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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
357 comments:
1 – 200 of 357 Newer› Newest»Got here from a link from Roissy and didn't read much of your post but on your profile it says many things I agree with and also that you aspire to be a PUA.
Part of being successful at this PUA is improving your looks to be consistent with an assertive man. From your picture, here's what you need to do:
1. Ditch the glasses. Get contacts.
2. Grow a little stubble
3. Gain about 30 lbs. It doesn't all have to be muscle. But you better hurry because you only have about 4 more months of daylight up there.
4. Tan a bit more. Use fake-bake tan spray if you have to since the sunlight is weak up there.
My picture is five years old but I don't look much different. I appreciate the suggestions.
Observations.
Something about this article disturbed me.. which is good, it is good to be disturbed and have one's equilibrium upset.
I have to say that Rape to \women is like a murder of the soul. I have known many women who were raped, it damaged them in ways that are difficult to explain. I believe that somewhere the sexual war between men and women has to end, for the good of our civilization. it must end, not in stalemate, but in a concert and balance of powers.
For a man to cultivate and sublimate his soul's anger and rage, and use it to conquer and master himself, is good. Our bitterness and anger can be fuel, cultivate the sense of fey power, and feel it as a fuel, to obliterate the weakness in the soul, and build ourselves anew.
Once we have channeled our pain into fuel, I believe we can develop a sense of lucid objectivity. I can look at women who once embittered me, long ago, and see them for who and what hey are, and feel compassion. Intense compassion. I can live my life on my terms, not the terms that society sets for me. By mastering myself I can grow into a being who lives beyond petty limits, who acts, and does not react. I can freely choose the women I see as worthy of my company, enjoy their company, and allow them to enjoy mine.
On style tips; Only ditch the glasses if you want to, some women actually find them attractive (an irrelevant point though) contacts are a pain in the rear.
Stubble. I agree with, not because femes like it (I could care less, some complain of face scratching while kissing, do I shave? yes, once a month...) but because frankly smooth shaved faces are among the most absurd cultural quirks western man was brainwashed into adopting.
Facial hair simply feels manly. Viking Norwegians were bearded. Look at what they did. Is the correlation causal ? Probably not, but it does bear mentioning.
Not being fair skinned, I simply can't understand the fascination with being tanned. Only do it if you want to, if you do not then heap scorn on it.
Gaining 30 lbs doesn't hurt if it's muscle. In fact it can only do good.
Eating more eggs, and dead lifting helps. Kettlebell lifting, if your shoulders and knees are up to it, helps one get a more cut and toned frame, deadlifts causes your body to increase testosterone production naturally and builds up a solid core of dense muscle.
Stubble and muscles, good. Fake tans, bad. Glasses vs. contacts. Frankly just get stylish frames. A charming man can get away with wearing even somewhat ugly frames but why handicap yourself?
And beyond bitterness, simply laugh at it all. It is all bloody absurd, you realize this of course, as do I, so why not laugh at it and master it all?
"Laughing Lions must come" -F. Neitzsche
Ok, first of all, I don't care how anyone justifies it, Rape is absolutely unacceptable and can not by any means be compared to money or other such materialistic things.
Rape is physical and psychological abuse. Are you saying that when a woman takes money from a man that man is affected physically and emotionally for the rest of his life? Come on.
I'm sure you wrote this to get a rise out of people, at least I hope that's why you wrote it and not because you truly believe this.
Also, women place more value on men's personality and wisdom than they do on looks. Sure the looks are the first thing that may start a conversation, but unlike men, if a woman is physically attracted but not emotionally attracted, that guy, even if he's Brad Pitt, doesn't stand much of a chance.
I hope with all my heart that you don't condone rape. If you want to be a PUA, I would highly recommend not sharing this blog with any woman you may be intersted in.
Yes, rape can indeed be compared to money or other such materialistic things as well as status because in the mating game a man's resources is the equivalent to a woman's body. 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., cf. http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm). Because women are hypergamous, economic equality will necessarily entail sexual oppression of men. Men need greater resources than women to compensate for the fact that our bodies are worthless. That is also why we have different abilities and strive more for resources and thus deserve them more than women.
The purpose of money and status for men is sex and marriage and happiness, while for women making equal money is a mere luxury as they would be provided for anyway just because of their bodies. When men are marginalized they don't get sex and happiness, and I do believe involuntary celibacy is indeed every bit as bad as rape in terms of psychological suffering. Genetically it is worse because the man is left out of reproducing entirely, while rape for a woman chiefly entails the risk of reproducing with genes inferior to what she otherwise could have chosen, and that risk has been eliminated thanks to abortion. Then there is the risk of abandonment by her current mate, but the welfare state has eliminated the consequences of that as well.
I can assure you I didn't write this to get a rise out of people. I wrote it because I am seriously pissed off and I believe it. Now, I don't seriously believe women would prefer sexual equality to giving up their economic equality, so in that sense you can read me as arguing reductio-ad-absurdum against feminism. However, I don't believe women are going to give up feminism and their "equality" anytime soon, and in the meantime I certainly do condone rape. It may be the only way we can turn the tide, as well the only way to extract any happiness out for life for the most marginalized males. In fact, men don't even need an ideological justification for rape and thuggery if they get marginalized enough; it will happen spontaneously. Rape is making the best of a bad job and men know this instinctively. And it does not take an awful lot of men with my mindset to make life as unpleasant for women as it is for men. Think about it -- do you women really want equality? If you you aren't willing to put up with men demanding the equal right to have sex anytime we want just as women can, then doing things such as forcibly dissolving Norwegian companies who don't have at least 40% women in the boardrooms and other affirmative action is probably a bad move.
women want equality until it comes to paying for things, sexual interaction, parental rights....oh wait, a ton of stuff.
Deeply flawed logic.
It sounds like no woman takes away any resource (such as money) from you. So how can you feel entitled to take away the female resource in the mating game "in return"?
If there is no woman at all in your life then there is also no affirmative action against you. Hence you cannot claim anything in return.
Even if you invite a woman on a date (and you pay), she is not taking money away from you. It is you who gives. Freely. Stupidly.
It would be a different story if random women (or the law in their name as you insinuate) would take away your money, but that's just not happening.
For every female beneficiary of affirmative action there is, by definition, a male victim. I am not just speaking for myself.
so how is goverment redistribution in favour of betas morally different from redsitrubution of wealth?
are you a libertarian only when you are not losing?
I am indeed a libertarian at heart and have always been. I believe rape is as fundamentally morally wrong as redistribution of wealth, socialized medicine, welfare and affirmative action. But given that this is a socialist, feminist state and we are going to have affirmative action to coerce equality of outcome, which is a fait accompli and no use arguing against anymore, it must also apply to men. Where we fall short is sex (only 40% of our ancestors are men, while 80% are women!), and even more so after feminism has deprived us of privileges that used to give us a chance to have sex and made sure that women can afford to express their feral sexuality, their extreme selectivity. Women are not attracted to lesser or equal men. Women are hypergamous. Rape is equality.
Once upon a time women had beauty (sex) and men had money. Giving money to women made men even uglier and means that most men have even less sex. Rape is equality.
The bottom line is that redistribution of resources is wrong, but redistribution of resources only from men to women is even more wrong. That excuses rape, because if we are going to have equality, I demand that it applies to us too.
Correction: I was trying to say that probably 80 percent of women who ever lived reproduced, whereas only 40 percent of men did. So something like 2/3 of our ancestors are women and only 1/3 are men. According to http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm
Rape is equality, equality is what the feminist powers that be have decreed that we are going to have, and nobody has yet been able to pinpoint a flaw in my logic.
Libertarians are very rare in Norway. When even I can come to see rape as morally legitimate, it will be all the more compelling for men who actually believe in egalitarianism, which is almost everybody. They just need to grasp the connection between equality between the sexes and women rejecting them sexually. Make no mistake about it, female economic freedom and male sexual opportunity are directly contravening forces. If we are going to have the former -- and we are -- then men who are not getting any pussy and understand what is going on are going to stop thinking of rape as wrong. We also have nothing to lose because we have nothing invested in society (no children) and an involuntarily celibate man already has zero quality of life, so prison is no deterrent.
Arpagus,
Given the fact that we are so anchored in our societies, I think you may have reached an aporia of a sort. Certainly PUA just gives you the opportunity to work really hard at appealing to women, but I think there are no other realistic options. I say that as a man who has a significant amount of frustration with women, who got rejected several times a day approaching strangers in the course of daily life, and who still does. You are talking about abrogating the bodily autonomy of half the population by force, in a system of jurisprudence where their "right to be left alone" trumps "no right to have sex." I'm very marginal of course, so I wish women were more generous to me in particular, and I wish I had an answer, but I don't. I am a bit amazed that you put your name on this thesis at all.
Most of the reason why you aren't doing well in the meat market is that you are young and over time, you will look better to women and will also naturally be more interesting to them.
I stand by my 4 comments to improve your looks. You're not fundamentally bad looking but you need to not obscure your stronger features and draw attention to your weaker ones.
Hearing that your picture is 5 years old makes me think that also your hairline is probably receding a bit much around the temples by now- this isn't really all that bad unless you have the same hair style that is bad. You should get your hair cut finger length. Ironically if you are losing a bit of hair, shorter hair looks much better.
Yes personality is important, and I'm just guessing that you probably need to lighten up since you're probably not naturally bubbly judging from your frustration on this blog. Try doing some drugs if you have to like Kava or weed. It is surely safer than getting super drunk and getting kneed in the balls after you grope some skank.
You should also try dabbling into some timeless high-class hobbies that chicks can get into. Like learning about wine, cooking unique Italian food. Read up some stupid sentimental nature poetry and crap like that so that when you do have a deeper conversation with a chick you can work the same themes and phrases into your conversation while flirting with her. Done confidently enough, and she'll rape you.
No chick really cares about your political views just like you don't care about their rainbow bullshit tree-hugging political views either.
Ok, I'll shut up now
Arpagus--
You strike me as a rational person in some conversations I have had with you. I do understand the roundabout point you are trying to make. In your opinion:
A Man uses "status" and "wealth" to receive female attention/sex.
A Woman uses sex as HER bartering system in the game of life.
Therefore you think of women's bodies as "repayment" of services rendered. (ie: spending man's money/making use of his status)
I think in a really misguided way you are just telling women to stop using sex as a weapon against men because they are turning it into a "monetary system" or a material "gift" only given to men who have the most status.
While this may be true of many women, it's not true of all. I think you already know my position on rape since I am a woman so there's no need for me to get preachy with you.
While essentially "rape" could be used to describe what many women do to men (robbing them blind of their status/wealth) physically causing suffering to man/woman's body is not a right ANYONE should have.
While in the bartering system of dating, you may see sex as a bargaining chip that women can use, it is still not something material. It's not a "thing". I could get really philosophical and refer to what we already know. We don't actually OWN material things...they aren't a permanent part of us, they don't give us life.
A person's body and soul are the ONLY thing we are all given equally at birth. The only thing we all truly own. Rape of a human being is NOT the same as rape of materials. The woman (or man) owns their body and soul and no other human should have the right to violate that.
Lady Raine--
A naked man is a man stripped of his status symbols and is arrested if he shows up publicly because his body is so disgusting. Today my local newspaper ran a headline news item about the police chasing a man for the nefarious crime of discretely changing pants in the bushes because someone went out of their way on the pretext of admiring the rhodendrons to spot him and call the police. A naked woman is conversely revealing the full glory of her status and will be dangerously lusted after even if she is one of the least attractive women.
You are smart and honest enough to acknowledge this fundamental difference between the sexes, unlike most women, no doubt having been a stripper making it all the more apparent to you, and still you are saying that it is more OK for a man to be forcibly stripped of his money, status and power in the name of "equality," because he doesn't really "own" it, while a woman's assets -- her body -- is inviolable because she owns it. So you are saying that a man cannot even in principle own anything valuable and inviolable that the opposite sex wants. I am arguing that those assets are morally equal and that if it is OK use affirmative action to redistribute male assets to women, even if men have earned these assets though superior motivation and harder work because we desperately need them to attract a mate, and probably because of superior ability on average in many profitable fields, then it is also OK for men to forcibly take what we want from women, which is sex. I wish I lived in an equitable society where no robbing of either sex would be permitted, neither affirmative action nor rape, but I don't; I live under feminism and must take that into account.
Even the natural state, that I as a freedom-loving libertarian have no problem with, entails women being twice as successful at reproducing and infinitely more at liberty to have casual sex than men. Sex is a currency that only women have and use to barter things from men, and I have no problem with that. We don't need to make it any more unfair for men. That is all I am asking, and as long as feminists insist on affirmative action, I condone rape to the extent that sex is as freely available to men as it naturally is to women.
