrified of anything remotely gay. You're withholding your sexuality from them. And homosexuals are terribly repressed even in western culture, so fair is fair.

time4MAN said...

The designs of feminists to systematically deprive or forcefully extort from men, have created a society where every whims and fancies of women are considered as genuine demands, while any genuine needs of men are looked upon as if men are too demanding or demeaning women!!!

Moreover, the feminists designs have resulted in so many false and frivolous rape and sexual harassment charges against men. What about that??
Is it justified in name of equality??

There are numerous examples:
One example is a recent one happened in India, where a woman after a full 1-year live-in relationship with a man calls RAPE and the poor man has now been arrested. Isn't this an emotional/financial/social RAPE of MAN? : http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Jet-Airways-co-pilot-held-on-charges-of-raping-air-hostess-/articleshow/5989439.cms

Anonymous said...

@ carrie - how do women take money from men by force?

Study Indian Marital laws. and Indian laws related to protection of women and exploitation of husband and his joint family by the wife.

LT said...

"One example is a recent one happened in India, where a woman after a full 1-year live-in relationship with a man calls RAPE and the poor man has now been arrested. Isn't this an emotional/financial/social RAPE of MAN?"

This poorly written story is vague on details. Women can be raped, and violently so, by men they are in a relationship with. This story doesn't read like that's what happened in that case; but, of course, it doesn't explain what did happen either. Can you provide scholarly examples as opposed to a news story written by someone with a weak grasp of journalism?

As for the above comment about Indian marital law exploiting men, I have to admit I laughed out loud for a moment.

Women are owned by their husbands in India. When a husband dies, the wife becomes the property of his family. The families of the bride pay to the groom and his family tens of thousands of dollars (in a country where the mean income is ~$1,000 a year), give land, business opportunities, and whatever else they may have that the groom and his family want as a dowry.

Check out statistics on dowry murders. Grooms and their families take everything they can, financially crippling already struggling families, then murder the bride. In other cases, when the groom and his family don't get what they want, they burn the bride alive; and the only other country bride burning is seen in is Bangladesh.

The prevalence of gendercide in India is rivaled only by Pakistan. Check out statistics of female feticide and infanticide, where families use selective abortion to kill female fetuses, or where they murder their daughters after they are born to avoid any of the above.

Women are not only of no value in India, they are considered financial burdens. Society perpetuates this with absurd ancient traditions that benefit men and their families only.

If you want to toss out examples of women somehow oppressing and exploiting men, try to use examples from countries that aren't among the most violently oppressive of women in the world.

If you want sources for any of the above information, I'd be glad to provide them from the 20 page paper I wrote on the matter last year.

Otoki said...

LT, please do not make it seem like ALL OF INDIA follows those practices. That is not at all the case. These practices are still prevalent in some rural and conservative areas, but they do not reflect the country as a whole.

I do, however, agree with your other main points.

Anonymous said...

indian husbands do not have the machinery to record complaints as cognizable so you wont get their stats and you too would join 'THE FOOLS LEAGUE' who believe the feminist stats and shit dowry STORIES and TALES.

even accidents are recorded as dowry death without investigations. a failed marriage is reported as a dowry demand case to extort hefty amounts as alimony.

do you know the youngest accused in india for committing dowry atrocities is a 2 month old baby? and worse she got bail too without the court noticing it (google it). stats are bloody manufactured against the tax paying husbands. and learned friends from abroad are FOOLED.

come to india and see the real picture. i hate what u think of india from afar.

CSR report says 2% of the cases match the statement of the complainant 98% dowry cases are acquittals.

the suicide ratio of indian husbands v/s the wives is 67:33 as per the national stats.

google "498a misuse" before concluding nonsense. 'excluding slums' this misuse is high in the urban and progressive educated people in rural areas who dominate the indian population.

- rishab.

LT said...

Otoki, I did not mean to imply all of India is like that. My point was simply that India is not the country to cite when making claims of gender inequality slanted toward women.

Anonymous said...

Couldn't agree more. Very apt post. Also keep in mind, you will face very harsh criticism for speaking out the harsh truth.

Anonymous said...

But I can't be happy without a woman.

That is your problem, in my humbly opinion. You seem to be defining you 'being happy' as 'having sex regularly'.

If you don't want a companion and someone to share your life, I doubt any woman will want you. If you just want sex, good luck, not many women are interested in that.

What makes everything even more sad for me is that you may find a way to disguise your true self for long enough to have someone like you, then you'll make her life miserable and, when she loses her 'attractiveness (value)', you'll leave.

Eivind Berge said...

If you don't want a companion and someone to share your life, I doubt any woman will want you. If you just want sex, good luck, not many women are interested in that.

I never said I don't want a companion and someone to share my life. I very much do.

Anonymous said...

If your true motivation is equality in the face of affirmative action, shouldn't you be arguing that men can steal from women? It's obviously much more aligned with your perceived grievance, and puts men back in the position you think they would naturally be economically, vis-a-vis women.

The fact that you present rape as your solution shows that your argument is in fact unserious and intended merely to agitate, as noted in comments very early on.

Anonymous said...

This is the most offensive thing I have ever read. You are a seriously deranged individual. I am frightened for any woman that comes into contact with you.

Do us all a favor and get hit by a bus.

Anonymous said...

...I seriously hope you're never the target of rape, dude. But if you want to be single for the rest of your life, show this blog post to the women you're interested in. I hope you enjoy being known as a creep with the police following you everywhere. If you condone rape, surely you yourself would rape? And you would rape another person, then you must want someone to rape you in return? It's only fair, right?

Anonymous said...

God knows I hope it never happens, but if your mother/sister/wife/daughter (though I am praying you don't have the last two) are ever raped, will you still think that it's okay? Would you really look a woman you love in the eye and tell them 'Sorry honey, it's perfectly alright. You see, that bastard who forced himself on you was only striving for equality!'
If so, you are a sick individual.

Anonymous said...

wow! just got banned from twitter again, after a whopping 5 tweets! didnt even have the word misandry/misandrist on the damn thing. i WAS john_smith45. i think im done with witter till i get my damn i.p number changed. i am proud of all the misandrists that i forced to 'protect' their tweets-heyjude408, chenoamonster, many more. wish they were all forced to talk stictly amongst themselves how dangerous all men are and spread the fabricated stats. now, the only question is, will THIS comment be posted? my last one i havent see YET.

