Sunday, July 25, 2010

Reply to Yvette Lessard, part 2

Yvette now naively thinks she has proven me wrong. It's funny how she was a social constructionist until she found a paper self-described as "entirely based on the biological differences between men and women" which appears to support her argument. However, it fails to prove what she thinks it does.
Updated—this proves my point that higher gender inequality worsens hypergamy, and vice versa. It’s the final nail in Eivind’s coffin, and while I’m sure he’ll write up something about refusing to accept it because it clashes with his worldview, that’s the end of the conversation for me.
That paper by Gilles Saint-Paul is far from a final nail. It is unpolished and unpublished, contains a lot of math but little reference to the real world, and makes a number of simplistic assumptions for the sake of the model, such as "children cannot borrow to accumulate their own human capital and must stick with what they inherit from their parents" (p. 6), and a sharper dichotomy between alphas and betas than I have seen anywhere else (along with the assumption that alphas are also the most productive members of society, which the author himself admits is problematic). Saint-Paul argues that the only two possible equilibria are the Victorian type (homogamy -- people marry someone with the same rank in the distribution of income) and the "Sex and the City" (SATC) type, where women are hypergamous. He claims too much inequality leads to a switch from a Victorian to an SATC equilibrium, where more women are better off unmarried and mating with alpha men. The Victorian equilibrium is indeed preferable for most (beta) men and this is what I am advocating, but I don't see how we are moving in that direction as women get more equality. The SATC model clearly fits reality better now, so feminism is certainly not conducive to a Victorian marriage market. No amount of economic theory can disprove this observation in the real world.
I also suggest Eivind Berge look into parental investment, which explains exactly why the above link would be true. Primates which are most gender equal also tend to be the most promiscuous, ie, ever male gets to mate. Next time, don’t start an argument about human nature with me when I’m in the middle of studying for an anthropology exam.
Of course I know about parental investment. The unequal minimum investment fixed by biology makes women the selective sex. Bateman's principle applies to most species and especially humans. Even though it may be true that females of more gender-equal primates are more promiscuous, making society more equal will not change the nature of women in any reasonable time. They will continue to follow their instincts and the difference will be that now they can afford to reject more men, which is what they are doing in this feminist hellhole.
It’s rape if there’s no consent. You’ve provided zero reasoning, and the educated world disagrees with you. Most people in the developed world disagree with you. Burden of proof is on you.
Only radical feminists believe lack of consent is a sufficient definition of rape. The definition I have used is almost verbatim from Thornhill and Palmer's A Natural History of Rape. They define rape on page 1 as "copulation resisted by the victim to the best of her ability unless such resistance would probably result in death or serious injury to the victim or in death or serious injury to individuals the victim commonly protects. Other sexual assaults, including oral and anal penetration of a man or a woman under the same conditions, also may be called rape under some circumstances." Are they not educated? Craig T. Palmer is an anthropologist, so I guess you aren't working on a real education yourself?