Of course that should read "discreetly" not "discretely." I hate this retarded Google Blogger which won't even let me edit my own comments for typos on my own blog. Thinking of switching to Wordpress.
Cliff Arroyo here,
As I wrote chez I can see a couple of things wrong with you trying to learn 'game'.
It probably translates poorly into Norwegian... (for lots of reasons). Norway and the US differ in some key cultural assumptions and
And, just guessing... you probably give off a creepy, needy vibe that no amount of right words or even body language can dispel (and you probably have poor body language reading skills). You need to spend less time in your own head theorizing and more time interacting with other people in low pressure situations so that you'll function better when the stakes are higher.
Finally, you neeed role models closer to home than Washington DC.
As a first step, I'd suggest rewatching (or buying and studying) Riget and paying close attention to how Helmer and Krogshøj interact with women.
The vibe you give off is a probably a lot closer to the guy who cut off a corpse's head to try to impress a girl.
Got here form Roissy as well...
Being Norwegian, you find this assessment of modern Scandinavia "gender relationships" interesting: http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2009/06/once-were-vikings.html
I think you are handsome.
"Stockholm" inventor strikes back...
http://www.i-newswire.com/pr296724.html
write more! you may be crazy but this is somewhat fascinating anyway
'''''''''''''Eivind said...
Correction: I was trying to say that probably 80 percent of women who ever lived reproduced, whereas only 40 percent of men did. So something like 2/3 of our ancestors are women and only 1/3 are men. According to http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm'''''''''''''''''
Yea umm in old days I would imagine it would be more like 10 percent maybe of men got to reproduce.
One of the challenges is that by trash-talking yourself into a frenzy of loathing ("Male sexuality is worthless and disposable") you are going to make the 1st stage of learning game, when you are risking incongruence with Alpha behaviors, a great deal harder. You might get in the way of women who ARE naturally attracted to you, disrupting their natural processes of attraction, because your learned-helplessness and memes are all screaming "This is not really happening."
I don't KNOW what to do with the nasty revelations semi-game has left me, like the fact I really, really have problems with female sexuality, and a madonna-whore complex, because you go through a phase of success where you're still relying on luck and natural attraction (Fool's Mate? Still better than no mate.) It can tend to leave you with a quizzical attitude--"The best I can do is condom-sex with fat chicks who won't let me cum in their mouths?"--because you see that their programming leaves greater pleasure and incidentally-greater risk as part of the experience of Natural Alphas. I freaked out--there is no other word--when I realized that one could have quality sex with whomever, with a little bit of skill, intuition, and caring. The sex is not the issue. The hierarchy determines WITH WHOM one has teh sex.
Heh sex is equality? I have to say your logic is beyond flawed for the simple fact that women fought for their equal rights, which means putting effort into reaching this goal. Getting jobs and gaining power isn't something you achieve overnight as you should know being in school and hopefully employed currently or one day. Rape is instant, lazy and not something earned but stolen. Now getting a girlfriend is equality, put some effort into it and maybe you'll deserve sex and to be loved one day. Hatred won't bring this. Just introducing some logic. ^^
I second the comment about you being a fucked up individual. Perhaps the reason you can't get laid has nothing to do with your looks or lack of status but the fact that women tend to stay away from men who promote violence and hate towards their gender.
I hope, for her own safety, that no woman ever comes near you.
This has only reaffirmed my strong belief in the need for feminism when misogynistic creeps like you are still spouting this disgusting bullshit.
I wouldn't touch you with a ten foot pole and from reading your post it seems that most women agree with me on that. Maybe look internally rather than scape goating your problem to your looks or status or blaming women!
Do you hate women?
No.
Rape is instant, lazy and not something earned but stolen.
Yes, and so is affirmative action for women. If you can have it, then so can we.
This has only reaffirmed my strong belief in the need for feminism when misogynistic creeps like you are still spouting this disgusting bullshit.
You don't get it. I am the male response to feminism. I would never have believed rape is morally legitimate without feminism. That epiphany came about as a direct result of feminism. I am merely taking the principles of feminism and applying them to men, demanding equality where it counts for us, too. Remember, the personal is political. Feminism taught me that. More feminism will only produce more men like me.
Poor men have just as much sex as rich men, sometimes even more.
It is abundantly clear that men with more wealth and status get more sex with more desirable women.
No, I am dead serious. Whether people find it offensive is irrelevant to me.
Hint: Affirmative action is in no way the same thing as an act that leaves you broken and bleeding and suffering nightmares and panic attacks for years after the fact.
I don't like AA either, but I think comparing it to rape is disingenuous at best and tasteless at worst. I won't rail at you in your journal, but I have to say it's a shame that a well-spoken, good-looking guy like you is wasting himself on this play at jaded cynicism.
do you know what affirmative action means? it means that the beneficiary has been so marginalized in history that the affirmative action is taken to REPLACE their status in society. the DOMINANT GROUP in a society CANNOT be the "victim". the dominant group is men, no matter how afraid you are of "feminists." you obviously despise men because of their apparent lack of "intrinsic value" (which is bullshit. i don't understand where you get this from. your statistics are not facts, they are opinions). you also despise women because you are jealous of their "sex resource." get over it. you're a dick, and THAT'S why no one wants to have sex with you. work on yourself, not the system.
I think you should see someone about evaluating you for obsessive compulsive disorder and or social anxiety.
Your seem to be so hyper focused on your personal frustration with sex and status that I strongly suspect it interfears with everyday social functioning. One can live without sex, but if you get too creepy to hold a job and keep friends life is going to be tough. Is the tunnel vision causing a vicious circle perhaps? Medication may be able to help with the anxiety.
Feel free to go off on me, but please consider seeking help.
On that list I take the most offense to women having abortions. Next would be women having eating disorders. I mean, not that I blame them for it like I do with abortions, but whatever social pressure causes women to have eating disorders is offensive. I don't take offense to anything else on the list.
Women can of course be self-sufficient or CEO and everything in between as long as they don't use affirmative action to get there. But they do, and the resulting sexual deprivation of men (due to female hypergamy) is what justifies rape. When men understand that social equality means sexual inequality, and that women use force to get their equality, rape is inevitably seen in a new light. Feminists try to deny innate sex differences such as female hypergamy and extreme selectivity, but you can't hide the truth forever and the truth will get you raped unless you abandon feminism.
I think you should see someone about evaluating you for obsessive compulsive disorder and or social anxiety.
I know I don't have OCD. And I am able to function socially, but not very well; you do have a point there. I don't think I need medication though, at least not an SSRI, which I would never take because of the risk of lowered sex drive and other side effects.
Your seem to be so hyper focused on your personal frustration with sex and status
Obviously celibacy leads to single-minded pursuit of sex, but I am not hyper-focused on status nor money, and that is part of the problem. If I had focused on getting a profitable, high-status career instead of perpetually studying interesting but useless subjects such as art, English and Latin, getting multiple useless degrees, I could probably get women. But that is too late and I have to work with what I have, which is extremely low status and poverty at an age when I should be doing much better.
One can live without sex
Involuntary celibacy is living death for a man. It is no life and eventually there is a breaking point. Just look what happened to George Sodini, who is now a martyr and hero to the men's movement and an example the feminists will have to heed. I would snap well before he did, probably at between 2 and 3 years. I have been very, very close to that point. I recommend rape rather than murder, of course, unless you want to make a statement like he did. Kudos to Sodini, but I am not that altruistic.
Actually, since I wrote this blog entry, I have managed to get laid for the first time in 2 years. So I feel much better now, although all I got was a one-night stand. This is a political blog, however, not just about me personally. I am an MRA. I am learning game to improve my own situation and having some success, but I will be an activist against feminism until we defeat feminism. Men should learn game and do everything we can to improve ourselves, but ultimately we have to destroy feminism, because equality by affirmative action along with female hypergamy ensures that there will be a lot of male sexless losers no matter what we do individually. Some of these losers will be dangerous like Sodini, so women really ought to reconsider if feminism is worth it.
do you know what affirmative action means? it means that the beneficiary has been so marginalized in history that the affirmative action is taken to REPLACE their status in society.
Firstly, that is a false premise. Women have not been all that marginalized. Women have always had the recourse of sex and have used it to their advantage and still do. Men are sexually worthless and so we need other resources to compensate, that are now unfairly being taken away from us.
Secondly, any historical oppression does not matter. Men alive today are not responsible for that. Get over it. In countries like Norway women have never been truly oppressed, and they have no right to affirmative action; or if they do, men have a similar right to coerced sexual equality.
work on yourself, not the system.
Men need to do both.
I am able to function socially, but not very well; you do have a point there. I don't think I need medication though, at least not an SSRI, which I would never take because of the risk of lowered sex drive and other side effects.
A lowered sex drive might be the greatest gift you ever recieved. It's pretty disturbing at the moment the way your preoccupation with sex is clouding your thinking. That said, people have ways of working around SSRI side effects and some have more effect than others.
Think of it as an investment. If you had to give up obsessing about sex for a year or two to turn around your life to the point where you might be much better equiped to actually get some, wouldn't it be worth it?
I simply don't think it's true that "forced celibacy is walking death for a man." i don't buy it. Most men can handle rejection and take it in stride. The situation of a person, man or woman, being a virgin in their 30s and 40s is more common than you may think. And believe it or not, women enjoy sex too. Most don't use it as a bargaining chip to get what they want, nor appreciate being reduced to a body hanging around for a man's pleasure. There are manipulative women out there just as there are manipulative men--which, by the way, your admiration of "game" strikes me as adherence to a very specific type of manipulation. You seem to have a very deep mistrust of women and their motives for any number of different actions. I'm also curious as to what kind of sex you are looking for--merely doing it to do it, maybe to create a child, to experience an intimate connection with another person? You need to stop vilifying the people you want to connect with, because there is something inherently wrong with manipulating and yes, raping, another person just for sexual release. That's what your hand is for. An average girl on the street is not using her sexual attractiveness to get her a job, or your money, or your jealousy. and this concept of female hypergamy is not by any means widespread. have you ever seen an american sitcom? the girls on these shows are with fat, ugly, childish men. there are millions of women out there having no sex or sex forced on them, which equates to violence against them. females aren't some sort of mystical goddess race sent here to toy with men. they are people just like you are, and believe it or not, most of them do not have fucking on the brain when they interact with other humans. please learn some perspective.
maybe if you weren't so obsessed with getting laid, no one could 'use it against you.' just a thought...
Your problem is not your appearance, it is that you appear to be a horrible person. It is a myth that women are attracted to assholes. They are attracted to men who are self-confident. An asshole who is self-confident will probably do okay with women. An asshole who is meek and insecure will have trouble picking up girls. You appear to be the latter. Work to improve your self-confidence and your personality, not your appearance.
You want the ladies, can't get them, and try here to rationalize your frustration. "Oh, it's about feminism." Nobody with half a brain believes that.
Talking flippantly about rape being your right is a good way of ensuring that your only partner in life will be your hand. If you want a lady, try to become attractive. Right now, you are failing miserably.
Hmm. You make a mighty interesting argument that affirmative action justifies rape. If affirmative action=taking something from men by force, surely affirmative action for African Americans is pretty much ripping off white people by force. So, would that justify lynching? Burning down a house? Please advise.
Where did you get the idea that, "Women are generally incapable of feeling attraction for men who are not better than they are"? your reductionist theories about the "mating game" are just tired.
It is called hypergamy and is unfortunately not a tired reductionist theory. It is sadly the nature of women. Or I could get a woman and I would have no argument about rape being equality. But women need to look up to their man and my status is so low that there are no women who can do this.
So, would that justify lynching? Burning down a house? Please advise.
I don't feel that affirmative action for minorities justifies those things. I am certainly against affirmative action of any kind, but giving it to women is far worse than favoring African Americans. Because women are hypergamous. Affirmative action for minorities simply needs to end. Affirmative action for women means we can rape them without feeling a shred of remorse.
That said, if AA for privileged races means they get more than their share of white women, I might reconsider my position on this.
The low-status problem attached to the liberal arts in Western societies is a quandary, I solved it by deciding that I would monetize it as best I could and stick for a bit with the women who chose me. Admittedly, game was a great aid, but the fungibility of sex is inescapable--ANYONE can have good sex, with a little attention to detail, intuition, and caring--with pretty much anyone else. One's male power in areas other than sex--and bear in mind I've never had bad sex but also only rarely attracted women who were thin, able, and unmedicated, and rarely anyone conventionally pretty--is what determines the place in the hierarchy and WITH WHOM one has sex.
I don't see any way around this other than stubbornly wishing it were not so and gaming women in a way that showcases one's personality and preferences, in hopes of attracting women who are naturally drawn to that personality and those preferences, but I'm a naturally extroverted fairly low-drive man, which means I build up much less angst and bitterness at collecting female casual acquaintances and friends rather than lovers. YMMV.