Anonymous said...

o.k let me try again. sex is a mans BIRTHRIGHT!nope, im no 'misogynist'. its simply a fact. we are not on earth to watch reality shows.american women are useless, they are fat, lazy, and you have to trade either cash, gold, cars, whatver to get sex. christ, do NOT marry an american woman. in that respect, american women have done me a HUGE favor by ignoring and insulting my pysical appearance for years. id be living in a dumpster now, the police and corts are COMPLETELY on their side, . beacuse of this power to have any man arrested, at any time, for any made up reason, they are in fact, dangerous to a mans freedom( such as it is, in this police country) and financial situation.

john q communard said...

i really dont see anything wrong with eivinds hypothesis about a possible blowback to radical feminists hypergamous golddigging. i myself have been called crazy, ' troll'etc for the 'outrageous' commenst ive made concerning the abusive, killier pig cops in the u.s . anyone who shoots and kills a cop is the real hero to me. ive also been dubbed a traitor and crazy for wishing death on america's imperialist, murdering war crimes commiting 'army' spreading 'freeedom' overseas. wheres the outrage on here to u.s 'soldiers' constant rape and murder all over world?

Mickey B said...

wheres the outrage on here to u.s 'soldiers' constant rape and murder all over world?

If a US soldier was to post a comment here justifying rape and murder, I think it's a safe bet that it would generate a fair amount of outrage.

But one hasn't, so your complaint is meaningless.

john q communard said...

well, they are too busy raping to comment on blogs and they get medals for their war crimes.anyway, attacking eivind is meaningless. just like the endless, yes, ENDLESS occupations of iraq and afghanistan i dont see any possibility, unfortunately, of men in this country uniting to end this feminist agenda/govt takeover. mass rape by white men? um, nope. black dudes in africa? yea. far less repercussions, if any.

Otoki said...

Oh good. Now people are claiming that white men are oppressed while African men are free to rape women without repercussions from the "feminist" or "imperialist" police force. And here I thought Berge was alone in his racist thoughts on POC getting "more than their share of white women".

And what's with the dude who thinks he's unpopular for criticizing American expansionism? Did he not pay attention to all the Americans who were (and still are) against it? Fail.

john q communard said...

i am getting a wee tired o' being banned from twitter. first,as anti_misandrist, stop_misandry. and heres the bitch doing it: @delbius. how she gets to ban at will even when i never violate their tos is just another example, of thousands that if youre 'fighting' over there for my freedoms you are a real dunce and DEF expendable. im finished with twitter. will be blogging from now on. oh yes, here are pics of me, being attacked online by a bunch of insane tori amos afns for no reason! yay! http://www.yessaid.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27391&page=14
guess what? i registered on this forum and refuted all their lies about me, and what do you know? all my comments were deleted and i was banned! this 'freedom of speech' is awesome isnt it? to get my photos removed from this site, ive been informed i have to go to boston, where this bitch lives: @angiezherself and file a civil suit. i go up there, i think ill just strangle the bitch instead.MUCH faster result.rape? nah, american women arent even worth raping. they flatter themselves.

john q communard said...

oh, right, its called american expansionism now. im forever going to call it imperialism even though ill be censored and banned for it. no, i havent forgotten the ppl against it, uncluding myself. the problem is, the anti war effort isnt large enough. fail. american colonialists will NEVER be leaving iraq or afghanistan, or okinawa either, as we all just witnessed. fail.

Unknown said...

@john halder ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutory_delusion

john q communard said...

haha, well if you had bothered to even visit that link i just supplied, you would see its no delusion!and what theyre saying about me on yessaid.com is NOTHING. thats amateur hour compared with what women and their best pals -the cops have put me through in the past.
anyway, back on topic.
eivin, dont go and 'bulk' up for american/westernized women.
simply do as all my friends and all my aqquantances have done.
theyve quit american and are all married to philipina ladies. vietnamese, thailiand.sooner or later they all got tired of b.s restraining orders, made up dv charges, strippers on meth who demand respect, lol!
yea, youre 100% correct. its all about the cash.
just look at tiger, o.j, spitzer, clinton. kobe, list goes on forever. the u.s is a feminist culture firmly entrenched, unfortunately. and like u.s global conquest, torture, supporting genocidal regimes like israel i see no change ever. americans are much too stupid, lazy, apathetic and overmedicated to care about anything really.

Otoki said...

"eivin, dont go and 'bulk' up for american/westernized women"
As soon as I saw this, I knew the poster was going to recommend Asian women. Sigh. M. Butterfly, anyone?

john q communard said...

lemme guess, you also have a nice amateur bullshit psychiatric 'diagnosis' for me right? someone other moron said i have a 'persecution delusion'.
isnt it possible, just MAYBE that people ahve RIGHTEOUS anger? yes, indeed they can, only thing is, american cannot recognize it as they have NO empathy, NONE, for anyone, anywhere. dont you EVER wonder why, the WORLD hates the us.? and no, its not because they are jealous, idiots. it MIGHT be because the u. shave bases EVERYWHERE, over 750, in fact, AND drop bombs anywhere and everywhere willy nilly on anyone, doesnt matter. eivin has righteous anger, and i share it! doesnt mean we have ocd, or bi polar. or any other bullshit thing big pharma tells 'shrinks' to diagnose on the spot.( and you fools instantly believe) if EVERY woman on the planet, right now, got REALLY raped, yknow, (NOT the i gut drunk and regret last years sex with my boyfriend 'rape') but actually forcibly raped by a STRANGER, i wouldnt give one damn shit. not one damn lil bit. and i SURE as hell dont care about what goes on in africa, and i wish feministing, pixel project, 1000's of other misandrist sites would stop using rape stats and transferring them to the u.s 1 in every 3 raped? giant ridiculous, totally unsupported by the facts lie.

Unknown said...

So did your mommy just not love you enough? Could she not afford that GI Joe you wanted when you were five?

I agree that America has a lot of problems and there is a reason other countries hate us. However, the people that make America like that are men.

I mean, you're a perfect example of how shit the American education system is. I bet you even went to college. What a load of garbage.

john q communard said...

oh yeah, lest i forget, there is plenty of REAL persecution happening as i type this. millions of men are are REALLY being persecuted by unfair and unjust rape & dv laws. tens of millions of men( myself included) watch tv every night alone, and its NOT by choice! i didnt reject women, believe me! as eivind has said, and i have said for decades is simple fact: women can have sex anytime they want.
simply cant do that as men.
women arent looking for nice guys, lol.
they want wealthy famous men with power.spitzers wife never left him. tiger woods wife will never divorce that twit. nicole got her ass beaten daily by o.j. stuck around for years though, till he sliced her head off.
yea, western women are well, garbage, no offence! so, yep, i advise men to look elsewhere. its a big world, and there are a FEW places left unspoiled by the 'american way'. just watch out for the landmines, depleted uranium, america has dropped to bring freedom to so many ppl who are now mentally ill! theyre angry that their entire families have been killed by drones! is their a pill for this condition?

john q communard said...

haha, women love war and violence more than men! plenty of women over there pushing buttons, merrily killing babies. hillary and condi? war criminal scum. and you dont have to feel like you need to 'defend' womens 'honor'( ha, does that even exist?) even men that get plenty of nookie hate women. so, anyway, berge is pissed off he's alone and women dont find him attractive. he's supposed to be happy? really? i guess i'm as mentally ill as he is then. me and MILLIONS of other men. were all 'crazy'! and all those crazy terrorists america keeps manufacturing daily are nuts also! you guys have been so goddamn enlightening!