The feminist definition serves its purpose of putting more men in prison, but it's easily shown that people don't actually believe in it. Humans instinctively distinguish between rape and lesser sexual coercion or simply sex without consent and don't treat them alike in real life. Husbands of women who don't bother to resist sex even though they are not threatened with violence will not consider it rape even if they otherwise profess feminist views. They will consider it cheating. Only if their wife is actually forced (or threatened with death or serious injury) to have sex will they consider her raped. Most women still consider this to be the definition as well. There is a lot of "rape" going on in the feminist sense where women don't realize they have been raped and could have had the man convicted as a rapist. The feminist definition is meaningless except as a tool for terrorizing and imprisoning men.
Bullshit. If your goal is to get laid and you do it by going to bars and clubs, you’re going to find one kind of women. Your anecdotal evidence is hardly enough to justify rape. Let’s discuss this when you hopefully address the fact that men have sexual value to women.
Men don't have anywhere near the same sexual value to women as women have to men, and the evidence for this is not exactly anecdotal. This profound inequality justifies rape as much as other inequalities justify affirmative action in favor of women. Also, I look for women everywhere and don't even go to bars anymore. I quit drinking and have realized that bars are for beta men only venues for being rejected by women while wasting money. I want to get married or do whatever it takes to have regular sex.
How do you not get this? You’re stating that the research inherently leads one to believe that rape is justified. Obviously it doesn’t, the one person who understands it best disagrees. So obviously it isn’t inherently in your favor.
The research shows that sex is a female resource. If we are to have equality, some manner of sexual coercion would be justified. This is such a short step removed from what Baumeister says that he felt obliged to include a disclaimer condemning rape. Of course he can't say rape is justified, or the article would be unpublishable. But that does not prevent readers from drawing their own conclusions.
So an infant can’t be raped because they didn’t resist?
Infants can be sexually abused and that would be at least as bad as rape. But it's not controversial that child sexual abuse is still a separate concept from rape in Norwegian law. The child being under a certain age does not automatically make it rape. Your ignorance of Norwegian conditions is as evident here as in thinking you have to supply a machine translation of my blog so the local women can comprehend it.
All that is required for a woman to rape a man is a lack of consent on the man’s part. Forgetting for a moment that not all men are as desperate as you to have sex with this, I challenge you to actually prove that 100% of heterosexual men would sleep with any woman period.
I never claimed all men "would sleep with any woman period." I say no man ever deserves to be considered a victim if he is forced by a woman, even if he resists to the best of his ability. Of course it is possible for a man to resist a woman and even feel genuinely violated. In the same way it is possible for you to feel horribly violated if I deposit a million dollars into your bank account against your will. But you wouldn't get much sympathy, particularly from people living in poverty. A man claiming victimhood for rape by a woman gets as much sympathy from me as you would get in my analogy claiming you have been robbed because somebody gave you money. Sex is a female resource, and heterosexual sex is the transfer of value from a woman to a man. Female sexuality is objectively valuable, just like money, and the few individuals who feel otherwise are not reasonable and should not be taken seriously. They are irrelevant. Certainly the law should not recognize women raping men any more than it should recognize unwanted gifts as robbery. Female rape is a feminist lie invented to bolster the lie that the sexes are equal and serve as a red herring obscuring the fact that feminist rape law is pure misandry.
I remind you that you contradicted yourself repeatedly by stating that underage women are not good enough to have sex with. 
Not quite. I stated that prebubescent girls are not desirable sex partners and I don't pursue them. (But that does not mean they could rape me... LOL, you are as naive as you are unpleasant.) For the record, I will sleep with any girl who is pubescent and up regardless of the consequences. I am not born yesterday. I have by no means internalized the misandry saying it's bad to have sex with girls simply because they are underage, and I laugh at men so stupid and brainwashed by feminist propaganda that they think underage women are off limits.
Sometimes? Please. See above, that proof? Showed that it increases when women have wealth of their own. If sex really was all you cared about, you would be pushing for more equal opportunities and more equal wages for women so you’d have a better chance at finally getting laid. I guess sex isn’t all you care about then.
The "proof" was pure mathematics and does not reflect the real world. Women with wealth of their own act more like SATC than Victorians in the real world, and beta men such as myself get less sex as a result.
Blacks were also defined as one third of a person for quite a long time. Simply because it was tradition doesn’t prove a thing, sorry bud.
That example also proves nothing. Some traditions are right, some not. Feminist redefinition of rape is a step in the wrong direction, completely unacceptable for men.
So women deserve to be raped simply because you disagree with a legal definition? How does that follow at all?
It follows as retribution and learned helplessness. My rape advocacy is twofold. Two aspects of feminism currently independently justify rape, in my view: 1. equality and 2. feminist corruption of justice. Feminist rape law reform has more than blurred the distinction between rape and consensual sex. In many circumstances it no longer matters in the eyes of the law whether we actually rape a woman or not -- she can regret sex in any case and have us convicted of "rape." The law quite explicitly states that mere negligence is enough to be a rapist even if you had no evil intentions. So why should men care if we rape or not? Women don't respect us anymore, so why should we respect women? Hate breeds hate. I have followed the deterioration of justice closely throughout my life, and my heart has been filled with deeper hatred at every step of feminist legal reform. False rape is now institutionalized. At this point, I don't believe Norwegian women are morally entitled to protection from rape.
Well, shit. All that proves is that women want long-term partners. Nobody is denying sexual differences.
It proves women want much less sex outside of long-term relationships, and this is indeed a profound sexual difference that feminists deny.
I’ve already debunked your use of this source. All your source proves is that women prefer longer-term relationships. I don’t see how it shows that we aren’t in a transitional stage. Not even a generation ago women had hardly any rights or power, now women are just starting to get it. We are still dealing with old, patriarchal culture, we have not transitioned to gender equality. As for your statement, it’s silly. Read below where I talk about marriage.
All the subjects in the Kennair study were under 30 years old. Younger than me. I know what kind of brainwashing they have gone through about the sexes being equal, yet their preferences are identical to previous studies. If there is a transition, it would be evident by now. But it isn't. Women are as picky as ever. I'm not saying women don't have a sex drive, so all your verbiage about that straw man is irrelevant. There just isn't enough of it to go around. Women control everything (except rape). People have sex whenever women want, and men want it a lot more. If I could choose, I would have had 1000 times more sex in my life so far. But only women have sexual agency. And it is getting worse. It is getting to the point where it is difficult to envision ever having consensual sex again.
"Cock is always disgusting to straight men and this isn’t a social construct." Whoops. Psychologists disagree.
No, they don't. The Kinsey scale has been much discredited. The distribution of male sexual orientation is bimodal, with nearly all men being either completely straight or gay. Male bisexuality is largely a myth and certainly not as common as the Kinsey scale suggests. Female sexuality is very different, however. Most women I've known have been at least somewhat attracted to both sexes.
Second, I fail to see any evidence provided on your part for why sexual harassment shouldn’t be taken seriously, of course you don’t take it seriously, because it clashes with your worldview.
No, not because it clashes with my worldview. Sexual harassment fundamentally shouldn't be taken seriously because there is nothing wrong with the kind of behavior feminists call sexual harassment. Both kinds. It is of course well within the moral rights of any boss to demand sex from women quid pro quo or for there to be what they term a "hostile enviroment" due to sexual references. Any claim that this is discrimination against women and therefore should be criminalized must simply be dismissed out of hand. And if women engage in "sexual harassment," then that's great, but it is absurd to call it sexual harassment because the rationale for inventing the legal concept was supposed discrimination against women. Women can't cope with the workplace, so the workplace must change to accommodate women. Of course men should never have accepted this and MRAs must fight for the abolition of all sexual harassment laws.
I’m sorry, but bureaucracy is not “enforced at gunpoint by the police”. Your exaggerations are ludicrous. And you know what? If you disagree with the law, vote against it. It isn’t violence to require schoolchildren to go to school, it is not violence to require business owners to not rape their employees.
What you call "bureaucracy" is indeed ultimately enforced at gunpoint. Norwegian companies are forcibly dissolved if they don't put 40% women in the boardrooms. The threat suffices to coerce compliance, and similarly we could coerce sex out of women without actual violence, for the most part. But the threat of brute violence is always there in bureaucracy no less than in rape. That's how so-called civilized society works. Thugs with bigger guns than us lurk beneath a thin veneer of civility, or we wouldn't pay taxes or comply with government regulations. Forcing children to attend school is also violence, but this is a form of violence I am inclined to agree with unless they are homeschooled. One might also justify violence to prevent business owners from raping their employees (with rape properly defined), but enacting laws against sexual harassment is way out of bounds from a libertarian perspective.