If you don't mind, I'm curious about how far into the men's rights movement you go. I was raised with that philosophy, so I'm not arguing with you - just curious.
For a hypothetical example, let's say that you see an unguarded 3 year old girl and so you rape her. However, how do you feel about the right of a man to kill her also? I know there are a couple of men who would not agree that men have the right to kill her, even though it brings sexual pleasure - do you agree, or do you consider it another basic male right as do most MRAs?
I wrote to you in friendship, politely asking for clarification on your views. There was no need to attack.
Thank you for the clarification. You seem to be "MR-lite".
You appear to be extremely confused on quite a lot of things.
However, I wish you well.
Your are either a troll or, if I am to take your comments at face value, a sadistic pedophile who thinks raping and killing 3-year-old girls is fun. Either way there is a need to attack (or start moderating/deleting comments, which I would prefer not to because I hate censorship and love free speech).
I am "MR-lite"? LOL. I am actually one of the most extreme MRAs I know, though I certainly have much in common with other MRAs who don't necessarily agree with me about rape being justified right now because of affirmative action, which is a rather minor point in the big picture, after all. Either you are trying or smear the MRA movement by trying to make us look like we like to rape and kill little girls, or you are a seriously messed up individual. So which one is it? It is almost certainly the former, and your bullshit is not working. Obviously you have no real arguments, or else you wouldn't have to resort to that idiocy. Which means you are probably a feminist. Who else can be so stupid? The truth will get you raped, bitch, when men wake up, and there is nothing you can do about it. Women will not give up their "equality" peacefully, and when men come to collect our own equality based on the very same reasoning, you will be sorry.
And you say I am extremely confused? About what? I have presented a coherent argument explaining why rape is morally right in feminist countries such as Norway at this time, and no one has been able to refute it. Please explain.
You seem very confused about the difference between entitlement and earning. Men aren't entitled to have women sexually. If you want the love and respect of a woman, you have to earn it.
Let's turn the tables for a minute. Imagine that you are a merchant that sells a unique product. A female customer enters your place of business and clearly wants your product. She compliments you, offers to buy you a drink; essentially offers up resources in an oblique manner, never asking outright to use these resources as a bargaining chip. the next day, the same female customer arrives and demands that you give her your product, saying that she bought you "all these things," and that your acceptance was tantamount to an offer of your product. She forcibly takes all the remaining products you have and leaves you resource-less.
According to your logic, the above scenario is perfectly acceptable.
I hope maybe you begin to see how convoluted and insane your thought process is. There's a reason why no woman wants to be with you and it has nothing to do with "game" or looks or money or being "alpha." These are just constructs created by a patriarchal society (read: men) in order to justify inequality (no woman ever thinks about "alpha" or "beta" when she rejects an asshole). Feminism is good for men because it destroys gender constructs. It liberates men from the Judd Apatow stereotype of a sex-crazed idiot. Feminism says, yes, we are different but equal, and we are more than just the sum of our parts and you don't have to "gain 30 lbs" to be attractive. You want to perpetuate gender stereotypes in the most harmful way possible. You want to harm both women and men by reducing us to pools of resources encompassed by vicious, slavering animals. Feminists want more than that.
You know, it's a real shame because when I first saw your picture I thought, "that guy is pretty attractive" (and I'm a lesbian). Then I read your posts and I wanted to vomit. If I ever see you coming down the street towards me, I will pull out my mace and cross to the other side. I wish I could email this post to every single woman in the world to ensure that you die alone.
PS. I flagged your blog for hate speech.
Leah, I am not at all confused about the difference between entitlement and earning. I don't actually believe in entitlement, as I have explained several times already. It's just that if women are entitled to male resources without earning them -- and that is *feminist* logic, not my idea -- then by the same token, men are entitled to sex from women, because sex is the female resource that men want, and to boot are getting less of because of those very feminist entitlement programs. Tit for tat, not entitlement on my part.
You can deny gender stereotypes all you want, but they won't go away. Human nature is what it is and feminist blank-slatism is just a fantasy. You cannot "liberate" men from their sex drives with words. Feminist policies such as affirmative action leads to more men not getting sex, and these men will be bitter, angry and potentially dangerous. The last thing they will be is thankful for feminism "destroying gender constructs," and you are seriously deluded if you believe that will be the outcome. Try telling that to someone like George Sodini, for example. You can't "liberate" women from their nature, either. Women chase alphas more than ever; what's new is that now thanks to feminism women can afford to ignore the betas en masse and express their feral sexuality fully. This is the female sexual utopia, and it is not sustainable. Things will get ugly when you have so many sexually deprived men around with nothing invested in society. Possibly it will lead to the collapse of Western civilization.
If you want every single woman in the world to read your post, then why try to get my blog deleted? Unlike you, I believe in free speech, and any woman can find my blog just by googling me. I am alpha enough not to supplicate and spew feminist drivel just because that is what women want to hear. I am telling it as it is. Google's Terms of Service are quite draconian, but I am not violating the content policy. My hate is not "based on race, ethnicity, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity." I am an antifeminst, not a misogynist. Feminism is an ideology, not anything on that list.
Here is one example: Case study of women on boards of directors in Norway. Did women earn this? No, they just passed a law threatening with the forcible dissolution of any company that does not have 40% women on the board of directors. And this is just the tip of the iceberg of rampant affirmative action. So I have become convinced that men don't need to earn sex, either, under a feminist regime. We can just take it by force until there is equal access just like women do whenever there is something men have that they want.
I thought I could leave this alone, but alas, I can't. Your anger about affirmative action is sorely misplaced. Affirmative action was not pushed through by "feminists." Affirmative action was pushed through the political sphere, which is overwhelmingly controlled by men (for example, in the US, only 17 out of 100 senators are female today). So you should really be angry with other men, not women.
Furthermore, you are a misogynist. You think that women are only good for sex and that any wealth we gain is undeserved. The supposed legions of angry, under-sexed men will just have to suck it up and get with a sex worker. That way, you can exchange money for sex, as is the "natural order" of the world.
Also, you fell back on the old free speech adage. Right now, you're shouting fire in a crowded theater. You're promoting violence and illegal activity with nothing but a paper by a psychologist to back your beliefs (which I read, interesting but replete with the inherent flaws of social economics theories). By the way, did you read any of the other pieces on that page? "Narcissism, sexual refusal, and sexual aggression: Testing a narcissistic reactance model of sexual coercion," for example?
Reply to Leah, part one.
So you should really be angry with other men, not women.
It is a blatant lie that affirmative action was not pushed through by women. Feminist groups do the lobbying for these laws, and even if the legislature has a male majority, women have the most votes in any democracy and got these men elected in the first place. Maybe we never should have given women the vote, but only in that sense can you blame men.
Furthermore, you are a misogynist. You think that women are only good for sex and that any wealth we gain is undeserved.
On the contrary, I love women and I don't think any wealth gained is undeserved so long as you actually earn it, rather than obtain it through affirmative action.
The supposed legions of angry, under-sexed men will just have to suck it up and get with a sex worker. That way, you can exchange money for sex, as is the "natural order" of the world.
Men paying for it in one way or another is indeed the natural order of the word, and I have been with sex workers many times. However, on January 1st, 2009, the feminists finally managed to criminalize buying sex for all Norwegian men (while women are still free to sell it, just like in Sweden, but unlike all other countries I am aware of, who at least pretend it is about morality rather than blatant oppression of men and so criminalize the whore as much as the john). This law applies to all Norwegians anywhere we go in the world, even where prostitution is legal. At the moment it is literally impossible for me to have sex without being a criminal. Rape or prostitute, either way I am going to jail if caught. This was the last straw that made me really, really not care if I rape a woman or not. The misandry has gone so far now that Norwegian women deserve no respect whatsoever. The reason women pushed through this law is of course to increase the price of sex even further, and they have succeeded. The street price is now twice what it was before the ban (almost $250 at the cheapest), and more to the point regular women can be even more demanding before they put out since a relatively cheap substitute has been limited. You can read more about how women conspire to drive up the price of sex in the Baumeister article "Cultural Suppression of Female Sexuality." What do female genital mutilation and criminalizing prostitution have in common? They are both tactics women employ to increase the cost of sex. Men want the price of sex to be low and would support no such things.
Right now, you're shouting fire in a crowded theater.
No, that is incomparable to what I am doing. I am not aimlessly promoting chaos, but advocating a very purposeful course of action justified as retribution for and activism against direct oppression of men. If I am silenced, then that is political censorship (and won't work since I'd just find another host for my blog).
Reply Leah, part 2 (damn 4,096 character limit).
You're promoting violence and illegal activity with nothing but a paper by a psychologist to back your beliefs (which I read, interesting but replete with the inherent flaws of social economics theories).
I cited Baumester because his paper is so comprehensive and readable for people who still don't grasp the concept of sex as a female resource. But it is hardly just him I am basing this on. Sex as a female resource is the bedrock of evolutionary psychology, and there is a mountain of evidence to back it up, as well as any and all life experience. Baumester's paper also has the further strength of coming to the same conclusion even without necessarily basing it on sociobiology. I agree there are flaws, but that is because he is not an evolutionary psychologist and still entertains some myths prevalent in the feminist social sciences. The fact that women have great intrinsic value and men are worthless is clearly rooted in the disparate minimum parental investment of the sexes, so it is rather pointless at this point to even consider alternative explanations for the fact that sex is something women have and men want. Eggs are expensive while sperm is cheap like air, practically worthless, and all human behavior follows from there.
Reply to Leah, part 3.
By the way, did you read any of the other pieces on that page? "Narcissism, sexual refusal, and sexual aggression: Testing a narcissistic reactance model of sexual coercion," for example?
Yes, I've read most of them, including that one. Baumeister makes some good points, particularly in opposing the usual feminist lie about rape not being motivated by sex, which I bet you also believe(d) since it is the greatest insult to male sexuality possible, a rhetorical castration which pretends men have no sex drive, a hateful lie that ironically also hurts women because a horny man forcing himself on a woman while believing this feminist drivel will think that it can't possibly be rape he is engaging in, and women won't have a clue which men are likely to be dangerous when they think sexual desire has got nothing to do with it. But it is more important for feminists to denigrate men than to protect women, so that is not surprising. I am glad Baumester gets this right: The violence in rape is merely instrumental in getting sex, not an end in itself, and men do not rape to oppress women but because we want sex. We would of course rather have it freely given if possible.
Narcissism and reactance may help explain some rapes, but it totally misses the mark with me. I am not a narcissist by any means. I fully acknowledge that I am a worthless piece of shit in the sexual market, as are all men stripped of resources and status. That is one half of my argument, the other half being the existence of affirmative action and the established ideal of enforced equality in all areas. I understand that men are worthless and women are extremely valuable sex objects. I am fully disabused of any notion that women intrinsically admire me as I am and somehow desire sex with me, and fully aware that forcible sex with me will be a very traumatic experience because I am so undesirable. My justification for rape is not based on inflated self-love and entitlement, but rather just retribution for women robbing men of the resources we need to obtain sex legitimately. Without these resources, we are nothing, and anyone realizing this cannot be a narcissist. I am not reacting to female rejection while thinking I am awesome, but the political climate of equality, without which I would not be entitled to sex despite rejection, and I know I am ugly.
The article includes a lot of bullshit too, but I will address that in later blog posts. For example, it is not a "rape myth belief" that women sometimes say no when they mean yes. Baumester himself even acknowledges that in an earlier (!) paper and cites a study: "Muehlenhard and Hallabaugh
(1988) examined whether women ever say no to sex when they mean yes, and the answer was
emphatically positive: 39% of their sample had done it at least once, and more than two thirds
had said no when they meant maybe. Even 12% of the virgins in their sample reported having
said no when they meant yes, which meant that they had on at least one occasion decided to lose
their virginity, but they had said no and the men had respected their stated wishes." ("Cultural suppression of female sexuality," p. 187.)
Dammit...I just can't stay away from this stuff. Its so mind boggling, I can't wrap my mind around it.
Okay, Eivind, you've actually opened up a little and you've shared some pretty big things. Admitting that you're not very good socially and that you feel that you're "low status" is kind of brave of you, even on an anonymous blog such as this. I have to disagree with you with the Rape thing, I'm sorry, but I do. *grin* And my boyfriend wanted to share with you that female empowerment gives him a chubby...but we digress.
If I ran a male dating seminar, I would have some of the following suggestions for men:
1) Find a female buddy! Get a gal pal. How can you possibly understand women if you don't hang out with one or two? If you can't befriend a woman, how could you court one? So make that a goal: find a female who you can hang out with, have coffee with, discuss a movie with etc.
