Tuesday, January 25, 2011

The Futility of Anonymity

Italian police requested information from their Norwegian colleagues about two bloggers who were using a service hosted on servers in Norway to maintain their anonymity. It's bad enough that servers can get compromised so easily whenever the authorities want to look into someone, but it gets much worse. In a move completely characteristic of Norwegian cops' arrogance and utter disregard for rights, piggies copied an entire hard drive, thus securing identifying information on 7000 political activists.

While I support the right to be anonymous on the Internet, stories like this go to show it is pointless, really. Personally, I chose to blog under my full name not only because anonymity is futile but because I believe activism is more effective that way and I am in no way ashamed of my opinions. So I engage in open hostility against feminists and their enforcers. I have nothing to lose and nothing to fear. I don't have to watch my back because I currently do nothing illegal (even took the above picture myself, so no copyright infringement in this post), and I am positively itching for a lethal confrontation anyway, seething with rage and profound hatred against pigs as my life is destroyed by feminism.

These days a new Orwellian law is being pushed through in Norway (Datalagringsdirektivet), granting the police tremendously increased power to pry into our lives. Information on all email, web browsing and telecommunications of the entire populace is to be stored for the convenience of cops. Note that everyone is presumed guilty and subject to surveillance by default; this is not a matter of keeping an eye on suspects. While this is of course appalling and incompatible with any notion of a free society, I don't fear Datalagringsdirektivet, either. A transparent society suits me just fine and is bound to be a net positive for men. In stark contrast to the pigs, I take the moral high ground. Since a cornerstone of police method is deception, openness is going to hurt law enforcement a great deal more than it will hurt morally upstanding citizens (and besides, anyone who actually knows how to use a computer can easily get around the new surveillance anyway if the need should arise). Pigs have been known to engage in their usual lies and sneaky behavior on social media, but at least one major service has made it clear that this is unacceptable.
Facebook was the only company to make clear that its strict policies against fake accounts apply to law enforcement as well. In its 2008 and 2009 guides it notes that it will disable all accounts that provide false or misleading information, including police accounts, and in its 2010 guide it notes that it will “always disable accounts that supply false or misleading profile information or attempt to technically or socially circumvent site privacy measures.”
Kudos to Facebook for holding cops to the same standards as everyone else. As feminism and its enforcement cannot stand the light of day, the powers that be are only hastening their own demise be escalating surveillance. The truth will set us free.

221 comments:

1 – 200 of 221   Newer›   Newest»
Minat said...

I am positively itching for a lethal confrontation anyway, seething with rage and profound hatred against pigs

This couldn't be easier to engineer, so what's stopping you?

Get a T-shirt printed with 'RAPE IS EQUALITY', walk into the centre of Bergen with a heavy rucksack and announce that you're an anti-feminist suicide bomber - you'll get all the confrontation (and global attention) your heart could possibly desire.

Eivind Berge said...

That is a harebrained scheme. I don't make empty threats (or anything that would legally qualify as threats) and I don't want attention for such. Hypothetically, if I were to engineer any kind of situation, I would never let them get me for anything at all until it is too late and they have dead cops on their hands (at least one). The kind of warning you are proposing would ensure that I could inflict no damage and might even get me killed for nothing. I am not that stupid. I would want to be remembered as an antifeminist cop-killer, not as a buffoon. Do you comprehend what the phrase "seething with hatred" means? It does not mean you desire a merely theatrical performance nonetheless followed by serious criminal liability. It calls for real bloodshed unless one is pacified by pussy.

Firstly, only idiots make inane threats. And the key to successful violent activism is not to go overboard, but keep it close to symmetrical. It is exceedingly foolish to, say, think you can bring down an airliner with your shoe or underwear. Another lesson in how not to do it comes from the Swedish activist who only managed to kill himself because he got too greedy for mayhem. I'd say it's stupid to have anything to do with explosives or even guns where they are tightly controlled (I hate to say it, but gun control works). Anything extravagant is overwhelmingly likely to fail, usually in the planning stages with all this increasing surveillance. However, society is set up so that anyone can basically walk up and stab just about anyone, and nothing can prevent this level of violence. As we have seen, Norwegian pigs are even vulnerable to being killed while apprehending a motivated defender wielding only a knife. Realistic malicious goals and strength in numbers can get the men's rights movement very far. Histrionics will only get us ridiculed.

I like the idea of the shirts though and want to have some made. MRAs should wear them all over. The rest is strictly hypothetical.

Anonymous said...

You don't realize of course that any terror in the name of men's rights activism would damage all legitimate activism.

Eivind Berge said...

Women marched through the institutions and won. Men cannot do the same, for a number of reasons including the fact that women are the majority of the electorate and the prevalence of manginas. Any "legitimate" activism for men is a lost cause.

Anonymous said...

So you're just a suicide case.

Anonymous said...

No matter what you do people will continue to perceive you the way they want to. There is no way you can make them perceive you the way you would like to be perceived.

Eivind Berge said...

No, I am not a suicide case. My aggression is entirely directed outwards. And of course actions influence perceptions, though not always the way we intend.

Anonymous said...

You cling to the idea that you still have some power in your aggression. But it's all your own personal pain projected onto others, and it is recognized as such. It's primitive psychology, not sophisticated activism.

Anonymous said...

Also, Eivind, think about what you are doing to your nervous system. The damage that you impose on yourself, is much bigger than the annoyance you can cause for those few feminists or other folks who happen to read this and disagree, or even be dismayed. Don't hurt yourself like that, sweety. It's pointless.

Anonymous said...