51 comments:

FS said...

I have by no means internalized the misandry saying it's bad to have sex with girls simply because they are underage, and I laugh at men so stupid and brainwashed by feminist propaganda that they think underage women are off limits.

Well said. I don't agree with you on some things, but this is totally right.

Before people who are less intelligent as I am accuse me of being one, no, I'm not a pedophile. I have no interest in little kids.

If I knew I would get away with it, I'd bang any physically developed female if she was willing and wouldn't feel any slight guilt over it.

Eivind, what do you think of scum bags like Chris Hansen and the gang of thugs who kidnap normal men for trying to have sex with sexually developed females? I think the men who are kidnapped by the state are morally justified to defend their freedom by any means necessary. Would you agree?

Eivind Berge said...

Eivind, what do you think of scum bags like Chris Hansen and the gang of thugs who kidnap normal men for trying to have sex with sexually developed females? I think the men who are kidnapped by the state are morally justified to defend their freedom by any means necessary. Would you agree?

I totally agree. Those thugs are the scum of the earth. This is one big reason why I hate cops so intensely and rejoice when they are killed.

The "To Catch a Predator" sting is in effect randomly picking men to charge with bogus sex crimes. Most normal men will readily have sex with the kind of girls they use as decoys, and the only reason we usually don't is that none are available. The only thing setting these "predators" apart is their gullibility. Ironically, I think I have a better chance of having sex with an underage girl than for example this victim with cerebral palsy, but he's the one going to jail. It also says a lot about the moral character of women that they go along with this entrapment. Women willing to send men to prison for the bogus hypothetical crime of wanting sex they could never get anyway most assuredly deserve to be raped for real.

FS said...

Well, along with the death penalty, I'm against rape in all cases, as I don't see how it can be justified, but I've no sympathy for a rape victim in your scenario, although I would be against it.

I find the disgusting misandry of throwing men in cages for doing what is biologically normal, to be outrageous. I can't watch that clip, everytime I watch that show, I have a surge of anger that goes through me. It's best I not look.