As a bonus, women find men who are already in the company of a woman to be "safer" and more attractive. Bonus/bonus: If you've got a rockin' gal pal, she'll help set you up.
Think of it this way: You have to walk before you can run, hon. A woman friend is walking- girlfriend/date: running.
2) Find a hobby you LOVE to do. I mean, LOVE. Something you're passionate about. (Not sex, that isn't going to work yet!) It could be politics maybe? Or some sort of reenactment society, or a group dedicated to a particular genre of film. The key is, make sure its just a bit social, okay? When you're having a good time, when you're doing something you like, you'll relax...and maybe you'll discover that there's a woman who's in the group too or just walking by some day, and she doesn't care about your "status" so much as that you love the same thing she does!
3) Please consider what some of the other posters have said. I'm not a huge fan of medication, but hey, sometimes if there's an imbalance somewhere and you just need to take something for a few weeks or so to balance it out...why not? It sounds a little to me like you're depressed- and sex has SOMETHING to do with it, but I don't think its 100%.
Maybe you just need someone to talk to for a bit.
Lastly, please...we're not a different species. Yes, there are differences- *grin* You men are happy to have sex with most volunteers and we women are a little less forthcoming. Craigslist confirms this! But try not to think of us as an alien species. We want most of the same things you do: to work, to have autonomy, to find love, to be happy. I think women have attained some inhuman status in your mind and that makes it harder for you to relate to us, which is sad, because you're only making it harder on yourself, y'know?
Ever read Soul on Ice, Eivind?
Arpagus,
I had a good laugh at the "dating" advice above, considering what I've shared of my romantic life--picking up romantically-marginal women who apparently have more romantic market value than oneself is an interesting exercise, the more so since I think people coded by society as unattractive--whatever their real qualities--form a subculture within nerd/geek/proletarian subcultures. I am trying to be charitable to everyone, the more so since these women are "good people" in that they are often smart, kind, and funny, but they are not mainstream attractive, and I think people who have in some way gotten used to being romantically-unattached have a lot of the same personality quirks.
None of this changes the fact that practically EVERYONE can have screaming hot sex with the right partner, but attraction is harder to trigger the higher one goes up the food chain. Attractive women are often quite petit-bourgeois and want someone who can pay for their level of consumption. There are hidden commonalities and conflicts of sociolect here. I think insofar as you "date", you are dating across class lines and of higher socio-economic status than the women you date. Why women within your own social and economic class would be so uniformly hypergamous as to make you undateable is beyond me.
Hey, my advice wasn't so bad, Eurosabra! Sheesh. You tell me what's so laughable about hanging around with women on a friendly, regular basis as a means of "taking the edge off" that's so bad.
However, I'm with you on the ridiculous shallowness of society- often times those people with the really pretty outsides are UGLY (or empty) inside. I've dated guys with "high status" jobs and fancy cars and blah blah blah...
Who cares?
If we can't hold a meaningful conversation at dinner, he doesn't enjoy anything that I do,(or vice versa) or he dismisses, outright, everything I say- what is the ever lovin' point?
I wish I knew a little more about the OP's particular quirks, if perhaps he has a stutter, or an overall social phobia or what makes him think he's so "low status". A good work ethic and a good heart count for something to the RIGHT woman, but you probably won't pick her up at a bar, and she's probably not going to respond well to being accosted on the street.
There are decent people that one needs to find in their own native habitat! *grin* I feel like I'm on Mutual of Omaha.
Eivind- I'm sorry, some pretty scary and rotten stuff has come out of your typewriter, but I feel that it is bubbling up out of frustration and isn't a permanent part of your psyche. I think- I would HOPE- that if a woman came into your life...and she wasn't bothered by all of your perceived flaws, that you wouldn't judge her or be cruel- I think you'd adore her and treat her lovingly. I could be wrong, but that's the feeling I get.
(Um, but if that ever happens? I'd delete these blogs ASAP as, I'm sure you know, this is a pretty alarming topic for women and she might not give you a chance to explain that you don't intend to rape HER.)
P.S. I also posted above, but I was anxious that if I signed a name to it after typing my post I might have to register and lose everything I'd written. DUH.
Wow, you are a goddamn lunatic. Oh and any woman in her right mind upon hearing your views on rape will run for the hills, I guarantee you.
So... good luck on becoming a master "PUA".
Since when is being on the board of directors specifically a "male resource?"
It is the type of position mostly men get when things are left alone, i.e. for reasons of motivation and ability rather than entitlement. Just like sex is naturally, biologically a female resource.
You seem to think men are entitled to good jobs that they can exchange for pussy.
The natural, laissez-faire state of things is not entitlement; affirmative action is.
The appropriate male response to affirmative action for women is not to bother with getting the good jobs that by law we can't outcompete women for anyway and just take the pussy directly by force.
I don't understand how you say women haven't earned the same rights that men have? We're not saying make a law for women so that we earn more money than them by default. What we are asking for, is make it POSSIBLE for us to get:
- an education
- work our way up the corporate ladder with EQUAL opportunity. I shouldn't be rejected from a job because I have a vagina. I should be rejected because I don't have the same qualifcations as the man sitting across from me.
- the right to vote
- the right to own property
These are ALL examples of things that we have finally gotten after years of fighting for the right to have it.
Your point about sex as a resource. Sex shouldn't be bartered for a job. Sex shouldn't ensure that you receive property. That's not what it's for. And while you sit there saying we're victims because women use their 'resource' to get what they want, I wonder what the majority of women who have given a man sex not to be called back in the morning would think of that? Or recieve an STD after going for 'equality'?
I have never seen an argument more flawed in my entire life.
A different situation of choosiness, Sasha: she gets to be choosy when it comes to sex, he gets to be choosy about with whom to continue a relationship. The Western world hasn't so far been able to produce parity of desire, such that "sex for sex" is the experience of the average man and the average woman, apparently. "Rolling back" rights such that women will be dependent on a man and thus more likely to trade sex for resources indirectly is a pipe-dream, because women's empowerment serves the interests of the men and women at the top, and the average woman. So don't worry.
Some of the more aggressively feminist blogs which bill themselves as pro-sex, such as Figleaf's Real Adult Sex argue that rape and harassment act to "poison the well" and move women away from sexual openness, a type of openness to experience that both men and women would enjoy if women didn't fear harm from sexual harassment and rape. Eivind seems to be arguing that such a sexual utopia would be more of the same, with all of that liberated female sexual desire aimed at the same few men as in the previous dystopia.
Sasha, the feminists did not stop at equal rights and equal opportunity. What we increasingly have is forced equality of outcome. You are pretending affirmative action does not exist, but it does at least here in Norway, and that is what I am basing my moral argument on.
Your point about sex as a resource. Sex shouldn't be bartered for a job. Sex shouldn't ensure that you receive property. That's not what it's for.
Why do you think human females evolved hidden ovulation? It is precisely so that sex can be used to barter resources from men at all times, so that is indeed what sex is for most of the time. Otherwise women would only be sexually receptive when they are ovulating. This is so basic I remember it from Biology 101.
Sex as a resource that can be bartered belongs entirely to women. It is an extremely valuable resource they have in addition to everything else, and still they have the nerve to demand not just equal rights but affirmative action, too. Very well, but then men are also justified in demanding forced equality, which means whatever sexual coercion is necessary to achieve this, up to and including rape.
Eurosabra:
A different situation of choosiness, Sasha: she gets to be choosy when it comes to sex, he gets to be choosy about with whom to continue a relationship.
Yes, men are choosy when it comes to long-term relationships, but note that this is not really sexual choosiness at all. We are merely picky about whom to spend our resources on. So, far from being an area where the sexes are similar as is sometimes claimed, LTR choosiness only underscores the worthlessness of male sexuality and the reality of sex being bartered for male resources. Women are less picky when they get more commitment and men are more picky when they have to pay more for the sex. Thus a woman will naturally lower her standards for marriage and a man will raise his. It all makes sense because sex is a female resource and male sexuality is worthless.
"Rolling back" rights such that women will be dependent on a man and thus more likely to trade sex for resources indirectly is a pipe-dream.
We should at least try. I don't think it can happen peacefully, but there is hope in violent activism.
You'll never get laid no matter what you do. It's not your face, lack of status(just assuming here)..it's your personality. Women shun your kind like dogpoo, unless they have a serious mental illness. Girls know how to google too, and your name and picture with this arrogant psychobabble will help them stay away.
Just saying...
I thought of this too, but it is good to see how other men have already followed through on the logical consequences of affirmative action for women once you do away with the feminist hypocrisy and double standards.
However, as an individual, I don't feel this means that I need to go around raping women to rectify the loss to myself due to affirmative action policies. It merely means that I would be morally justified to do so. A right does not imply a responsibility to use that right, no matter what some may say. As I currently am, not raping anyone, I am not in the wrong.
This is not hypocritical as long as I also refrain from condemning rapists. Merely choosing to forgive women for the wrong they have collectively committed against men does not stop other men from taking revenge for it, or women from ceasing to support sexist notions like affirmative action.
Don't change your appearance. You have gorgeous Alex Skarsgaard-esque eyes and the pale skin suits you. You are yummy with or without the glasses. Don't gain any weight either. You are a fox.
~C_S~
I am fully disabused of any notion that women intrinsically admire me as I am and somehow desire sex with me, ========================
False.
and fully aware that forcible sex with me will be a very traumatic experience because I am so undesirable.=====================
False.
Oh and any woman in her right mind upon hearing your views on rape will run for the hills, I guarantee you.=====================
I beg to differ.
Eivind is handsome. In my region, he would definitely get second and third looks from women.....
Yes, he's not a bad looking guy. It's definitely his personality that horrifies women and sends them running.
Men who support rape: your career as a rapist would be short. Most women would support killing or castrating the equal-opportunity rapists.
PUAs are whiny little brats who think they're entitled to whomever and whatever they want. So, you can't get free sex with some little cutie? So what? I can't get many things that I would enjoy - and I'm still a good person leading a worthwhile life. You could do the same if you would stop blaming women for having choices. Get a life - with or without your holy Grail hot pussy. If you weren't self-centered , shallow and obsessed with sex, you might actually connect with a decent woman.
I hear Eivind Berge rapes and molests little girls. I also hear Eivind Berge likes to sodomize little boys, because he needs someone to feel more "masculine" to. Looking at his picture, I can understand why. What an emasculated little candyass, LOL.
Eivind is without a doubt antisocial. Everything he says is a sign of antisocial personality disorder. Everything. And I love how I could tell by his looks, even before I read what he was interested in, that he was a so called "loser". I'm not even saying this to offend him, and of course as a antisocial being, he won't get offended, but it's absolutely true. I could tell by everything he said and his appearance that he doesn't get any women, few at most. Hahaha! I'm sorry. I really can't take him seriously. He is so angry at the world and women. "Women look down upon me! They won't date me! I'll show those whores!" Typical sexual offender. What an unstable and complete nincompoop. He will never get it and he will stay ignorant for ever, but THINK that he is the opposite. That is his doom and that amuse me. Albeit antisocial people are sick, disturbed and extremely dangerous, they fascinate me with their lack of rational thinking and lack of self awareness. Antisocial imbecile. Hahaha!
This is monkeytalk.. What a dimbus! Hahaha
Hmmm. I have two daughters. This is one of the first times i can recall actually considering tracking someone down and punching them in the face. I'll let you know what i decide.
Eivind, please check yourself into the nearest mental health facility. You're obviously a danger to others, more specifically, women like me. There's a reason why rape is classified as a crime, after all. You're nothing more than a mentally disturbed man who's in danger of committing a crime, and as such, you should be locked up and medicated.
Great post moron. I hope you realize that by using your real name and picture, this puts the nail in the coffin of what could have been your sex life.
You ought to think about joining the priesthood. They're a bunch of losers that are scared of women and think rape is just dandy.
Faulty logic at work here.
Rape = Theft. You take something that you have no right to. I don't see how this helps anything related to equality. By this idiot way of thinking, I will support equality among the masses by stealing from my rich neighbour.
You are beneath contempt, and
now you have achieved fame for that fact.
Heylo Blithering idiot.
Your rationale doesn't fly with anybody, for everything you've said.
If you're peeved at being sidelined in this race for apparent equality then there's a classier, more thought out and more sophisticated way of going about with it.
Lots of people get peeved all the time. Don't use your moods as an exclusive justification for your abominable convictions.
You may be coming from wherever, but justifying rape as an equalising measure is wrong. Saying that women command wealth on the virtue of their bodies, and all such tosh, completely out of the window.
You might want to think about growing up as well, while you're at it.