Anonymous said...

I don't even know where to begin, so I will simply say, go to a psychiatrist. Show them this blog post, and all your responses to people's comments.

Anonymous said...

Oh Hey, John H. Tiger Woods' wife is leaving him. Just so you know. In fact, I think if you opened your eyes and looked out past the end of your own dick, you'd see that plenty of people get divorced, regardless of who has more money.

john q communard said...

and i KNEW someone would ALWAYS so very predictably bring up 'mommy' he has mommy issues!
this shits getting old, you people are emotiionally UNABLE to put yourselves in anyone else'shoes. youre the ones who are emotionally stunted, crippled. youre just consumers so, what can i expect?
as for my 'momma' she was a lying dog, (that EVERYONE hated.) as are all western women. no offence, of course.

john q communard said...

why would i waste money on a shrink? you guys are free! berge is insane, im crazy. bitter( being alone for decades could do that to some,hope it happens to you!). one good thing that is happening to all the misandrists? other than their cats, they will all be living and dying alone.( i hope) aww sniff'.

john q communard said...

uh, nope, tigers supermodel trophy twit is not leaving him. why would she? hes cured! he went to a shrink, hes all better now!
im seriously jealous of tiger though, he gets to bang hundreds( thousands over next couple decades)of fine white women and keep the fine ass white trophy wife to boot, making a billion dollars to put a damn ball in a hole? oh yea, that is the life, and proof, if anyone needs more? that white women only fuck for cash, taste o'fame, gold, diamonds,beemers, the usual stuff. def not 'love' ha

XC said...

I read your blog a few times, and it still does not make any sense.

Rape is not equality...

I just don't get it. Please don't give liberals a bad bame dude.

Eivind Berge said...

@john halder ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutory_delusion

I've seen him get banned from Twitter repeatedly for no good reason, so it's not a delusion.

But John, what did you do to piss off all those Tori Amos fans? Are they lying about you stalking her or something?

Unknown said...

"as for my 'momma' she was a lying dog,"

Well you just validated my point. You're probably a sociopath.

john q communard said...

thanks eivind! what did i i do to those tori fans? absolutely nothing. and i wouldnt spend a penny stalking tori amos! they just dont happen to like her having ANY straight male heterosexual fans, AND they dont like that i dont automatically believe tori's bullshit 'rape' story, thats so shot full of holes you dont even wanna know. tori 'founded' rainn and was never even raped. tori amos fans ive known a long time now. she DOES have REAL stalkers though, i know all of them by name(s) and they have been to 300+ of her shows! those are the stalkers, ya think? as i stated before, i signed up on yessaid.com and refuted all their insane ramblings and i was banned. all my comments deleted. but thats all part of my persecution delusion, haha

john q communard said...

um 'heartinakiln' can you NOT address me anymore? great. i stated a fact that my mother was a born liar, you didnt know her, i sure did. the fact she lied 24/7/365 is a fact. and i dont get how that makes me a 'sociopath'. are you saying you knew her? lol, get fucked, or better yet, get raped.

john q communard said...

heres a link some might find interesting :
http://www.anandaanswers.com/pages/naaFalse.html

at least 50% of all rape claims are later proven false! wow, who knew? i did.

women lie, all the time.

john q communard said...

hey eivind. i understand youre very much for freedom of speech and i truly commend you for that.
but this thread has been invaded by radical feminist man haters & manginas that are ALSO very poor amateur psychologists who THEMSELVES are mentally ill agoraphobes( fake physicians, heal thyselves!), i recommend deleting. feminist sites ban me all the time. shit, twitter bans me all the time.ban this trash i say.americans always equate righteous anger as=insanity. theyre so stupid they think 911 just *poof* 'happened'. their tv raised em like that, sad. they are also nasty vile racists. they hate the mexicans they stole a huge chunk of their country from, and who do all the work. the blacks and chinese who built the country! hopefully the next 911 wont be a lil mosquito bite.now, the same morons who use bp oil want to boycott them, lol!

Otoki said...

Well, I guess the positive thing is that TWO psychopaths are exposing themselves for the misogynists they are, hopefully setting themselves up for a lifetime of loneliness. I thank you both for making sure women know to stay away from you, and why.

I've also gotten hours of amusement from the ridiculousness in this blog and the comments. So, it's a win for me.

Unknown said...

Seriously John, you're saying all these things I agree with and then you turn around and act like a misogynist and it doesn't make sense. It's quite obvious you hate women because you hate your mother. Why don't you go talk to someone about it and then start doing some good in this world? Don't be an idiot.

john q communard said...

o.k. 'otoki' but, in reality, its you misandrists that are definetely setting themselves up for a lifetime of loneliness, and even WORSE youre doing so by choice! ouch! me? not by choice, thats life though, i'm no pretty boy and i'm not a billionaire. shit happens! pretty much, the only difference between me and eivind is he hasn't experienced decades alone yet. will he make it by himself? i dunnoooo...

john q communard said...

whoa! hold on there! its ME, i MYSELF who stays far, farrr away from women.i have to.
got too much cash and property to lose now.
anyway, as ive mentioned before.
i would ONLY strictly go overseas for 'romance'.
you american 'women' go for the gold, OR the dude who works out 3 hours a day, with all the tats, whos on steroids.
watch out for that roid rage though, haha.

Unknown said...

Explain to me then why me, an American woman, is dating a poor lower middle class college guy who has never been to the gym in his life and plans to spend the rest of his life doing badly paid research?

You've prejudged all women based on a few incidences. Your mom probably contributes to this. See a therapist.

Also, you're pretty racist yourself saying foreign women are a specific thing.

And honestly, what about women who make more money than you? Ever talked to one of them? Or could you just not stand the idea?

john q communard said...

'see a therapist' o.k i will! but only if you see a serial killer.
agreed?

john q communard said...

oh, lmao! i just read that last comment!
women that make more money than me wont even LOOK, glance, at me!
haha, you are funny though!

Otoki said...