I hope one day when another NORMAL man is about to be kidnapped by the state thugs for doing what nature intended, he takes out a shot gun and defends his freedom from his would be kidnappers.

FS said...

BTW, I'm also happy when a state thug is killed. One less would be kidnapper of good men, and feminist enforcer there is.

Maybe one day the state thugs can stop being the hired hit men for the feminists, who btw, laughably claim to be anti violence.

(Most women claim to be anti violence, but have no problem sending their own personal gang after any man who doesn't please them. Anti violence my ass)

Anonymous said...

As a woman who was touched at 16 by a 40 year old man... in a disgusting way. I was helpless at that time as a virgin and a child.. if I could be there at that moment, I would slay that man for violating my person. There was no one there to protect me at that time. But if I could go back to that moment as a grown woman now... to that situation when the immoral man touched me, tried to take me, touched my innocent body with his vile hands, I would cut that man in pieces. I would kill him. By doing what he did, he planted the seed of hatred in me against all the malehood. Which I will never forgive.

Anonymous said...

The men in uniform will protect us against you scum. The taxes we pay to have the police and army function is the least we can do. We will honor and appreciate these men and make good wives for them.

FS said...

You weren't a child you retard. Unless you were forced, you wasn't a victim of anything either.

Hopefully if you went back and tried to cut him up, he'd take the knife off you, and use it to cut you up in response.

Stupid bitch.

FS said...

BTW, in the UK, it's legal for a 40 year old man to have sex with a 16 year old.

When I reach 40, if I have the chance to fuck a 16 year old consentually, I'm going to take it. If someone like yourself tries to bring harm to me for doing it, I will do what I have to do to stop you.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I was a child. I didn't know anything about men's sexuality and how men crave women, how they use them. I was a virgin. I had no intentions to sleep with any men. That old bastard had no intentions of marrying me or helping me. He just wanted to violate me. Now I know what you men are like. I am well aware and well accustomed. You will never get anything from me. But I will take from you. We will fight you rapists. While the white knights will be rewarded with our love for protecting us from vermin like you.

Anonymous said...

You motherfucker. You are forcing me to abort a female child. I do not feel safe bringing a female child into world with violent rapists like yourselves. I will not have children. Because I will NEVER let my girl into a world where you exist, vermin.

FS said...

You wasn't a child, you thick fuck. The man did nothing wrong if you consented. Chances are you were a little slut. Take responsibility for your own actions.

Also, I'm not forcing you to do anything. The fact you think I am forcing you to kill an unborn child, only goes to show how you blame men for your own fucking choices.

I'm violent?? I don't force myself on others, I only believe in doing what I have to do to protect myself from vermin like yourself. You are the violent one for wanting to hack up a man for consentual sex with you.

The white knighters are welcome to you.

BTW, if you have the child, when she turns 16, if she's attractive, and in the UK, I'm gonna try and have sex with her. I'll be 42 when that happens. Try and stop me with violence, and I'll do what I have to do to protect myself.

Eivind Berge said...

Woman, your views are disgusting. You may look pretty, but you are ugly on the inside. No wonder no good man will commit to you.

FS said...

I had sex with a 16 year old not too long ago, by the way. I'm in my mid 20s, and it was legal, and great.

I used her for sex, and have no intention of calling her back.

I'm going to keep on doing it as much as I can until the day I die. Legally, there's nothing anyone can do to stop me, as it's always consentual.

I also give take 18 year old females to bars, get them drunk, and have sex with them consentually. It's all legal in the UK, toots.

Those teenage knockers are lovely.

Anonymous said...

No, I did not consent. I didn't want this disgusting old man touching me.

Yes, you do threaten the womankind with rape. You want to take away our freedom. Don't ever dare. You are risking your life and health. Oh, you don't want to hear about mating in UK. You are the reason that I will postpone having kids even longer - there will be less girls. You don't deserve them.

Eivind, you little loser, who cares what you think. Many men want to commit to me. It is I who doesn't want to commit to them. You will never have a normal wife, you woman hater.

Anonymous said...

FS, you will never have a normal family. But you don't want it anyway.

Yea, I have sex with 17-21 men all the time and they love it. :)

Anonymous said...

FS - mid 20s? Is that 22-23 or 27-29. There's a difference. If you are barely out of your early 20s, namely, if you're 23-24, you can be excused.

FS said...

I'm 26, and I'd be excused even if I was 50. I'm gonna be having sex with 16 year olds for as long as I can. No one can legally stop me.

Eivind Berge said...