Ok, so men committing rape is ok? I would assume that also applies to gay men? Hopefully some big man will rape you so you can understand the pain and the feeling of violation associated with it. Of course, since rape is ok, you won't mind, will you?
FS, ANONYMUS AND OP
Rape is certainly not equality, its stupid to think that.
Furthermore, I dont know how it is in your countries, but I have never had my: money, status, "power"; taken away by women, but I have seen jobs given to men because they are men, I have seen a feeling of entitlement by bosses over women underlings, I have seen women have to deal with unwanted advances just because saying it would kill their careers.
So yeah, there is a lot of inequality, just not the one you think.
In short: "You keep saying that word, I dont think it means what you think it means".
Kevin, gay men can have sex as easily as women can. They are already equal. So the argument does not apply to them. Sex is a female resource in a heterosexual context, which is the only context I am concerned with, and rape is equality.
So then gay men, by that rationale are inherently superior to women and heterosexual men. Fascinating.
Just an aside, I think to be a successful PUA, you should never mention this opinion in polite conversation with women.
How can you be both a Libertarian and an anti-feminist? Those things are mutually exclusive.
Your view on rape is simply bizarre and reprehensible.
I am positive I and all the women I know get far more sex than you, even with our glasses, pot bellies and quirky outfits. To enforce sexual equality, you're going to have to burst into our houses while we're with sensitive liberal guys (during the foot rub phase) and somehow prevent the sex from happening. Raping us will only increase the inequality.
You are one SERIOUSLY disturbed intellectual. Less time in the books, more time in the real world.
You do every man a disservice by attempting to justify rape as a response to feminist activism. The two are not even remotely connected. You keep saying nobody can refute your logic - you have to have logic before you can make such a statement.
You need help, or you need to put yourself out of your misery and improve the gene pool by doing so. Advocating violence against women is definitely a so-called "hate crime". I've never liked that term, as crime is not too often an act of love, but in this case, your idiocy certainly fits the bill.
The fact you cannot get laid is not the result of some feminist plot, it is natural selection at work. I sincerely hope you attempt to rape the wrong woman and get your nuts handed to you on the end of a pointy-toed shoe.
You are pathetic.
Wow...unbelievably pathetic. You're so insecure about your ability to pick up women -- which probably has more to do with what is no doubt a revolting personality than your lack of physical assets -- that you think you want to be allowed to rape?
Pretty typical libertarian thinking. "If I can get it, I deserve it. If I can't get, I should be allowed to steal it."
What a little punk you are. I'm almost glad you're a real person just because I look better by contrast.
Anyone need more proof that rape is a crime of power, not sex? And Elvind, you really feel powerless don't you? Well, you need to find your own power without harming others. Stealing power is an animal instinct that years of evolution will eventually deactivate in the human species.
Since you think having a vagina and, I suppose, a uterus is such a great resource, tell me why you need them? How many children do you wish to have? That's the only thing you cannot do biologically. Do you want to raise children on your own or do you want someone to cook and clean for you, too?
I hear you mention "attractive women" several times. Maybe you can't get a date because you only see how a woman looks. Or maybe you only consider if she can give you children.
I apologize if you've already covered these topics, I just can't read all of your crap right now.
You are a jerk Elvind. I hope you stop being pissed off and actually read what you are condoning.
You are a complete skeezebag. There is no other way to classify you. You are the worst example of a human being I have seen in awhile. I personally hope that you find yourself in prison for a very long time and repeatedly and perpetually get what's coming to someone with your disgusting views.
This: "Anyone need more proof that rape is a crime of power, not sex?"
Female Lynn win.
"When men understand that social equality means sexual inequality, and that women use force to get their equality, rape is inevitably seen in a new light."
You keep saying that affirmative action "forcibly" takes resources away from men. Please explain. Is there a feminist army with tanks yelling "give us your jobs or else!"? I don't see where the force is here. However, rape is a forcible act, and that is why you can't actually equate these two things.
please kill yourself as soon as possible
I know some really tough military women. As a veteran, I know these woman can deal with just about anything. Part of the team, and just as tough as the men.
I'll send a gang of them over to your place and let them give you a taste of your own equal opportunity.
Oh hell, that's overkill. One of the fine female Soldiers I know would make short work of you.
@cactusren
Please explain. Is there a feminist army with tanks yelling "give us your jobs or else!"?"
Yes, otherwise known as the police. For example, Norwegian companies who don't have at least 40% women in the board of directors are forcibly dissolved. Make no mistake about it, the equality feminists are imposing here in Norway is ultimately backed up with violence and can definitely be equated with sexual coercion.
Wow. Anti-feminist, perhaps. Definitely misogynist.
Consider a demographic, specifically half the population, relegated to non-citizenship, even the status of chattel, for thousands of years.
If women used sex as a tool to power, it is because they had no other social resources on which to rely.
History provides the context for the feminist movement.
Anti-feminism, resistance against women gaining equal rights, stems largely from the desire of the power structure (men) to maintain the status quo. Precisely the same thing happened with civil rights in the US, apartheid in South Africa, etc.
Hypergamous practices run along the same vein. The only way a women could move up in society is by marrying "up." The pressure for a woman to marry "up" has diminished significantly since women have gained other sources of power (money, politics).
Rape? Rape is nothing but an exercise of power. Sometimes against women in general, sometimes against the men associated with the women. It is predation.
I think what we have here is a guy who has trouble doing one or more of the following:
1. Getting laid
2. Getting dates
3. Getting female attention
4. Getting a meaningful relationship with a women
5. Some emotional issues, probably to do with his mother.
6. Could just be a psychopath.
"Make no mistake about it, the equality feminists are imposing here in Norway is ultimately backed up with violence and can definitely be equated with sexual coercion."
So how many people have been hurt in these forcible dissolutions of companies? I'm not arguing for this particular law, btw--I'm just saying that I doubt it has caused anyone to be physically injured, and even if it had, the solution is not to go out and rape someone. The solution, if you don't like a law, is to rally against it and protest it.
Again, AA, while it is backed by law, isn't about physically harming anyone. Laws, in and of themselves, do not physically harm people. Rape does. Therefore, you cannot equate the two.
The natural, laissez-faire state of things
Judging by your picture, you would have a difficult time viewing the very computer screen you are writing your misogynistic screed on...if things were left to their natural state.
Please don't practice what you preach.
@cactusren
I'm just saying that I doubt it has caused anyone to be physically injured.
By your logic, there is no problem if women are threatened with violence unless they have sex, either, as long as they comply and there is no injury.
People call me a rape apologist, but I don't agree with this, and neither do I consider AA innocent as long as there is compliance without injury.
Compliance is all a rapist wants, just like the AA law. Sex will not hurt either if the woman cooperates, but if she only does so to avoid serious harm, then you are the first person I have seen imply this is OK.
By the way, I'm a guy, and I have never had a problem getting sex from women pretty much whenever I want it. You know how I do it? I am respectful, genuine, and confident. I'm not a pick-up artist or anything like that.
It sounds to me like you are just an impotent, inadequate moron.
You are what is wrong with society. I hope you will one day realise what an insensitive prick you are.
Hello, Sir,
If I am gay, does that mean I can rape you? I would like to know your address, please. You have a resource that you are witholding and, using your brilliant logic, I would like to see that resource "liberated." Thank you!
So absurd!
I so wish affirmative action did say it was okay for women to take money from men by force. The world would be much more interesting.
Do lesbians doubly 'steal' from men or would people agree that we don't get to be raped since we don't use sex as a commodity with men?
Should gay men just rape any straight man they fancy too? With the comparatively small number of gays, they lose a lot more than straight men in this economy.
And what do you think pity sex is for?
And what about the 40% of women who go through life without knowing what an orgasm feels like? How do they fit in this view of the world?
"Involuntary celibacy is living death for a man."
Speak for yourself, I've spent a year or so before now without sex, I simply went and did something else and whacked off once in a while if I needed to. I certainly didn't wind myself up into some hysterical tizzy about it and start trying to justify rape to myself.
Fucksake man get a hobby. NOT anti-feminism, a proper hobby like photography. No wait NOT photography, christ knows what you'd do with that, erm... how about tennis. Good, healthy game, gets you outside and talking to people rather than wanking and crying all day in your room.
Incidentally, affirmative action is the result of attempts to reverse centuries of organised patriarchy, it seems unfair only if you take it entirely out of context.
If it's never crossed your mind that old rich white men might prefer to employ other old rich white men regardless of actual skill, perhaps you should take a closer look at the so-called "captains of industry" and what they actually get up to on a day to day basis to deserve their huge pay packets - last I checked they were doing their best to destroy Europe through unfettered speculation and money-grubbing.
An antisocial libertarian who thinks rape is good?
Gosh, can't imagine why you have trouble with women...
First of all, Libertarians believe in personal liberty - I would imagine that would include the liberty to decide who to have sex with and under what conditions.
Secondly - you state that a man has nothing and is nothing without sex. I would maintain that, as with most things, one needs to find the purpose in life within one's self. I know a lot of older men who may not be dipping their wicks as often as they used to - some may not be doing it at all - but they manage to eke out respectable existences without attacking me when I walk in their offices.
Thirdly - don't try this in Texas. We have concealed carry. I have a handgun and I'll blow your balls off.
Have a nice day.
You're thinking of chimps you asshole. Wrong species.
You're a libertarian who thinks giving money to your spouse is the same as forcible rape. Hypocrisy is why libertarians are so easy to hate.
you said, "I do believe involuntary celibacy is indeed every bit as bad as rape in terms of psychological suffering" (except you have a CHOICE to jack off, whereas a rape victim by definition had 'choice' taken away)
So you're saying when you go to prison you'll spread your cheeks and be patiently raped just because it's no better than solitary confinement right??? You wouldn't want to be a hypocrite.
You view women as walking sex organs because that's all they've ever meant to you. That's your pathetic problem, not ours. Luckily, most men don't have your mental defect. Rape is NOT an "inconvenience" because it forces women to accept "less desirable genes". Because that would mean that YOU shouldn't object to being sodomized yourself, since you're a man and can't get pregnant. You're also saying your grandmother wouldn't mind rape, since she's gone through menopause. Little children must make good rape victims in your view too, since they're too young to get pregnant. Rape is about control and humiliation, NOT reproduction...and until you've been raped you should really stop pretending to know the psychological consequences of sexual assault.
It seems you just hate that women are the same species as you. You want us to be slaves so you won't have to deal with us as equals. You can't handle seeing a woman who is better than you. You see women as objects you can't have, and your dumb ass can't *imagine* that women ever feel lust for someone that doesn't want them back. You don't want to imagine that men and women in many ways want the same things. So go gay and see if anyone misses you.
BTW the more money women make, the less we care about a man's income. I make enough money to be very comfortable, so I can focus on a man's personality and kindness, and emotional compatibility. Money is what women look for when they have no other means to support themselves, so WHY wouldn't you support women getting equal pay? Equal pay means women can see you as something other than a paycheck.
Just because YOU can't get laid doesn't mean rape is the answer. Instead of getting a tan, maybe get a new personality. Maybe act like a fucking gentleman who can hold an intelligent conversation with a woman without jizzing his pants. You can't figure out why women are disgusted by you, so you think the only way to get sex is through rape. You've gone so long without sex that you think your body is worthless but you're wrong. It's your personality that's worthless. You're like a KKK member bitching that black people suck because they don't like you. I wonder why.
I married a guy who made less money than me, and I love him because he's smart, handsome, kind, funny, loyal, he views me as an equal partner, and he has a great body. His material wealth had literally no influence because I make enough money to support us both. So fuck your "Women are not attracted to lesser or equal men".
I hope you do have a wife and daughter in the future, just so one day you'll re-read your pro-rape blog and shoot yourself.
I hope you get a long prison term before you rape your second victim (if you haven't already).
Has anybody brought up the glaringly obvious reason behind all this, yet?...
(ahem),Micro Penis.
I suppose the one obvious thing that PUAs and rapists have in common is an utter disrespect for women.
Rape is an aggressive act of dominion or assertion of power. In your model, which I think is flawed, it would be the equivalent of theft.
However, theft implies forcibly taking possessions. We can recover if our possessions are lost. Your logic is flawed in that possessions, while important and valuable, are not intrinsic to the being of a person.
A man can still be a whole man, carry self-respect and dignity, even if he is economically poor or has lost his "stuff."
Rape can leave a woman psychologically scarred for life.
She can't simply work harder to try again and acquire a new body or psyche.
So because you missed out on admission to a grad program, or a scholarship, you find it justifiable to take out your anger on ... half the human population?
Would you also direct your anger towards racial minorities? What would that entail? Murder? or do you plan to rape black or native or asian or martian or what-have-you males as well?
You have done nothing short of declare war on women.
Good luck getting laid. You'll need LOTS of it.