Where are all of these women who care about how much money a man makes? I don't seem to be one of them, nor are any of my friends. Of course, we care about HOW one spends one's money. People who waste it on stupid shit, or live beyond their means, that's an issue. Someone who doesn't make much money: why would that be a turn-off? You're supposed to be attracted to a person, not their wallet. There are going to be materialistic people in any culture, of any sex, from any class. It's just a matter of surrounding yourself with people who are less shallow.

And, frankly, I find it laughable when someone throws around "Asian women are X, Western women are Y", and then complains about women being shallow. Ah, sweet sweet Orientalism.

john q communard said...

well, im single otoki! check out my profile! i just undated it! where are you? nippon? ever go disneewoud? i live near by! lets meet up!

john q communard said...

to answer your question otoki. where are all the women who care about how much money, property, status, etc, are?
answer: AMERICA, and the western 'civilized' world.

Unknown said...

LOL I like how you completely ignored my first point. Did I mention that I'm a sub-class above my boyfriend (middle middle vs lower middle)? And that I'm on my way to becoming a doctor? How does that figure?

Maybe you need a change of scenery. Do you bathe daily?

Anonymous said...

You sir, are a moron. Most of the word vomit you spewed is your opinion, and the opinion of other men, not FACT. Your never gonna understand women that way, as it is clear to see you don't, at all. Aw, has the poor boy been victimized some way? Is some woman trying to take you from everything you own? What do you own anyway? Nothing. You don't have sh**. Your just a prepubescent little boy who heard some guy spew this nonsense and dove in head first for the sake of sounding "intelligent". Saying big words doesn't make you smart, proof right here in your inane blog. Your a moron. I hope for the sake of the women, wherever the hell you live, I don't care where, that they stay away from you. For their sake, and for what hopefully won't happen, your future daughter's sake. Please do not have children, we don't need you raising little rapists and self-hating women.

Now that we are on that subject...I wonder what you would think if your mother, sister, daughter, or WIFE got raped.

Your appearance means nothing when your this ugly inside. If you keep spouting these ridiculous theories, then you'll never find a woman. Unless she's some self-hating moron.

Stop being angry with women because you can't get laid. Looking and sounding and being pussy, doesn't get you pussy.

Freaking idiot.

When my daughter comes to me crying about whats wrong in the world, I have to explain that it's because of idiots like you.

Oh no...because men are such victims. This is a man's world honey. Grow the f*ck up. Women are victimized by men, by their own lovers, in ways that losing a little bit of cash, can't even compare.

Anonymous said...

John, Your a moron. Firstly, learn English, and speak properly. Secondly, with that grammar, I doubt you have that much money or property or status etc. Sure you may be foreign, if you even are, but the context in your posts says it all: Your a moron.

Women in America are probably more free than in any other country. In other countries, women barely have rights, and in some women can even be beaten just for showing some skin. Excuse American women for taking a stand, and not being anyone's personal chew toy. As much as there are gold digging women, there are gold digging men. Where I'm from, you'll probably find more men, than women, who care for such things. Even the strong, empowered women I have met in my years, don't speak such nonsense about "taking their man's money" or anything of the sort. Get informed. At least Eivind here is TRYING to pretend he is smart. You could do the same.

Kris said...

* In a 1999 longitudinal study of 3,000 women, researchers found women who had been victimized before were seven times more likely to be raped again. (Acierno, Resnick, Kilpatrick, Saunders and Best, Jnl. of Anxiety Disorders 13, 6.)
* Women with disabilities are raped and abused at twice the rate of the general population. (Sobsey 1994)
* Women reporting a combined childhood history of physical and sexual abuse report the highest rape rates. (Merrill, Newell, Gold and Millen, Naval Health Research Center 1997)


If rape is a form of power for women and men have a "right" to take it... why are most rape victims the powerless or already "damamged" goods? Shouldn't men want to take from the most "wealthy" like gold digging women do with the most wealthy men?

9% of rape victims are male (and the numbers are rising due to some lovely priests), 99% of offenders are male. You're a seriously handicapped dude. I wonder if you'll be a target for rape by your own kind.

john q communard said...

dear anonymous coward: i'm a moron? my grammer proves i'm a moron? o.k let's look at your post. its you're a moron, you fuckig idiot. NOT 'your a moron'. correct your pathetic 1st grade grammer, BEFORE you criticize others grammer. now delete YOUR comment and start over.

john q communard said...

lol, you GOTTA delete YOUR comment asshat.
you fucked up TWICE. ignorant, uneducated fool. fix that rotten grammer. YOU'RE a moron.
fucking dolt tries to corect my grammer and his post was written by some baby. gotta be american, dumb as rock.

john q communard said...

yep 'otoki' i totally ignored, mainly because you are a rude piece of shit.
now go wash your golden vagina, bitch, it's all you got!

Otoki said...

jh apparently lacks an irony-meter. And what on earth is a golden vagina?

john q communard said...

right. anyway, yo EIVIND! it occurs to me that while ive been responding to posts packed full o' bad grammer attacking ME for bad grammer, ive got a lil off the topic!



i am 150% FOR mass and/or individual rape. they do it in africa, and MORE power to those real men!



america,england ,france germany, ESP america were founded and built on taking what you want by force all day long.






anyway, no matter how much women overdramatise it, RAPE IS JUST SEX.it's not murder, and has an historical, and evolutionary component to it that is well documented. we evolved, contary to what a shitload of idjits out there believe.



rape is natural, its simply sex. its a mans BIRTHRIGHT to have sex whenever ,wherever, whomever he desires to have it.


just as iraqi's have every right to try to expel the UNWANTED foreign u.s trash by any means possible. and america feels like it has every RIGHT to steal oil. sex should just be taken, period.


unfortunately, women report REAL rape, they dont report most 'rapes' NOT because they 'didnt know they could' lol, or because 'the police wont believe me( police live to arrest, evidence not necessary) and def not tori amos' b.s 'it was the 80's, cops wouldnt have believed me.


they dont dont report most rapes beacuse they were/are post coital regret/drunken sex bullshit 'rape'.


becausee of this, and because of womens control of govt, police, courts in femarica, rape is right up there with triple homicide. dont get caught, dont leave evidence, wear a condom, wear a mask. choose women you dont know, complete strangers, and travel, raping in different cities each time, or better yet, other countries.


in conclusion, as a counterbalance to womens' war on men.extreme choosiness,and hypergamy i WHOLEHEARTEDLY 150% agree to take what you want.

Eivind Berge said...

If rape is a form of power for women and men have a "right" to take it... why are most rape victims the powerless or already "damamged" goods? Shouldn't men want to take from the most "wealthy" like gold digging women do with the most wealthy men?