You take no responsibility for your actions and you want to cut up men just for being men. Not very charming. I suspect men only use you for sex because of your overly entitled and hateful personality. Or if it's you who don't want to commit, then what are you complaining about?

FS said...

Considering you think I'm to blame for you killing your baby, your definition of consent doesn't mean much.

Chances are you were not raped, and considering you were 16, we're not a victim of any kind.

Anon, I don't want a family of any kind. I'm opposed to having kids of my own.

I have no problem with you enjoying sex with teenage guys either. I don't think women should be punished for fucking teenage guys. In fact, when I hear about teenage guys being "victims" of their teachers fucking them, it annoys me. They are not victims.

FS said...

Eivind, what do you think are the chances that the shit heads on FSTDT and other shit holes will protest against what this cunt has said?

Slim and none I'd say.

What you have said on your blog isn't anywhere near as radical as some of what your opponents have said, yet no one pays attention to them and their disgusting comments.

Anonymous said...

FS, if you are 26, I apologize for being aggressive. You are a grown man now, but a couple of years ago you were a puppy and I absolutely would not dare infringe upon your sexual freedom. Sorry, I didn’t realizē you were a younger man. I was talking about older men.

FS, I don’t have a problem with you enjoying 16yo girls as long as they stay free of infections and pregnancy. And pshychological trauma. For you it can be a minor thing, but for us women it is a big deal.

The teenage boys that I had sex with… ah. I don’t know where to start.. it looks like they love it and I know they do. I love them. I will give them pleasure.. but I wanna be sure that they are comfortable with it. Most of them are, but then I’ve had a couple of boys who were all thoughtful and confused and melancholic the next morning… I don’t want to hurt them. How do I know that I haven’t hurt the boy? How do I make sure it is pleasure for both of us and that he doesn’t get damaged mentally? When he says he enjoys the pleasure how do I know that what he says is true???
No, I have a loving personality. But only towards my family and the men I love. The way I have been treated, I realised that it’s better to be vigilant against others and loving towards your closest ones.

Anonymous said...

Oh, I will take every bit of responsibility for harming a man who will endanger my freedom. I am ready to go to court to defend every single bit of my freedom.

FS said...

My advice would be to fuck as many willing teenage guys as you can if you enjoy it. No one is being hurt by it.

There's a stupid myth going around that teenage guys are some how hurt by consentual sex with older women. It's nonsense. Having consentual sex with an older woman is every straight teenage guys's fantasy.

When I was 13, older women were almost my exclusive sexual choice. Now it's females in their mid to late teens. 17 is my favourite age for a female.

I have my eye on a 16 year old right now. I'm pretty sure her mother has a thing for me, but I want her daughter. I'm going to wait until she turns 18 though before I make a move. Normally I wouldn't care about her being 16, but I know her mother...

Not long ago her and her mother were standing in front of me trying to get my sexual attention. The daughter won easily. If her mother wasn't there, I think I may have made a move there and then!

I get a lot of attention from women of all ages. It's great.

FS said...

Can the anons sign their names in some way? I don't know who is who.

Anonymous said...

FS, you must be a handsome young man, if that’s what you are then there is really no argument against you. You should be fucked plain and simple. Just don’t be agressive and don’t hang out on MRA sites and we will love you. Why did you ever stumble upon this site to begin with baby boy?
About the teenage boys… My feeling is that they love it.. I don’t wanna hear any myths. I see that they love what I give them. What they give to me is wonderfilled, supersexy.. that young masculine energy. They are the best. I’m just scared to do something wrong… I am so scared of hurting them or doing anything wrong. I just want to be a 100% sure that I’m not hurting the boys in any way because I love them so much.

Anonymous said...

Did you say 13?

:)

Please, say it again. I wouldn't dare... ever touch a boy that age even though I desire him like crazy. Ah, let's take this offline.

Anonymous said...

Just kidding. Nobody desires a boy as young as 13.

E.T: said...

"FS, you will never have a normal family. But you don't want it anyway.

Yea, I have sex with 17-21 men all the time and they love it. :) "

- This is that bitter, irrational Baltic cunt again. Don't you guys ge it? This is entirely her style. She likes to make rambling assessments of the life expectancies of men debating here to have wives, ever, or die alone.

- She claims to come here for entertainment. In reality she is here because she is sick in the head, and needs to vent. She's is indeed trying to kid herself into believing something else, though - painting a sometimes rosy picture of her aspirations and goals. She is clearly unstable, and quite obviously suffers from Borderline Personality Disorder (a not uncommon affliction in those who have been forced to have sex when they were young... but 16 is perhaps stretching the concept of young).