I love how the comment section has EXPLODED since PZ posted the link.....and the micro-dick still hasn't posted a response.
I think he's scared. And he bloody well should be.
Eivind....ever thought of what a prospective employer might think of your blog? Your identity is freely available to anyone who can google. You've not only ensured you'll never ever get laid again, you can probably kiss meaningful employment goodbye. Are you going to blame feminists for your lack of a good job?
PS I'm female, pretty, a successful physician (no doubt because of affirmative action by feminists, not because I worked hard and studied), in a great relationship with a man with more money than me (therefore by your logic I'm stealing from him) and guess what... I've had an abortion. I'm everything you must hate. Why don't you come and rape me - see how far you get, you little pissant.
@Affirmative-action physician
I have in fact posted several brief replies today and I stand by my argument, but I have been too busy to argue at length. Also, I have already replied to most of the objections further up in the thread.
To reiterate: this is basically a reductio-ad-absurdum argument against affirmative action and feminism. I certainly mean it seriously, but one would hope that women would give up feminism rather than face a significant number of disenfranchised men with the mindset that rape is morally justifiable under feminism.
Have you been raped?
Maybe some guy will be "kind" enough to let you experience it one day.
The "don't knock it 'til you've tried it" also has the reciprocal "don't praise it 'til you've lived it".
in a great relationship with a man with more money than me (therefore by your logic I'm stealing from him)
No, that you are stealing from him doesn't follow from my logic at all. He is paying for sex and presumably getting it. You are a good example of the female hypergamy that forms the basis of my argument: no matter how successful women get, they won't be satisfied with a man with less money or status than themselves. When women attain more wealth through affirmative action, there will be more male sexual losers, justifying affirmative-action sexual coercion.
"one would hope that women would give up feminism rather than face a significant number of disenfranchised men with the mindset that rape is morally justifiable under feminism. "
ROFL. You are one ludicrous, angry little monkey! "Give up feminism or I'll try to get loads of other angry little monkeys to rape you". lol. No way, man! Thanks to feminism, if you were to try it you would go to jail (for a bit of the same treatment, one would hope.) Why would we give it up now, when it's working so well?
BTW, you might try sending your rape fantasies to Nancy Friday rather than posting all about them on your blog. Surely this is not an appropriate forum for such topics.
What a douche you are. Get a grip and grow a pair. And perhaps take up something other than Latin studies... Seems to be turning your brain to mush.
"but one would hope that women would give up feminism rather than face a significant number of disenfranchised men with the mindset that rape is morally justifiable under feminism."
is that a threat?
Give up feminism, or face the reality of rape? Because people who advocate for gender equality would deserve this? Or because in your failed logic, you see possessions and sex as the only possible manifestations of a person's self-worth.
Wow. you are a nut case.
oh yes. Please do visit Texas.
As far as your logic goes, a sock and a little vaseline might inspire you to draw some alternative conclusions.
Additionally, I think you should "walk a mile in a woman's shoes" before advocating such violence. Bend over, buddy. Only then would you be even remotely qualified to make such horrid comparisons.
Do you actually know any women? Have you ever taken the time to talk to one and learn what we want. Not every one wants the same thing and I am sure there are some girls out there that are looking for money but in all my years I have never actually met a woman who married for money. I am sure they are out there but most of us go for love and companionship as our first traits in a mate. We want understanding, compassion and some awesome sex thrown in.
A man has less testosterone in his 50s than a woman so I am thinking you need to grow up a bit and stop thinking with your dick. Why not jack off. It seems you are more upset about the lack of a woman wanting to give it to you but with this tripe you are selling it isn't hard to figure out why you aren't getting laid. Go pay someone if you are that hard up. Or you might try becoming less angry (anger and self pity are NOT attractive qualities in anyone), learning about women and viewing us as actual people and not just someone to fuck and I bet your chances will improve a whole lot. As for now, I can honestly say the gene pool will not miss you.
I have a wonderful husband who put a post up here before I even saw this drivel. I had way more money than he did when we married. He didn't have a job when we got together but he had something that you are missing, a personality that someone actually wants to be around and get to know.
Surely this is not an appropriate forum for such topics.
Excuse me, but I decide which topics are appropriate on my own blog.
"...involuntary celibacy is indeed every bit as bad as rape in terms of psychological suffering..."
By "celibacy", you mean "no access to another person's orifices"? Why do you need another person's orifices in order to get release? If it's the lack of human contact during the sex act that makes involuntary celibacy psychological torture, then how is rape a substitute for consensual sex? Rape requires objectifying and dehumanizing the receptacle, so you're right back where you started. You might as well be fucking your pillow, or a jar of jam.
Your lack of self-worth is leading your to a sociopathic behavior.
I think what we have here is a guy who has trouble doing one or more of the following:
1. Getting laid
2. Getting dates
3. Getting female attention
4. Getting a meaningful relationship with a women
5. Some emotional issues, probably to do with his mother.
6. Could just be a psychopath.
Physical coercion leads to enchanced cortisol levels, which leads to cognitive problems. Go learn how to use google and understand the psychological and biological effects of any type of physical coercion.
Plus, all the evidences points out that, in that sociopathic theoretical society that you describe, psychopathological problems would arise. Plus, you wouldn't get any pussy at all, looking all miserable and frustrated with women.
Seriously, why the fuck would you be attracted to women who are attracted to men with economical power? Seriously, there are tons of women out there that have different patterns of attraction models, who look out for great human beings with empathy. That is what I have looked out for and that what I have found. Seriously, you are terribly fucked up socially or you are just a psychopath rationalizing your lack of empathy with pseudo evolutionary analysis of human sexuality. I'm a man and I would fucking kill you if I had the chance. You are just waste of atoms in this planet. I can stand a non-rationalizing non-pseudo-libertarian rapist, but I can't stand you, a rationalizing pseudo-libertarian wannabe rapist. At least the rapist is not conscious about the description of the fucked up social behavior that is going on in his own mind, ergo, at least curable. You are a lost case. Probably raped when you are a kid, or victim of some kind of neurological disaster that resulted in psychopathy. Or just a good troll.
Buy a few sessions with a prostitute and get it out of your system already.
Some above said that he displays all the hallmarks of Antisocial Personality Disorder. Though it appears that no amount of displayed disgust will elicit any emotion in him, which does lend to this theory, he does not display the four hallmarks of the disorder:
1. egocentrism
2. lack of conscious
3. impulsive behavior
4. superficial charm
Mr. Berge just seems to be morally bankrupt and socially awkward. His self-loathing and inability to successfully attract women are not in line with 1 and 4.
There's not enough information to determine 3, and wile comments in this blog seem to fit nicely with 2, including the poise he displays when being confronted about his views, it's not enough to determine Antisocial Personality Disorder.
However, I do agree that he appears to be suffering from a severe psychological disorder, and I believe that expressing opinions regarding his abhorrent view on rape is for your own release, not because it may spark any shred of self-awareness in him.
If you get off on rape, hun, you really need to see a shrink. Rape is not about sex by any means. Any person with a normal sexuality (including alternative lifestyles) is turned off by real rape, and if you think that's going to help you get your rocks off you seriously need a reality check.
...If that is what you get off on, please find your way to the nearest planned parenthood and request a shot of depo. Do something good for your fellow men and stop them from being characterized as evil and creepy because you thought that rape was a good idea.
Your ideas of women 'having sex' are exclusionist and deluded. You think women don't like sex? Maybe they just don't like it with you. Possibly because you're a tad bit egocentric and a little bit too individualistic (but hey, you are a libertarian). I can't imagine how boring it must've been for all the poor souls you have had sex with.
Women are not naturally hypergamous, nor are they exclusive. These are all societal constructs, which you are amusingly contributing too. Imagine the crap a woman gets for being un-exclusive in her relationships. I'm sure you would call such a woman a 'slut' for not sharing her 'sex' with one man.
And I'm sure you've also conveniently forgotten the repulsion many men have to being with a woman who is more financially well off than them. This idea of men 'bringing home the bacon' was only furthered by you in this post. If you want women to stop being hypergamous, start saying that it's ok for them to get with dudes who make less than them, and start talking about how there is no shame in a woman making more money than her husband.
On the subject of affirmative action, do you even understand the marginalization women suffer from the start? Studies have shown that girls do better in all girls schools. Why? Because most teachers encourage male students to participate in class more. Subtle incidences like these have massive effects on the final outcome of a student's education. Did you know that standardized tested is biased towards white males? They do better because the tests are written by white males for white males.
Or did you know that when people used to try out for orchestras women were selected very rarely, but when they put up a screen in front of the musician so that they judges could only hear them play selection became about equal? Do you think that's wrong?
Since we can't put up a screen for everything, we have AA. Affirmative action exists as a sort of push toward equality because of the inequality woman and non-whites are forced into from birth. Without societal influence and harmful social constructs, on average all human beings (women, men, whites, blacks etc.) perform and achieve at the same level, and affirmative action is just like reparations for the harm done to those who are not white males while they were growing up.
Of course, I'm sure you will be incapable of understanding this, with all the privilege clouding your brain.
Congratulations. You are the lowest form of life extant on planet Earth as of May, 25, 2010.
When men have something women have less of, such as money or power, women simply take it by force.
Weird, if this had ever happened I should have heard about it. After all, 89% of all police are male and 65% of all press are male; any abuse like that would have been quickly caught and published far and wide!
What women have that men don't is of course sex.
You do realize that you need both sexes to have sex, right, which kind of implies that both are having sex in equal proportions? Wait, nevermind; I suppose women could be having mass lesbian orgies, just so they could have more sex than men. My mistake!
Women are generally incapable of feeling attraction for men who are not better than they are, and soon men are no better than equal.
Wait, I thought you wanted equality between men and women? I'm confused...
So it is about time men in feminist countries such as Norway stop thinking of rape as wrong.
I'll stop thinking of rape as wrong when you can give me a good reason to abuse and violate someone smaller than me. Deal?
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.
I hope not! The point of affirmative action is to reach equality, not punish men. Or do you think businesses that are fined for refusing to pay equally for equal work are male-gendered?
Question for you, Mr. Berge. Rape's okay, right? Justified by the fact that government institutions are required to accept equal numbers of qualified male and female applicants?
So, if someone raped your mother, drugged her or tied her down or threatened her life and raped her savagely, you would honestly stand up at their trial and say, "Hey, it's okay, she might have gotten a job that would have otherwise benefited a man!"
How about the unlikely scenario that a woman willingly bears you a child and it's a little girl. You rock her to sleep and cry on her first day of kindergarten. You take her to all of her volleyball games and you cheer louder than anyone when she graduates with her whole life and a good college ahead of her. First week of school, a couple of drunken fratboys trap her in her dorm room and gangrape her.
It's cool though, right? Because the school might have let her in instead of some other equally qualified male.
How about your grandmother? Assuming you still have one... people are pretty helpless in nursing homes, or even if they live independently if they are old. And old women do get raped sometimes, and their bones, riddled with osteoporosis, break with the abuse. So your dear grandmother, it's okay for her to be raped right?
Right?
You're sick. And if you say no to any of these scenarios, you're also a hypocrite. Congratulations.
The only good thing about you espousing such patently retarded ideas as the above is the fact that this will just help insure that you will die alone, unloved and unmourned on the day that you finally get tired of your futile quest for "love" and inject 230 gr. of lead into your cranium at 250 m/s.
why bother being a PUA if you advocate rape? Seems contradictory, or at best a chicken-shit way of getting what you want after you talk a big game about how rape is justified. Either way, grow up, but first get some psychiatric help. Sorry your mom ignored you and women have rejected you all these years. I also think most PUA's would want nothing to do with you and your deranged philosophy.
It strikes me that hypergamy can only occur in societies where there is a pronounced social inequality between sexes in the first place. 'Marrying up' is presumably an attempt to address that imbalance for some reason, possibly for the sake of children. Wouldn't this imply that as the sexes become more equal in terms of status, money, power etc, the difference between the desirability of rich and poor men will decrease?
If that's the case, then your thesis is deeply flawed from the outset. In addition, it seems to depend on the assumption that women are generally - and by nature - hypergamous. You don't present any evidence for this assertion.
As for the proposed equality between affirmative action and rape, the problems with your reasoning have already been pointed out. First, in purely economic terms, rape is like theft. It is similar to advocating stealing another person's money because they have more of it than you. The fact that some people have more money than you have is not necessarily unfair so unless you are robin hood, when you steal from a person, you are probably not addressing a social injustice so much as satisfying your own envy and laziness. How much do you steal? How do you work it out? Do you calculate the social injustice that has been done to you and then only steal that much? The same is true of rape as a means to address perceived social injustics. How often do you rape someone? Is your calculation of social injustice based on the amount of sex you personally think you deserve?