Rapists do indeed prefer the most attractive women at peak fertility, but are also restricted by the kinds of women they actually have access to. Handicapped women being at greater risk, if true, is probably accounted for by their greater vulnerability. Most rape victims are NOT the most defenseless, however. Less than 5% of rape victims are over the age of 50. Socioeconomic status is also an important factor. Rich women live in affluent areas and tend to be well guarded, so the women most at risk for rape are women with low socioeconomic status. Poor women live in worse neighborhoods and are more exposed to low-status men, who need to resort to rape more often because they lack wealth to attract women, so poor women are raped more than rich women. If women are raped repeatedly, this is similarly not because men prefer damaged goods, but because the same factors that put them at risk in the first place still apply.

Since fertile age is the most important factor for rapists, it is generally true that the least vulnerable women are raped most. The most desirable women are most fit and able to defend themselves, yet they are overwhelmingly preyed upon the most. Very few men bother to rape old ladies even though these are the most vulnerable of all women.

9% of rape victims are male (and the numbers are rising due to some lovely priests), 99% of offenders are male.

In my view, 100% of sexual offenders are male. Women cannot rape, because female sexuality has positive value and so any male recipient of a woman's sexual act is categorically lucky even if forced. Also, according to my sources only 1-3% of rape victims are male.

john q communard said...

VERY WELL put eivind.
similarly, most victims of gun violence are innercity youth.
contrary to many racists fear mongering over the decades, their is very little black on white crime. the vast majority is black on black.
during the la. riots in the early 90,s the cops gladly let the 'hood' burn, BUT, when the mob started moving uptown, like magic! they reappeared in force.
as you just stated correctly, the upper stata is very well protected and isolated from us 'lower' classes. that's why i got a good hearty laugh from i think 'otoki's suggestion i speak with women above my socioeconomic status! as IF!
if they happen to glance at me out of their huge suv's its an accident.
probably the only thing i disagree with you eivind is that i'm very much anti-wealth, and i'm always amazed ANYONE could possibly be happy with this massive wealth divide.
heres an insane fact: the 4 heirs of sam walton have a combined wealth that is greater than the bottom 100 million people in this 'democracy'.i would love to see a class war in this country, but, as usual, the good people at the top have too much power, and the actual support of tens of millions of americans who truly believe they arent bilioniares because they didnt get enough 'schooling' or 'work hard enough', omg, the stupid shit ppl believe!
of course, id naturally like to see men take this country back from women, but dont worry ladies, will never happen.'men' in america are scared of the cops, govt, and the media has actually convinced a lot of these manginas they are born bad, simply because they were born male.
so, nope, no uprising, and no future for america either since no country can or ever has survived for long with women in power.
but, the good news is that i want my country TO fall. it deserves it for killing tens of millions, stealing land, war crimes against humanity, torture, use of wmd on a daily basis,illegal wars, coloniaism, terrorism.
i love this oil spill also. COULDNT happen to a greedier, more hypocritical 'culture'.

Otoki said...

jh, I never suggested that you talk to women of a higher socioeconomic status. That would require women having to deal with you, which would probably be annoying, creepy, and exhausting. I'm simply pointing out that there have been quite a few women and men responding to this blog saying that they are in a heterosexual relationship in which the man makes less money, yet they are happy. I didn't realize that was such a difficult concept to grasp.

Anonymous said...

http://web.archive.org/web/20020217090106/http://www.geocities.com/i_sang_holy_holy/time_essay.html

john q communard said...

hmmm could it be that were angry BECAUSE of the world we live in, and its NOT a psychiatric condition?
i hate and mistrust cops.
i dont think that makes me insane.
ever dealt with those lying pigs? i have.
i live in a matriarchy full of hate filled misandrists.
im supposed to be happy, just thrilled about that huh?
big pharma has really done a number on a lot of you idiots. wow.

Anonymous said...

So basically this boils down to you not being able to get laid and you're bitter.

Sorry bud, you're not anti-feminist, you're misogynist.

Anonymous said...

Eivind, I think you are right that since (most) women have a lot more sexual power than (most) men, women's increasing financial equality is something women should "compensate for" by "giving" men "sexual equality". But do you honestly think that if those men, who now don't get as much sex as they want, would start raping women, there would be sexual equality? I think there would be sexual inequality in the opposite direction, like in those countries where men can legally rape women.

When you say involuntary celibacy is every bit as bad as rape, in terms of psychological suffering - are you then comparing a woman's being raped ONCE, to a man's life-time of involuntary celibacy? If not once, how many times? A life-time of, say, being raped daily is definitely worse for a woman than a life-time of daily involuntary celibacy is for a man. Honestly, which one would you choose yourself?

Clearly, a woman being raped daily would be a huge overcompensation for any sexual frustration in a man, and thus unfair, clearly even much more unfair than what the present sexual inequality is unfair in the opposite direction.

You might now suggest that a fair balance could be achieved if the number of times that an involuntarily sex-starved man would be legally allowed to rape a woman would be very restricted, so as not to allow him to overcompensate for his present sexual inequality, but only compensate (approximately) for it.

But there is a better solution: legalize the buying of sex, and abolish the social stigma around buying and selling sex, so that prices for sex go way down as selling sex starts getting a status similar to that of other jobs. And if that still doesn't solve the problem, perhaps poor men who have to buy a lot of sex should get most of it payed for by the tax-payers, in the form of tax reductions and grants? Wouldn't that be a much nicer solution than mass rape everywhere in the society? Not only the raped woman suffers from the rape; most sane men simply prefer not to have to force a woman to anything.

What do you say?

Anonymous said...

Two more questions, Eivind:

1) Have you been attacked physically by any feminist males for what you have written? I can't believe you choose not to be anonymous when you write the kind of explosive stuff you write here. Do you really think it is worth the risks? How did you reason to come to that conclusion?

2) You advocate sexual equality between the genders; why not also advocate "attractiveness equality" among men - for example, you could demand that the more attractive males pay higher taxes or something? Some men naturally attract a lot more attractive women than other men; shouldn't this inequality, too, be fought? Sure, you are a libertarian, but that doesn't seem to prevent you from advocating the forced creation of one kind of equality: sex equality between the genders. How come?

Eivind Berge said...

Eivind, I think you are right that since (most) women have a lot more sexual power than (most) men, women's increasing financial equality is something women should "compensate for" by "giving" men "sexual equality". But do you honestly think that if those men, who now don't get as much sex as they want, would start raping women, there would be sexual equality? I think there would be sexual inequality in the opposite direction, like in those countries where men can legally rape women.

I never said there should be unlimited acceptance of rape. Obviously it can be taken too far in the other direction, leading to oppression of women. Equality would mean striking a balance.