Btw, I now have this woman I met and fucked for the first time before the weekend. I can't seem to shake her off. Both she and a few other women in my small hometown, that I am currently visiting, can't get enough of me. I should give at least one of these despo hoes away to some other guy in this thread...

john halder said...

i cannot stand chris hansen and his entrapment show.
exploiting men for ratings.
imagine being one of those guys going to jail having done NOTHING.
and if a female is old enough to have children, guess what?
she's ready for sex, PERIOD.

john halder said...

another word about the 'police' they are nothing but revenue generators, at BEST.
they beat people, lie on the stand,tazer,shoot people in the back till dead and kill innocent people, (many times caught on tape) as in the post katrina shootings, of blacks, 'big' shocker there, and the most recent where all this pos cop was convicted of was involuntary manslaughter after getting caught on tape killing a man on a subway in l.a.
revenue generators at best.
killers at worst.

Anonymous said...

Du er en stygg, stygg mann. Kvinner finner deg ikke attraktiv, ergo hater du kvinner, men pakker det inn i "jeg er antifeminis". Du har ikke begrep om hva feminisme handler om. Du er patetisk så det holder.

Eurosabra said...

Som om noen ikke hadde sagt det før.
כאילו מישהו לא אמר את זה לפני.

Anonymous said...

Penis.

Anonymous said...

You are most certainly a misogynist. You are a highly disturbed individual who should be locked away where you can't harm anyone.

Anonymous said...

You, sir, are a douchebag. That's right, a douchebag. A total douchebag.

You are now, however, an internationally known and recognised douchebag.

The Thinking Rat said...

Holy crap, what a delusional human being. Let me get some things straight...
- Women and their bodies are a commodity for men to use.
- For women, respecting a man means obeying, submitting, and fearing them.
- It's okay to lie, coerce, force or blackmail women into sex if they're past puberty.
- A man who sleeps with a lot of women, who lies to them, uses them, and discards them after sex is a normal male.
- A woman who sleeps with any man who isn't her husband and/or displays her sexuality in any way is a slut.
- In the assumption that there's a chance you'll be accused of rape anyway, you might as well actually do it.
- Because women have no feelings and shouldn't be outside the home anyways.
How am I doing? Anything else to add to that list?

Eivind Berge said...

I have never criticized women in any way for being sluts. On the contrary, my biggest problem with women personally is they aren't anywhere near slutty enough. So you aren't doing very well with that list.

Men's rights activism can be divided into getting laid and what happens when you do. If women were sluts, there would be no reason to rape them, but unfortunately sluts don't exist as far as most men are concerned. So-called sluts are often even more picky than most women and will only sleep with alphas.

And even if we do get laid, everything is stacked against men from rape law to family court, but men are starting to wake up now. Men are angry now and we will turn the tide against feminism.

Eivind Berge said...

Also it is not very normal for men to discard women after sex. Most breakups and certainly most divorces by far are initiated by women.

I have mostly been discarded after a one-night stand. It is women who don't want relationships in my experience.

The Thinking Rat said...

Eivind - Should clarify, much was in response to 'FS'.

FS wrote: "I had sex with a 16 year old not too long ago"..."I used her for sex, and have no intention of calling her back."

Here he belittles a woman he doesn't know for things he assumes she did: "The man did nothing wrong if you consented. Chances are you were a little slut. Take responsibility for your own actions."

Generally calling women he knows nothing about 'slut' and 'cunt' and 'bitch'.

Not that I agree with you either. While on occasion there have been cases where rape accusation and sex laws have been abused by women, the fact is that men are no better, and will abuse different laws to benefit themselves whenever the chance presents itself. A minority of people are always going to be greedy and selfish. Should the innocent suffer for what those do?

Should all men be forbidden to own guns because the majority of murders using guns are carried out by men?

Should all men be stripped of the right to have a say in their child's upbringing because some men desert their wives and children?

It's very much the same situation. Sex is not a commodity. Women are not objects. They are raised in a society constructed BY MEN to subjugate them by forcing exaggerated modesty on them. If you're going to criticize anyone, how about the religions that place such an unreasonable burden of restraint on females?

The Thinking Rat said...

Hm. Looks like my long post got deleted. >_>

Let me ask you guys something... How many of the women you pursue for sex are sub-alpha? That is, not butt-ugly or disagreeable, but also not 'hot girls'.

It seems that very often when guys complain about 'sluts' being alpha chasers, they totally glaze over that they are themselves sub-alpha and are only going after alpha females.

Eivind Berge said...

@The Thinking Rat

Hm. Looks like my long post got deleted.