Second - and it is bewildering that you don't seem to care about this point - rape and sex might seem roughly equivalent to the rapist, but certainly not to the victim. The point that rape is a violent and traumatic event which causes lasting injuries really should figure in this equation. From a purely economic viewpoint, I understand what you're saying, but there really is no such standpoint in the real world. Moving from the theory that sex can be seen as a marketplace to the idea that rape is a legitimate transaction within that marketplace is a pretty big leap, but to then advocate the rape of real women in the real world as a means to address perceived social injustice (i.e. you personally aren't getting any) is an extraordinary leap. It is necessary to consider the harm done to the victims because rape is by definition an unequal transaction.
Third, the economics of this don't really work. If rape is to be a legitimate transaction, then the supply is limited only by opportunity. This means that men will seek to limit access to women even more than they currently do. Rich and powerful men will corral women into harems. Indeed, this has happened many times in societies where women are treated as property. This only limits the opportunity for sex - either by rape or legitimate means - for poor men.
I can think of a few other objections to your logic but I won't go further. You need to think through your thesis a bit more carefully and most of all you need to stop acting like a prick: you are treating the brutalisation and harm of real women as though it were nothing more than a regrettable consequence of a perceived social injustice. Perhaps your lack of success with women is due to your apparent inability to empathise with them. Perhaps it's because you're a creepy bastard, who knows?
for those insisting that "rape is equality" because sex i a commodity like wealth: rape is not about sex. rape is about power and control and dominance.
is sex a commodity? absolutely; its used to sell nearly everything, and those perceived to be more sexually attractive have a measurable advantage over those who are not (ie. if two equally qualified women apply for the same job, a ridiculously large percentage of employers, male and female, will hire the more attractive candidate).
That said; RAPE IS NOT ABOUT SEX. RAPE IS ABOUT POWER AND ABUSE AND CONTROL.
Wow. At first I was all ragey when I read the initial post, but after reading all the comments, I'm just laughing at your stupidity.
I'm a celibate heterosexual female misandrist. I don't even try to interact with straight men anymore unless it's absolutely necessary. Believe me, you'll have a lot less turmoil in your life (and do a hell of a lot less damage) if you completely cut off all contact with women.
You'd definitely be doing the world a favor. And if your erect penis gets in the way, meh, chop it off. It's a useless bit of flesh anyway and it won't be missed.
"RAPE IS NOT ABOUT SEX. RAPE IS ABOUT POWER AND ABUSE AND CONTROL."
This is a feminist lie. It is the most offensive and hateful of all feminist lies, a rhetorical castration of rapists, and that is why it is constantly repeated in feminist propaganda. It is also so ridiculous that you have to be an idiot to believe it. As if a man stops feeling sexual desire the moment a woman says no and starts being motivated by power instead. As if I am not horny because the only way I can get sex at the moment would be rape...
Rape is no more about power than robbing banks is about guns or prostitution is motivated by a desire to give money to women. The violence of rape is merely instrumental to obtaining sex and rapists usually avoid gratuitous violence.
Have you considered suicide? You have the right to die you know, and the world would be better for it.
here's a reductio for you:
1) You (hypothetically of course) get horribly raped
2) That's morally justified
3) Enjoy!
"and I do believe involuntary celibacy is indeed every bit as bad as rape in terms of psychological suffering."
You need to do some research because this statement is incredibly flawed. It actually pains me to read such ignorance. Especially since you have SOME valid arguments in what you state. You should avoid making ridiculous statements such as these to retain credibility for useful, non-ignorant statements your making.
"This is a feminist lie."
Sigh - it's always the same with these nutjobs: any statement they don't agree with is automatically a deliberate lie.
Here's why rape is about power rather than about sex: there are other ways of getting sex.
Nobody ever needs to rape anyone in order to get sex, not least because there are such things as prostitutes. Therefore, when someone chooses to rape someone, it is not motivated (at the very least, not purely motivated) by the desire to have sex. It is motivated by the desire to violate someone. The desire to violate someone is a desire to gain some kind of control over them.
This is somewhat different to robbing banks because it is easy (although incorrect) for bank robbers to consider their crime victimless. No single person is greatly hurt as a direct consequence of the theft itself (although people might hurt or killed in its execution).
Therefore, the intention is to gain money, not to deprive someone else of money. For this reason, rape is more like robbing a neighbour because you don't like him rather than because you want more money.
Only a hideous douche bag such as yourself would post an article on this.
Rape has been going on for centuries yet you think its the only way to change things now? How amusingly naeive.
I should also point out, little boy, that you are more than capable of being raped yourself.
Since it's clearly men in most societys that hold the power, by your logic, we should be raping people like you. However my deep distate for your existence puts me off even that.
I detest the weak, mewling that their plate is not golden enough.
@latsot
The lie that rape is not about sex has been thoroughly debunked By Thornhill and Palmer in A Natural History of Rape. They spend two chapters (pp. 105-152) on showing how ludicrous feminist theory on rape is. You have been well brainwashed by the feminists with this lie, and the funny thing is that it actually leads to more rape, you fucking moron! After all, a man who believes the lie must think it can't possibly be rape as long as he is motivated by sex while forcing himself on a woman. I could certainly never be a rapist by that definition, since I am fully cognizant of what motivates me and it ain't the desire to violate. Since rapists are some mythical asexual creatures who just want to abuse and humiliate women, women got nothing to worry about then from me or hardly any man. The lie makes it harder for women to know which men are dangerous, but I guess it is more important for feminists to insult male sexuality than to prevent rape.
"After all, a man who believes the lie must think it can't possibly be rape as long as he is motivated by sex while forcing himself on a woman."
That is a retarded argument. The issue isn't a semantic one of how we define rape. I doubt many women would contemplate the semantics of the word "rape" when someone is violently forcing himself on her.
Whatever a rapist's motivations, he presumably knows that the victim doesn't want to be raped (except in cases of severe psychosis, when the rapist might not realise it). This should be all you need to know in order to refrain from raping people.
Most men realise this. It isn't a feminist lie, it is ordinary human empathy: something you seem to lack. Most people also know that such word games do not constitute justification for violence against another person. Most people don't *need* some pathetic attempt at justification because they know that raping - or otherwise directing violence against people - is wrong.
My argument was that since sex can be obtained in ways other than rape, a rapist - regardless of how much he desires sex - is plainly seeking more than sex from the rape. There is no need to subject another person to such brutality in order to get your end away. For one thing, you can always pay for sex. Therefore, the motivations for raping someone cannot be purely sexual. What properties does rape have that consensual sex does not? Simply consent. Therefore, rape implies a desire to rob someone of their choice of consent. A violation, in other words.
You have yet to demonstrate that this reasoning is moronic. You didn't address it at all.
What properties does rape have that consensual sex does not?
You still don't get it. Typical rapists have no desire to rape the woman in question. They just want to have sex with her and that is all. It would be perverse and absurd to prefer an unwilling woman as opposed to the same woman consensually, and apparently you are so brainwashed that this is what you actually think. And in order to isolate the difference between rape and consensual sex, we really do have to compare it for the same woman.
Now even if a man can have some women, there may be more desirable women he can only conquer by force, and it would still be motivated by sex. Also rape could be opportunistic; he could encounter a very vulnerable woman and be tempted to force her although he has options elsewhere.
As to prostitutes, they are generally less desirable than other women because men prefer sexual exclusivity. And another thing: I don't want to use a condom, and it is hard to find a prostitute who will let me fuck her without. Prostitutes also cost money while rape is potentially free.
Some quotes from Thornhill and Palmer: "If the same 'logic' that that has been used in the social science explanation of rape were to be applied to prostitution, people would be asserting that going to a prostitute is an 'act of altruism, not sex,' or at least that it is 'an act of both altruism and sex" (p. 132).
As to your example with wanting to hurt your neighbor or other use of rape as a weapon, the flaw is that the use of rape as punishment "does not prove that sexual feelings are not also involved, any more than the deprivation of property as punishment proves that the property is not valuable to the punisher" (p. 135).
The correlation between peak fertile age and risk of rape is also powerful evidence that rape is about sex.
Furthermore, rapists rarely use gratuitous violence. I would have no interest in using excessive force and injure the woman unduly, just the force needed to complete the rape. "[A] survey of volunteers at rape crisis centers found that only 15 percent of victims they encountered reported having been beaten in excess of what was needed to accomplish the rape…. And generally, there is no injury at all. If violence is what the rapist is after, he’s not very good at it. Certainly he has the victim in a position from which he could do all kinds of physical damage." (pp. 136-137)
And so on up to the flawed metaphysical assumptions of feminists. "Aside from its empirical and logical flaws, the social science theory of rape hinges on two metaphysical assertions that remove it from the realm of science: the causality of the cultural spirit and the dichotomy of mind and body…. The claim that sexual arousal, interest, and/or motivation is absent during sexual acts implies an extreme form of the classic dualistic assumption that human brains (or minds) are separate entities from bodies — a notion long ago tossed on the intellectual trash heap…. [T]he alleged lack of sexual motivation in the brain during sexual acts must refer to the state of an unidentifiable human mind distinct from the brain." (pp. 146-147)
Please read the book and see if you still believe the feminist propaganda about the motivation of rape.
Ha. You poor thing. It must be miserable to live in so much fear. Women are the big boogie man in disguise. Don't give us too much power, we might actually prove to be better than you! Which, from what I've read, wouldn't be difficult at all.
"Man"? I see no man here, boy.
is it okay if i rape you? please say no, i promise you'll have plenty of scars to prove your encounter with me.
@LT
Nazi rape squads and, similarly, President Mugabe's rape squads in Africa; are those about sex?
See my last comment. Yes, they are very much about sex, but I admit rape may also at the same time serve as a weapon. Generally the prevalence of rape during war is probably accounted for by the increased vulnerability of women in war situations and the fact that punishment is unlikely. And yes, there might sometimes be outright use of rape as a weapon, but the soldiers themselves probably see it mostly as a sexual opportunity.
And there's the similar situation in the Congo. Do you condone that?
Probably not, but I also very much oppose treating rape as a war crime.
Or kidnap and hold for ransom victims, threatening to rape victims in order to get more money, then doing so when they don't. Is that about sex?
I am sure the rapists still enjoy it sexually, though they may be more interested in money in that case if this is true. Your examples are far from typical.
What about the 12-year-old girl who was raped and murdered in Pakistan because she was a Christian? Do you think that was about sex?
Not just about sex, but again, the men also enjoyed some free sex. And no, I don't condone this. In fact, I condemn it.
And on the matter of women deserving rape, what do you think of the victims of rape who are punished for some aspect of the rape afterward?
I condemn this as well and have never suggested anything of the kind. Punishing actual rape victims is utterly foreign to the entire Western way of thinking, including mine.
From where have you gotten the impression that female genital mutilation is employed by women to increase the cost of sex? I would like to see some legitimate sources.
Baumeister, R.F., & Twenge, J.M. (2002). "Cultural suppression of female sexuality." Review of General Psychology, 6, 166-203. Find it here: http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/pdfmail.php
"When men have something women have less of, such as money or power, women simply take it by force" - when was the last time a woman took something off you BY FORCE? Do you realize that if you GIVE willingly your money/whatever to a woman, that is your own decision, no force involved, and rape is actually assault? You're telling me you don't make the difference between those situations?
Did you ever measure your IQ?
Following your logic, if A (a woman) "takes by force" something off B (a man), you or another one are entitled to rape C (another woman). But what if that "other one" is a big black gay guy? Is he entitled to rape men? Even your sorry ass maybe?
This is where imbecile "reasoning" takes you. Study logic, study math, do IQ tests.
Wow, you must have had some terrible experiences with women. My husband and I consider ourselves equals. We have sex on a regular basis, even when I'm "not in the mood", because I love him, and it always makes us both happy in the end. We have different strengths and weaknesses, and we acknowledge them, and work to make our partnership stronger. I guess I just think it's fair to give people what they earn. Equal rights means, to me, that people should get equal compensation for equal work.
thinking rape is justified...well, it makes me sick. Women are as diverse as men. There are bad ones, and there are good ones. No one deserves to be physically attacked and used though, except maybe rapists, pedophiles and murderers. I emotionally want to hurt them, but logically I know that will not help in the long run, and just wish there was some way to fix them.
I'm sorry you're so full of anger that you can't see the good in all people.
Aaragn Theglin, you have completely misunderstood my argument. "By force" here means by affirmative action, which is backed by the violence of the police. The message feminists send by enacting affirmative action is that violence is a legitimate means to achieve equality between the sexes.
In those articles you cite incecently Sex is used as a resource to get mates.