When you say involuntary celibacy is every bit as bad as rape, in terms of psychological suffering - are you then comparing a woman's being raped ONCE, to a man's life-time of involuntary celibacy? If not once, how many times? A life-time of, say, being raped daily is definitely worse for a woman than a life-time of daily involuntary celibacy is for a man. Honestly, which one would you choose yourself?

Obviously a lifetime of celibacy is worse than being raped once, and being raped daily is probably worse than a lifetime of celibacy. Equality would be somewhere in between. I have known women who have claimed to have been raped, and they seemed much happier than I. Their sexual agency has only been compromised on one or rare occasions and most of the time they have been able to decide if they want sex. I, on the other hand, have had no sexual agency whatsoever for most of my life. I was celibate against my will until I was 21 and finally paid to lose my virginity. In between some intermittent success since, years at a time have gone by without sex. This year it does not look like I will be able to have consensual sex. There is practically zero correlation between when I want to have sex and when I have it. If had a say in the matter, I would have sex at least 1000 times more often than I have had it. It would take a lot of raping to compensate for this. But yes, we need to take into account that a woman's sexual agency is decreased when she is raped as much as man's sexual agency is increased, as well as how the suffering of celibacy compares to the anguish of rape, which is a matter of empirical investigation.

Clearly, a woman being raped daily would be a huge overcompensation for any sexual frustration in a man, and thus unfair, clearly even much more unfair than what the present sexual inequality is unfair in the opposite direction.

Agreed. A simplest-case thought experiment might be a man and a woman on a desert island. Being typical, the man wants to fuck the woman every day and the woman rejects the man altogether. So sexual equality would be rape every other day. Working from that scenario, and taking into account the fact that women sometimes do want sex, as well as rape being more concentrated pain than celibacy, one can arrive at a model of sexual equality for society at large.

You might now suggest that a fair balance could be achieved if the number of times that an involuntarily sex-starved man would be legally allowed to rape a woman would be very restricted, so as not to allow him to overcompensate for his present sexual inequality, but only compensate (approximately) for it.

Yes. Research is needed to determine the relative harm of celibacy and rape. Also, milder forms of sexual coercion than rape will probably suffice (though feminists will still call it rape), e.g. arranged marriages or heavy taxation of single women to fund free brothels. I really only advocate the minimum sexual coercion needed to achieve equality, and use "rape" in the headline for rhetorical effect.

Eivind Berge said...

But there is a better solution: legalize the buying of sex, and abolish the social stigma around buying and selling sex, so that prices for sex go way down as selling sex starts getting a status similar to that of other jobs. And if that still doesn't solve the problem, perhaps poor men who have to buy a lot of sex should get most of it payed for by the tax-payers, in the form of tax reductions and grants? Wouldn't that be a much nicer solution than mass rape everywhere in the society? Not only the raped woman suffers from the rape; most sane men simply prefer not to have to force a woman to anything.

Yes, legalized, subsidized prostitution would certainly be much better, but Norwegian men lost that battle in 2008, when the purchase/barter of sex was criminalized for Norwegian citizens worldwide (while women are still free to sell without even paying taxes). We had a very public debate in which it became clear that women are culpable for the passing of this law, motivated by the desire to drive up the price of sex so they can wield even more sexual power. This was the last straw, and I honestly don't think Norwegian women deserve to be paid for sex at this point. Feminists have ensured that the police are quite prepared and eager to use violence against me for merely attempting to have consensual sex with a willing whore in a country where it is perfectly legal, so I see absolutely no reason why I shouldn't simply take sex by violence instead. Either way I am a criminal, and the punishment is not dramatically lighter for johns than rapists. In climate of hatred, where my sexuality is officially so despicable that women and the state can't even tolerate my having sex in faraway countries where prostitution is legal, why should I bother paying for local prostitutes, only to have the violence of the state exact punishment as well? I would rather just be charged once, and I don't think women deserve to be paid after ensuring that I will have to pay a second time and go to prison.

I have witnessed prostitution laws gradually deteriorate to the detriment of men my whole life, beginning with criminalizing landlords renting housing used for prostitution when I was a little boy (I vividly remember how this ignited probably the first spark of anti-feminist hatred in my heart), then criminalizing men for buying sex from women under 18 even though the age of consent is 16, until finally every kind of exchange (not just money!) for sex was criminalized on January 1st, 2009. These laws are very empowering for women, and women are the majority of the electorate, so there is no way men are going to reverse them without some serious violent activism. Women here won't even tolerate a strip club, so you don't know what kind of hateful feminist setting we are dealing with and are exceedingly naive if you think prostitution is a realistic alternative. The only language feminists understand is violence.

Anonymous said...

The only language feminists understand is violence.

Is there anything more pathetic than an obviously geeky nerd trying to sound all macho?

But if you ever act out your repulsive fantasies, here's hoping you encounter one of these.

I imagine you think it's part of an evil feminist conspiracy to deny men their fundamental right to rape women, though.

Eivind Berge said...

1) Have you been attacked physically by any feminist males for what you have written? I can't believe you choose not to be anonymous when you write the kind of explosive stuff you write here. Do you really think it is worth the risks? How did you reason to come to that conclusion?

I haven't been physically attacked so far, though I have been threatened by a cop (Tage Gaupseth) who wrote he wanted to smash my face in -- simply for blogging. I'll publish his full missive later for all to see the nature of the pigs. I will just have to defend myself if it happens, of course. After all this celibacy I have so much pent-up hatred and aggression inside just waiting to explode in homicidal rage that physically attacking me is probably not a good idea. I lead a sober lifestyle and avoid fights, but if attacked by cops or other male feminists, I am extremely motivated to kill them in self-defense. That would do wonders for my success with women, too.

I am not anonymous because I want to be taken seriously and believe the impact of advocacy is greater when you use your full name. Also, I want credit for my ideas.

Being anonymous is for sissies. I wouldn't have reached such a large audience and probably been dismissed as a lunatic or satirist if I hadn't signed my name to this blog. Now the world can see that not all is well in this Scandinavian feminist utopia. At least one sane, educated man is profoundly upset by radical feminism and proposing a solution that will sting.

2) You advocate sexual equality between the genders; why not also advocate "attractiveness equality" among men - for example, you could demand that the more attractive males pay higher taxes or something? Some men naturally attract a lot more attractive women than other men; shouldn't this inequality, too, be fought? Sure, you are a libertarian, but that doesn't seem to prevent you from advocating the forced creation of one kind of equality: sex equality between the genders. How come?