It ended up in my spam folder for some reason, but is published now. The spam filter is really annoying and gives a lot of false positives, but unfortunately I have no way to turn it off.

How many of the women you pursue for sex are sub-alpha? That is, not butt-ugly or disagreeable, but also not 'hot girls'.

We don't really use the world "alpha" about women, but most of them are not that hot. I don't usually bother approaching women who are clearly out of my league and in fact my tastes don't even correspond to what is considered ideal these days. I prefer chubby women and don't mind if they are obese. Also I have been turned down by women as old as 70, so I don't see how I could lower my standards any further.

While on occasion there have been cases where rape accusation and sex laws have been abused by women, the fact is that men are no better, and will abuse different laws to benefit themselves whenever the chance presents itself.

Firstly, false rape accusations are more than an occasional problem. They happen all the time, as is documented on the False Rape Society. Just a couple weeks ago a man was freed after 30 years because DNA proved he was completely innocent. Can you name a law that allows men to do that to women? It is beside the point if men would also abuse laws if there are no laws we can abuse so horribly. Of course we need to remove women's easy ways to destroy the lives of men. It has also gotten a lot easier to convict men for rape over the past 30 years thanks to a plethora of feminist legal reforms designed to do just that, and still feminists scream for more.

Sex is not a commodity. Women are not objects.

Sex is a female resource and women are indeed sex objects. I have cited all kinds of evidence for this. Nature has inevitably made women the selective sex, and calling them objects is just another word for this inescapable reality.

They are raised in a society constructed BY MEN to subjugate them by forcing exaggerated modesty on them. If you're going to criticize anyone, how about the religions that place such an unreasonable burden of restraint on females?

There is very little forced modesty going on in the West today. I wrote en entire post about how this lack of slut shaming is NOT making women easier. It is thus scientifically proven beyond any doubt that women's extreme choosiness comes from within and there is no way they are going to engage in sex freely with beta men regardless how how equal society tells them they are. The only way to achieve sexual equality is rape. This is the ugly truth.

The Thinking Rat said...

What do you consider 'sexual equality'?
You claim it is natural for males to want sex and to seek out ways to get it that the females will not agree with. And this is true.

But it is also natural for females to be selective, and to employ a reproductive strategy that males will not agree with. That is, to find the best male to sire their offspring. And that male may not be the one she chooses to -rear- her offspring.

Meaning that in an instinct-alone scenario, a female human will seek out a stable, safe, reliable male to partner with, and then go out and breed with a more masculine, more aggressive man.

And most people will no doubt say how horrible and immoral this is (though comparable with the male instinct to breed with multiple females and not be monogamous either,) but it's a set of drives which provide us as a species with the best possible viability for our offspring.

And though this gives the impression that women are favored unfairly, in that same ancestral scenario, females are constrained by their smaller size and constant childcare obligations, so that they need men to protect and care for them.

So in this sense, by playing out this complex mating game in which there are losers, we do have sexual equality. In our primitive past, males would be fighting and often killing each other to win females. And females would be receptive and dutiful to their males because they need him for their survival. Just because we have become civilized people doesn't mean we aren't mammals anymore.

Unfortunately, as that role of the man as protector/provider becomes more and more obsolete, rather than adapt to that change, men seek to force women to need them through subjugation and threat. IMO both genders need to evolve - they need each other just as much, the demands have merely changed.

I think what you want is universal sexual satisfaction, wherein all men are entitled to take and have sex from women. But nature, our desires and drives, do not work that way.

Just because you want something, and it's natural to want it, doesn't mean you're entitled to have it. A Gemsbok wants to live and deprive a lioness and her cubs of food, but the antelope has no more right to survive than the lioness has the right to eat it.

Eivind Berge said...

The Thinking Rat, I don't really disagree with what you say here. The natural state is in a sense sexual equality, even if it means females have much easier access to sex and reproduction.

And civilization is an improvement on this, actually making things more equal and through enforcement of monogamy letting men have access to women who otherwise would be killed or remain celibate in the competition for mates. But now, thanks to feminism, the state has taken women's side in everything and is coercing equality for women as well as enacting bizarre and draconian sex laws against men. Women also get protection and resource provision without having to put out. So now things are getting worse for men again and we are perhaps returning to the state of nature, as civilization is probably unsustainable with so many sexually deprived men.

That is why I advocate sexual equality for men. If women can use violence in the name of equality, then so can we. Sexual equality is the case when men can have sex anytime we want to as easily as women can, which is only achievable by coercion.

Eivind Berge said...

I think what you want is universal sexual satisfaction, wherein all men are entitled to take and have sex from women. But nature, our desires and drives, do not work that way.