So the exchange is:
Men get sex
Women get a relationship
This is the trade and has nothing to do with feminism. And of course women prefer good-looking, wealthy, confident and intelligent men. But you won't try to say that men are not chosing which women they want and which not?
“You still don't get it. Typical rapists have no desire to rape the woman in question. They just want to have sex with her and that is all. “
How do you know this?
“It would be perverse and absurd to prefer an unwilling woman as opposed to the same woman consensually”
Almost right. It is perverse and absurd to prefer an unwilling woman *at all* especially since, as I’ve pointed out, sex really isn’t all that difficult to get regardless of your social and economic status. Rape is *entirely about* preferring an unwilling woman as evidenced by the fact that there are willing women. What part of this do you find difficult to understand?
“And in order to isolate the difference between rape and consensual sex, we really do have to compare it for the same woman.”
Why? It really is very simple: in one case, the woman has consented to sex. In the other case, she has not. It does not depend on which particular woman we are talking about, it depends only on whether she gives consent.
“Now even if a man can have some women, there may be more desirable women he can only conquer by force, and it would still be motivated by sex. Also rape could be opportunistic; he could encounter a very vulnerable woman and be tempted to force her although he has options elsewhere.”
No, this dog won’t hunt. It would not be motivated by sex, it would be motivated in part to have sex with a particular woman. This is not a semantic distinction: you might argue that the very fact that this woman does not wish to have sex with that man would necessitate rape if the only possible outcome were sex. But it isn’t. Another outcome is that the man doesn’t get to have sex with her and that he has to live with wanting something he can’t have. Boo fucking hoo. The motivation in this case is not to *have* sex, but to *take* it.
“As to prostitutes, they are generally less desirable than other women because men prefer sexual exclusivity.”
Not at all universally true and certainly not true of people who have sex with prostitutes, obviously. And not true of rapists, equally obviously, which brings all kinds of fail to your argument.
“The correlation between peak fertile age and risk of rape is also powerful evidence that rape is about sex.”
Not in the slightest. Correlation doesn’t equal causation after all and there could be many explanations for such a correlation, assuming one even exists outside your assertion.
For example, a large proportion of rapes are date rapes. Wouldn’t that skew the age results since most dates are presumably between relatively young people? Also, there are plenty of rapes of old and young people.
If that correlation is evidence then you haven’t demonstrated why and it is at best noisy, noisy data.
“Furthermore, rapists rarely use gratuitous violence.”
Forcing someone to have sex is not gratuitously violent? It is. The victims don’t want to have sex. To have sex with someone who doesn’t want it is an act of violence. It isn’t necessary by any means, so it is gratuitous by definition.
“I would have no interest in using excessive force and injure the woman unduly, just the force needed to complete the rape. "[A] survey of volunteers at rape crisis centers found that only 15 percent of victims they encountered reported having been beaten in excess of what was needed to accomplish the rape…. And generally, there is no injury at all. If violence is what the rapist is after, he’s not very good at it. Certainly he has the victim in a position from which he could do all kinds of physical damage." (pp. 136-137)”
Right. I see now that you are wanking furiously because people are talking to you as a result of your retarded post. I’m sorry to have ever encountered you. Injuring women ‘duly’ in your appreciation is ok, but ‘unduly’ is somehow not. Thank goodness we have you to decide what is due and undue on your own fucking capricious whim.
Violence doesn’t have to be counted in bruises, you know.
And on a side note, even if you don't beat a woman during rape, you stand a very good chance of damaging her internally, as she is not prepared (I mean she's dry). This rips up the vaginal wall. Just so you know.
I hope you got what you wanted. Lots of comments. Skimming through the comments, I can see you apparently have issues with women and hence the PUA whatever-ness. Maybe it all makes sense now. If you dont get a woman to be interested in you, rape her.
Despicable logic, but then again, I bet you were expecting such arguments and are just going to let these roll off of your back. I wish I didn't know this particular argument of yours ever existed.
"How do you know this?"
I already cited a book full of the evidence and summarized a fair bit of it for you. Apparently you are too dense to understand.
Even the evidence of the poster boy Groth himself for the feminist propaganda that rape is not about sex shows in fact the opposite (and I quote from A Natural History of Rape, p. 135): "Numerous studies have found that rapists often cite sexual desire as a cause for their actions. For example, Smithyman reports that 84 percent of rapists surveyed cited sexual motivation 'solely or in part' as a cause of their acts. Indeed, even the quotations Groth selected in an attempt to demonstrate the insignificance of sexual motivation includes such statements as 'She stood there in her nightgown, and you could see right through it--you could see her nipples and breasts, and you know, they were just waiting for me, and it was juset too much of a temptation to pass up' and 'I just wanted to have sex with her and that was all.' Indeed, Groth points out that the most common type of rapist--what Groth calls the 'power rapist'--may report that his behavior was prompted by a desire for sexual graification."
But I guess you just want to believe the feminist propaganda which is based solely on hateful ideology, you feminist lowlife scum. You are either a feminist or an idiot.
Rape is *entirely about* preferring an unwilling woman as evidenced by the fact that there are willing women. What part of this do you find difficult to understand?
Women are not interchangeable. They differ in desirability. Are you really so stupid that you don't understand it might be possible to prefer to rape an attractive woman over consensual sex with a less desirable woman without having any desire to force a woman for as an end in itself? Just like it might be possible to choose to pay for an extremely attractive woman over free sex with an ugly woman without having any desire to give money to women. Rape (or money) is simply instrumental, a means to the end of having sex. It is most often not a motivation in itself at all any more than altruism is the motivation for seeing prostitutes.
All the rest of your stupid arguments are also countered in the book.
Forcing someone to have sex is not gratuitously violent?
You don't even understand the meaning of simple English words. "Gratuitous" in the context I used it refers to violence unnecessary for the accomplishment of sex. How wrong you feel rape is has no bearing on the semantics here. I am not going bother arguing with you further because you are so obtuse you don't even understand standard English usage.
there’s a reason you’re still a virgin or can only get women to fuck you if you pay them or in your case rape them...... Your genes aren’t fit to pass on.There’s no need to be angry at women about it. That’s just the way it works. If you don’t seem intelligent and of sound mind, women won’t want to fuck you because they don’t want your sketchy genes to be passed on to their children. Sorry.
You seem to have forgotten that 90% of female rapes happen to women by someone they know. This isn't just some horny dickwad walking down the street and seeing a vulnerable woman. This is a woman's abusive partner proving that she is worthless and that he has complete control over her by forcing himself upon her. Rape is about sex in the sense that sex happens during it. That's usually it.
I will admit in cases like drunk rape, it can be about sex. But people who rape while drunk are still bad people because they need to understand what consent means.
I hope you've also realized that men get raped too. 10% of all rapes have male victims. Is it about sex then? Plenty of male rapists rape men because it is the ultimate power trip to them. Plenty of heterosexual male rapists rape men who they aren't all that attracted to. You know what they're attracted to? Power.
Also, get over your micropenis and use a fucking condom.
By the way:
Hands up who has regular sex!
*HANDS UP*
I am not very attractive but I somehow manage to have sex all the time without ever having raped anyone! It's almost as though rape is completely fucking unnecessary and immoral!
Most of all this blog evokes pity in me. I find it quite unsettling how someone so seemingly educated, almost intelligent, could fool themselves into such irrational denial.
I have seen it before; when someone is so convinced of an idea - not a fact or truth, but an ideal or belief - there is very little that can be done to alter that individual's perception of reason or reality.
It usually stems from some heavily influential experience that the subject has endured early in their lifetime - not always a directly malevolent or harmful incident, just something that would have a significant impact on the brain - but it almost always manifests itself into an overwhelming urge to justify the type of actions that the subject observed or were subjected to, and often the subject ends up putting others through the same types of behaviour.
Experiencing something like that often mutilates the subjects concept of reality, disfiguring their sense of self; either destroying their self confidence, or, such as in this case, inflating their ego to unnatural proportions; where the subject will often come to perceive themselves as infallible or even god like.
It can often result in a blind indifference to truth or persuasion, with the brain unfaltering in its confidence and belief in its own perceived truth or ideals, which obliterates the ability to be objective.
It is clear that, for the purposes of this article at least, you, Eivind, have stripped humanity of some of its fundamental characteristics, while also emphasising others when it has benefited your argument.
It is also as though you have reduced humanity to an almost primeval form, regarding our bestial ancestral roots as the dominating force behind the theoretical justification of our actions.
What you are suggesting is that we as humans do not have the ability to make choices, or that our choices are too heavily influenced by our bodily wants and desires. I am not denying that, anybody that did would surely be blind to the nature of the human species, but in most cases it would be ignorant to give more precedence to those bodily feelings than to our rational minds.
It is clear from the sheer number of rapes that happen in even our most civilised cultures that some members of the male gender cannot hold back those feelings and desires (I know this because I am male and yet have never, not once, felt the urge or need to rape a woman.) But the further we get from the turning point in evolution where we were separated from even our closest cousins, the more influence our rational minds will have on our actions and the justifications that we give them.
In reality, it is all very simple, and it is all a matter of probability. How special do you think you are? When you mingle with others of your species, do you really think that your intelligence outshines theirs? Perhaps you think that they are misguided, that they are blinded from the truth in a similar way to how I am suggesting you are. If you understand anything about probability, you will know that the answers to these questions effectively prove that what you are saying is false. Because we all know you are not the most intelligent person to have lived up until this point, otherwise we would probably have heard of you, or we would have gotten that impression from your blog. But we don't, so liven up to the truth, and to probability, and realise that what you are saying is wrong, otherwise people that do show the kind of mind boggling intelligence I am talking about would have been talking about it for centuries, and they simply haven't been.
Dude, I just freaking did your research for you, your claim of gender preference is bollocks!
From http://www.forskningsradet.no/en/Gender_issues/1195592877653
'Ensure that the principle of a 40/60 percent gender distribution for boards,
committees and commissions applies to all advisory bodies, committees, etc.'
Its always at least a 40/60 gender distribution. That means that if there is a 70% women dominated board of directors then they are obligated by law to hire more man! Oh noes! Affirmative action working EQUALLY! The fucking horror!
Now I dont really know why you even give a half a fuck about this since latin studies doesnt lead into high executive positions, much less board of directors, but regardless, your position has just crumbled since it was based on lies (not that it was morally defensible before).
So yeah, you dont know what equality actually means. Again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
"Women are not interchangeable. They differ in desirability. Are you really so stupid that you don't understand it might be possible to prefer to rape an attractive woman over consensual sex with a less desirable woman without having any desire to force a woman for as an end in itself?"
Are you so stupid as to not understand that you are not worthy of an intelligent and beautiful woman? You are unable to attract beautiful women not only because you're not particularly attractive physically, but because your personality and moral beliefs suck.
You're talking about ugly chicks being undesirable. You are undesirable. What gives you the right to force yourself on desirable women who deserve better than you?
Personally, I don't care much at all about physical attributes. My boyfriend has noted multiple times that I am, in his opinion, out of his league. All our friends agree; I'm attractive, he's not. I'm also more financially responsible than him. I have far, far more money. I also have greater money-making potential because of my chosen major compared to him.
By your standards, he shouldn't be able to attract a woman like me. He did, though. You know why? Because he's not a complete waste of carbon like you. He respects women, he doesn't objectify them. He understands what to do in a relationship to make his lady happy. He makes sure I know he values me, that he appreciates me. And he gets laid a lot because of it. Not because I think he deserves it, so I give in and let him tap it; but because I'm attracted to him. I want him because the way he treats me. The way he respects and values the relationship makes him attractive to me.
Along with all that, I know that I can be successful independently. I don't need to find a wealthy man to support me, and I don't need a good looking douchebag. Also, with him not being hot, I don't have to worry about other women trying to snatch him from me.
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?
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.
While studies indicate that the vast majority of supporters of the practice are women (typically the mothers), it does not state that the support is based on a desire to increase the value of sex. It's a religious tradition, at least in many cases, particularly those in Africa practicing tribal religions, and some misinformed Muslims.
Wow, you really are a horrific human being.
Well done.
I'm still very curious to know what you would do if someone raped your mother or sister.
What if the woman is not a feminist?
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.
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.
You're a disgusting piece of shit. Go kill yourself.
-From a rape survivor.
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'.
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.
@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.
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!
"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.
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!
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.
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!
@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.
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.
"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.
"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.
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.
@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."
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.
"...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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
@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.
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.
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."
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.
@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.
Was it your own rape trial you attended? Who was she? Are you just pissy because you got arrested?
Is rape fantasy the only way you can get it up? You might want to talk to a psychiatrist about that.
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.
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.
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.
If only you were richer than women, they would sleep with you. I'm crying my eyes out over your sad, sad fate.
Post a Comment