This is a really stupid question. As a libertarian, I am fundamentally opposed to forced equality. Rape is an exception only due to exceptional circumstances. Sexual coercion is justified under feminism because the violence perpetrated by feminists and their enforcers directly hurts male sexual opportunity. Some men attract more women because of competition and female choice, and I have no problem with that. Life isn't fair, and unequal success with women is only natural. Feminist-enforced equality is NOT fair or natural, however, and rape is justified to staunch it.

Eivind Berge said...

I imagine you think it's part of an evil feminist conspiracy to deny men their fundamental right to rape women, though.

Conspiracy? How stupid do you think I am? That anti-rape female condom is just one individual's harebrained scheme; Sonette Ehlers's private publicity stunt. I don't even view feminism as a conspiracy. Feminism is more like a social problem, only loosely organized. And I never said men have a fundamental right to rape women. I said sexual coercion is justified when feminists use violence to coerce equality for women.

"This will make some men rethink before they assault a woman."

No, at most it will make men check a woman's vagina before raping her. If women can remove this device safely with their fingers, then so can potential rapists. A false sense of security, indeed.

Anonymous said...

If you have to take a woman by force, you're obviously too cowardly (or too unattractive, or both) to get a woman consensually.

Rape is a hell of a lot different from most of the kinds of anti-male sexism that women engage in.

Anonymous said...

1. This is sick. You need help.
2. I can get happiness without destroying a woman's life. You need to look up the effects of rape.
3. If I knew where you lived, I'd make damn sure you couldn't do something to a woman that's so bad that there's a serious risk of her killing herself because of the trauma she has to live with, as you are advocating.
4. No wonder you can't get women. When you actually start treating them like people, and have respect for them, then you might find one who likes you. Until then, the MOST you will get is short term relationships which the woman will always end.

Julian Real said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Julian Real said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Until then, the MOST you will get is short term relationships which the woman will always end.

I'm curious: presumably all of Eivind's longer-than-one-night relationships were ended by the woman?

If so, what were the reasons, and did they have any common factors?

Anonymous said...

wow really your comparing something so detrimental to a womans life that people see rapists as scum of the earth (pssst we have laws against that) to stealing i am sooo sick of rape apologists (rape has kinda been around *gasp* before feminism) and there are dare i say it that there are conservative women against feminism who may get raped (tradgically) over here we have a saying MAN UP!! i no i REAL man who has litterally been robbed blind by his ex and i mean it she didnt even leave a cup and he worked hard for all his stuff he was bitter and unable to trust for a long while out of curiosity i asked him is it comparable to rape he was sickened that anyone would even fatham that idea (i also know many men who think like this and they have been lied to cheated on and have had pretty bad experiences with women)
now you fail to mention the tradgedy of say a innocent child who is a victim of rape (at least i havent seen it) even criminals treat people who do this as scum (what does that tell you) now which is more harmful getten stolen from which hurts ego and may or may not hurt someones ability to trust OR an act that quite literally rips apart the insides of a child that is not physically ready nor phsycologically ready for such acts causes them to suffer from depression, suffer from post traumatic stress disorder, low self esteem become suicidal ect in essence literally screw them up FOR LIFE!!!! ill give you a hint its something that is frowned upon in civilised society even from some mysoginists and guess what the same truama and effects from said horrible act of sex with a child has the effects of women who are raped (phsycologically) even a teenager could tell that they are not in fact equal

Anonymous said...

You are disgusting

FS said...

To clarify my previous post.

I think rape is wrong, but if women are allowed to use the state to steal men's money and power, then why shouldn't men be allowed to use the state to steal sex from women?

No, I don't support rape, but I don't support women "raping" men either. Both are wrong.

Julian Real said...

Too little, too late.

You've proven yourself an utterly insensitive asshole.

And, where do women steal money from men, fool? You know men still earn one dollar for every seventy cents earned by women for the same work, right? You know that white men make those million dollar bonuses for driving their companies into the dirt, right?

You get that of the list of billionaires and millionaires, most are white men, right?

Do you honestly think RICH WHITE MEN don't USE THE STATE, to steal resources from poor people, disproportionately female, EVERY DAMN DAY?

"Insane" is too kind a word for what you are. Your sense of reality is grounded in a form of political psychosis rarely seen on the internet. Uhhhh... congratulations? (Nope.)

What is your damage exactly? I mean if there's something seriously wrong with you, let us know, and then stop posting YOUR PRO-RAPE perspectives and fantasies online! And stop being PRO-RAPE offline.

Because you're little "well, this is what I really meant to say" statement after ALL THE PRO-RAPE, RAPIST viciousness and venom you've unleashed here, IS TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE.

And, make sure the MEN in your family aren't invested in companies that promote genocide, and that steal natural resources from the world's poor people.

Fool.

FS said...

Julian, you faggot, women steal money from men with vaginamony, and child support. They STEAL from men using state hired thugs to do it.

When women stop raping men of their money, and posessions, maybe I will give more of a shit about female rape victims.

I make no apologies for my comment(s), I was just elaborating further.

I take nothing back from my previos post. A woman's raping is legal, where as a man's raping it not. Neither should be legal.

Again, I take nothing back, so fuck off, cock sucker.

FS said...

Also, women use the government to keep men as slaves.

If men don't pay women money for vaginamony, and child support, men get sent to hell hole prisons. That's slavery.

WHY ARE WOMEN ALLOWED TO RAPE MEN AND KEEP THEM AS SLAVES???

Women only want equality when it suits them.


"political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidarity to pure wind.

My dad was forced to give money to his ex wife, and to surrender his possessions to her. Did the state force her to keep putting out after divorce? No. Equal my ass.

You want to force men to surrender their money and power to women, yet not force women to surrender sex to men. The asshole here is you, buddy, not me, you faggot.

At least I acknowledge that rape isn't right.

Anonymous said...

classism. racism. it exists guys. only middle class (disproportionately white) women with the ability to hire lawyers and 'steal' from men get raped according to FS. which doesn't make sense because last time i checked most rapes happen to either underage women or women of lower classes (generally women of color, you racist pig). remind me what they did wrong, plz.

i like how the state hires thugs (wut) to make sure (white middle class) men pay child support when these 'thugs' then turn around and discriminate against lower class men of color. i guess they don't count as real men huh?

also, LOL you seriously think the state cares that much if a dude doesn't pay child support? a woman has to go through hell just to force him to. most women don't and most judges will let the guy off on a bare minimum (200$ a month, for example, is not anywhere near enough to support a child but plenty of men only have to pay that) if the man whines about how he can't pay it.

i also hope someday you end up in jail for not paying child support because you knocked up a women who is willing to put herself through the hell to make you pay for your kids, and get raped. and then have someone tell you it's no big deal. oh, please come back and tell us if you do.

FS said...

