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 It is unpolished and unpublished, contains a lot of math but little reference to the real world, and makes a number of simplistic assumptions for the sake of the model, such as "children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.