Nature also doesn't work that way that women can take resources by force from men through affirmative action, welfare, alimony, etc. without putting out. So if this is fair, then taking sex from women is also fair. Want universal equality? It will also entail universal sexual satisfaction for men, because sex whenever they want is what women have to begin with.

The Thinking Rat said...

The thing that I see as a major flaw in your argument is this;

When a woman takes resources from a man by abusing the laws designed to protect her from cruel, predatory males, this is not 'violence'.

Losing money, job, house, reputation - these may be terrible, but they are not violent acts.

Even if a man is sent to jail, the legal system will not subject him to the same level of degradation, pain, terror, and denial of humanity that a rapist does to a woman. Though he may find himself being raped by one of the other convicts - and how does that fit into the equation?

You said yourself that rape is violence, and violence is defined as threat of pain, injury, or death - where a man physically forces the woman against her will, even when she screams and fights to get away.

So how can you justify that utter violation of a human being's body, such a stripping of their human dignity, that would leave them traumatized, terrified of men, sexually and socially maladjusted, and harmed in ways that will affect them for the rest of their lives?

I agree that sending someone to jail on false accusation is a terrible crime and people who do that should be punished.
I agree that sexual misconduct should be considered a separate and less severe crime than violent rape - such as taking advantage of a woman who consented to drink, where force or fear are not involved.

And in many cases both genders are just as guilty - but what you're advocating is the terrorization of half of the human population because a minority of them happen to be vindictive, opportunistic bitches.

Eivind Berge said...

I see you are not the brightest rodent in the pack. Just because you get someone else to carry out the dirty work for you does not mean it isn't violence. Of course prosecution, imprisonment and associated hardship is violence. Indeed the definition of the police force in a modern state is monopoly violence. Actually it is worse than being targeted by a random criminal because there is no realistic way to escape or defend yourself.

And in many cases both genders are just as guilty - but what you're advocating is the terrorization of half of the human population because a minority of them happen to be vindictive, opportunistic bitches.

How is it any better to terrorize half the population because some men happen to be rapists?

I advocate sexual coercion in response to feminism, but it need not be rape. We might, for example, implement sexual equality by imposing prison or even just a 100% tax on women who refuse to serve in free brothels for a while. In that case, the force used would be exactly equivalent to the force the state is using against men right now and it would not even be violence by your definition.

The Thinking Rat said...

No, it wouldn't be violence. It'd still be wrong, but how you define the word confuses me. Do you perhaps mean 'violation' instead? Violence means someone attacking you physically, either bare-handed or with a weapon. It means you will be harmed bodily.
Coercion isn't violence. Blackmail isn't violence.
They're violations of your freedom, happiness, rights etc. But they aren't going to leave physical scars and bruises on your body.

Whatever you might -mean-, the things you're saying come across as wanting to leave innocent women bleeding, sobbing, and permanently traumatized, not even out of sexual desire, but sheer vindictiveness. You want to take away all female power and reduce women to subhuman things.

Rat, again. said...

Ok, thinking about it some more, how about we approach the situation differently. From what I understand, your problem is that males are being legally persecuted for being men and having sex. You are of the opinion that men have no rights when it comes to females' bodies, and that women can choose to frivolously accuse you of raping them, resulting in his life being destroyed by a legal circus.

Now, if that is the case, I agree that it is wrong. But how about looking at it like this; Overcompensating laws are the cultural backlash from the centuries women have been oppressed, denied rights, sold like cattle, treated like slaves, forbidden education, forced into prepubescent marriage, beaten by their husbands, and murdered in 'honor killings' that still go on in some parts of the world. The list goes on, and I'm not even covering unfair workplace treatment.

So maybe instead of seething hatred, you could see that this is just a temporary extreme swing while people sort themselves out and return to balance. The outcome of all things is arbitrary.

Anonymous said...

Gosh with your lovely attitude I can't imagine why women aren't beating down your door.

You sir, are a misogynist. Saying you aren't doesn't change that fact.

Thankfully there are plenty of men out there who aren't complete and evil monsters such as yourself and your little bruised-ego fanclub.

Raised by Horses said...

"My rape advocacy.."

Wow. We're not three words into this paragraph, and you've already set yourself up as one of the most despicable specimens of our species ever to walk the planet. That's gotta merit some kind of reward. Like a brick to the face.

I'd go over the rest of the post piece by piece, but frankly, all I can read from it is you whining about not getting laid and advocating rape as a form of revenge because women think you're a cockwaffle.

I wonder why that is.

C said...

What a fucking scumbag.