Notice how the faggot supports stealing from men, and slavery? Who's the asshole now?

I don't believe in forcing myself on another, so I don't do it. Feminists and women believe in forcing theirselves on men though.

FS said...

One more thing, the faggot supports me being raped.

Who's pro rape now, shit stain?

Julian Real said...

You're sad.

Or maybe the term is bigoted and pathetic.

Your insults don't make your case any stronger. You only prove yourself to be one fucked up, dangerous human being.

The justice is that you have to live with yourself. And hopefully no one else ever does.

Eivind Berge said...

And, where do women steal money from men, fool? You know men still earn one dollar for every seventy cents earned by women for the same work, right?

This is a myth. You can see it debunked here at The Misandry Bubble along with other feminist delusions and lies.

Julian, your profile reads like a parody of political correctness.

I am a radical profeminist who is working to promote anti-patriarchal, anti-racist, anti-colonialist, pro-Indigenist perspectives and activism. I also seek to hold profeminist and antifeminist men accountable, so women don't have to do all that work all the damn time. I am a white, class-privileged, Western, academically and non-academically educated, gay intergender male who is also Jewish, disabled, and a survivor of childhood sexual assault. Most of the women in my family, and a couple of the men, are also survivors of childhood sexual abuse and some of the women are also survivors of rape as adults. Most of my friends are working very hard to survive racism, misogyny, heterosexism, and many other forms of gross discrimination and abuse on a daily basis. I am, appropriately, outraged.

LOL! You take the cake, and I guess you are serious since you continue to spout the same victimologist nonsense here and on your radical profeminist blog.

FS said...

Faggot Julian has no response to me. Faggot Julian supports women stealing from men with vaginamony, and child support, and keeping those who resist as slaves in prisons. Faggot Julian supports the rape and slavery of men.

FS said...

Eivind, for this blog post, what you should have done is abused political language more. Using political language would have made your blog post a lot more acceptable.

Yes, you are calling a spade a spade, but your enemies don't mind abusing political language to make their slavery and rape of men more acceptable, so you should have used the same tactics.

For example, don't use the word "rape" use the term "sexual socialism" instead.

Julian Real said...

@FS, aka Fucking Stupid,

"Misandry". You really should do stand-up. LOL.

Go on with your little pathetic patriarchal pity party, and your mythology of "man-hating". LOL

You only make yourselves look more and more bigoted, completely out of touch with reality, and ridiculous. Keep going: you're doing such a great job of it!

You take the cake, and I guess you are serious since you continue to spout the same victimologist nonsense here and on your radical profeminist blog.

There's nothing more victimy that Eivind's bitter little woe-is-my-daddy whiny rant here. Curious you don't notice how whiny--oh my poor, poor daddy had to pay alimony, whine, whine, whine. His little daddy's world was hurt because he dicked over Eivind's mom. Whine. Whine. Whine. It doesn't get much more victimy than how you and he are behaving here. Or hadn't you noticed? LOL Why don't you take a photo of the two of you and post it to an online dictionary under the term "victim?

And you seem unwilling to note that most mothers and fathers can't even afford alimony and child support, that many men who can are deadbeat wealthy dads. You fail to mentional the parts of something called "reality" that don't fit with your ridiculous out-of-touch, borderline paranoid, self-absorbed men-are-victims-of-women "vaginalimony" theories. LOL

Really, you do have to take this shit onto the stage for laughs.

And what percent of men who don't pay alimony or child support go to jail and remain victimy slaves for the rest of their lives, Fucking Stupid? You neglect to mention that. Why is that? Why not tell the people what percent of poor, poor beleagered dads that actually is? Is it because, well, you don't want anyone to know because the percentage is so very, very tiny, like your and Eivind's dick-for-brains?

It's kind of sweet how you rush to your boyfriend Eivind's defense, because he's being so victimised and all. LOL

I'm a faggot... in your dreams. Sleep well, "poor" little victimised white man named Fucking Stupid. With Eivind right next to you.

You keep taking such good, devoted, loving care of Eivind, Fucking Stupid. And one day, maybe, you can get married.

Julian Real said...

@FS, aka Fucking Stupid,

"Misandry". You really should do stand-up. LOL.

Go on with your little pathetic patriarchal pity party, and your mythology of "man-hating". LOL

You only make yourselves look more and more bigoted, completely out of touch with reality, and ridiculous. Keep going: you're doing such a great job of it!

You take the cake, and I guess you are serious since you continue to spout the same victimologist nonsense here and on your radical profeminist blog.

There's nothing more victimy that Eivind's bitter little woe-is-my-daddy whiny rant here. Curious you don't notice how whiny--oh my poor, poor daddy had to pay alimony, whine, whine, whine. His little daddy's world was hurt because he dicked over Eivind's mom. Whine. Whine. Whine. It doesn't get much more victimy than how you and he are behaving here. Or hadn't you noticed? LOL Why don't you take a photo of the two of you and post it to an online dictionary under the term "victim?

Julian Real said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Julian Real said...

And you seem unwilling to note that most mothers and fathers can't even afford alimony and child support or that many men who can are deadbeat wealthy cheating, lying-through-their-teeth dads who were abusive and neglectful husbands. You fail to mention the parts of something called "reality" that don't fit with your ridiculous out-of-touch, borderline paranoid, self-absorbed men-are-victims-of-women "vaginalimony" theories. LOL

Really, you do have to take this shit onto the stage for laughs. Just say the words "misandry" and "vaginalimony" but first warn people they might wet their pants laughing so hard.

And what percent of men who don't pay alimony or child support go to jail and remain victimy slaves for the rest of their lives, Fucking Stupid? You neglect to mention that. Why is that? Why not tell the people what percent of poor, poor financially strapped dads that actually is? Is it because, well, you don't want anyone to know because the percentage is so very, very tiny--like your and Eivind's dick-for-brains?

It's kind of sweet how you rush to your boyfriend Eivind's defense, because he's being so victimised and all. LOL

I'm a faggot... in your dreams. Sleep well, "poor" little victimised man named Fucking Stupid, with Eivind right next to you, crying on your shoulder about his victimised daddy and his pitiful self living in such a woman-dominated world. LOL

You keep taking such good, passionate care of Eivind, Fucking Stupid. You must love him so very, very much to keep showing up like this and rushing to his defense as if he can't argue his own points for himself.

He really is lucky to have to so devotedly by his side. Maybe one day you two can get legally married.

FS said...

Oh get lost, you faggot. If you think I'm gonna read through your feminist crap, you got another thing coming.

Julian Real said...

The truth is scary, isn't it?

Anonymous said...

julian, you're my hero, you bamf.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 451   Newer› Newest»