Again with the cops.... They're civil servants, Eivind. Let me repeat the word that eludes you here - servants. Their all is to carry out the law as prescribed by our justice system. They are not allowed to pick and choose which laws they agree on and disagree on, except when in clear violation of another overruling law, or whatever they can get away with.

What you do when they do something wrong is you changes policies, you don't attack the cops. That's like attacking the gun instead of the person who holds it.

And it's better that way, because... if you're docile enough to be a good cop, you're not usually the kind of person that can make sense of theoretic ethical systems. So basically you're asking them to not do their job to help you because of some conscience that the job type practically doesn't permit, which of course is absurd. Doing some kind if nutty thing would only be a gigantic bite in the ass for MRA.

Anonymous said...

you live in a democracy. the social policies that are in place are there becuase the majority of society mandates them.
A cop is merely enforcing the will of the people.

Eivind Berge said...

I hate MRAs who go soft on cops. If you work for the enemy, then you are the enemy. Cops are the enemy and we need to fight back, not take it lying down. Yeah, cops are generally stupid, docile civil servants, but they are a force for evil. They also very much prioritize enforcing feminist sex laws over real crime while complaining of limited resources.

No matter how democratic, I don't respect society's right to impose social and legal conditions which deny me my basic needs. The last straw for me personally was when Norwegian women decided I can't even buy sex anywhere in the world without being a criminal even though whores can still legally sell. Women are not content to reject me -- they must have their blue thugs ready to target me as well just because I am a man. There are no words adequate to describe the profundity of hatred now suffusing my soul. Only aggression.

Feminists have succeeded in driving up the cost of sex so much that celibacy has mostly blighted my life, and it has lately gotten much, much worse after successive feminist reforms to the point of a full-fledged feminist police state. I have no quality of life, only raging hatred and looming violence from state goons if I am to have any outlet at all. Women win, but at least I will be sure to make a bloody nuisance of myself as I am going down.

Anonymous said...

We're watching...

Anonymous said...

I know it sounds like a fate even more cruel than that which is ripping your soul to shreds right now, but... How about getting a job? I mean Norway has practically no unemployment among able persons, they take in large amounts of labor from outside, and you're obviously capable of sustained high quality efforts given your studies. If you had a normal job and saved some money, you could easily either emigrate to a country where women love you, or get a girl to Norway. Problem solved.

For all your scholarly argumentation and classical education, you can't help but get caught by some of the less educated people's comments here. When everyone else in Norway finds it easy to get a job, why don't you, and what can you do to change it? Where can you fit in? Obviously it's possible, and it's what you need. Pretty much all males have felt sexual frustration at some point, though not as bad as you by all accounts, you just seem to have very unhealthy and unproductive ways of dealing it. If you were a loser in the poor corrupt parts of the world (ie. most of it) maybe your frustration and barking at the moon would be justified, but as it is, you're just dealing with your very solvable problems in a very inconstructive manner.

Anonymous said...

Unless it's not sex (and love, and family) that he wants, but something else.

There is no excuse for not getting a job in Norway for a healthy(?) man, 32 years old, it's about fuckin' time. Other Norwegian men go to Thailand 10x a year.

Eivind Berge said...

Actually I work as much as I can. Been working for a temp agency for a year accepting anything they would offer and am now also awaiting work for a new translation agency, but there just isn't enough work and declining, it seems. The past month I've only had work four days, which is not even enough to pay rent. It simply isn't true that there is no unemployment among healthy men in Norway.

Also it is very possible that I will have to continue paying women for sex for a long time even with a full-time job. It may take decades to get wealthy enough to get a girl for free. Even if I could afford to go to Thailand 10x a year, I would still be a criminal for paying for sex and hunted by Norwegian cops, so my hatred against them is entirely justified irregardless.

Deetec said...

Why this constant obsession with wealth? You don't need to be wealthy to be attractive - in fact, most of the women I know would far sooner be with someone who valued them rather than their jobs. I myself just turned down a promotion opportunity because it would place too much strain on my family - neither my wife nor I think the extra cash would be worth it.

No, your problem is that you seem hell-bent on doing the exact opposite of what needs to be done to make you attractive. If I had to pick adjectives to describe the way you come across online, they'd be things like: arrogant, whiny, selfish, solipsistic and buck-passing. Any of these would be unattractive enough on their own, but in combination they're actively repellent - and when your hair-raising views on rape are thrown into the mix, they're wholly toxic.

None of this is beyond fixing, but you have to take a good long look at yourself and ask why people think this about you, and what you can do to change perceptions. You can either have a proper relationship or become a martyr to a useless cause, but I really don't see how you can do both.

Eivind Berge said...

I am far from obsessed with wealth and not very materialistic. In fact, that's one big reason why I'm so unattractive. In the end, the fact that I am dirt poor matters much more than any unpopular political views.

Beyond securing a basic standard of living, wealth is just a means to get women as far as I am concerned. If I were truly materialistic, certainly I would have been doing a lot better by now. The problem is I underestimated the crucial importance of wealth for attracting women. I underestimated the extent of female hypergamy. And finally I underestimated the malicious escalation of the feminist police state as an instrument of driving up the cost and risks of sex for the benefit of women. Now the reality of all this has fully dawned on me and while I acknowledge that I made some bad decisions in my life not conducive to maximizing earning power, the reality of the present sexual marketplace brutally skewed against men by a feminist regime calls for violence as more or less the only viable option, and perhaps revenge is all I can realistically accomplish in life. My life is in shambles because of celibacy; I am squarely pushed into a corner by forces of pure hatred and poising to lash out in desperation so I can at least salvage some antifeminist payback amid the ruins of a life destroyed by sexual frustration.

"You don't need to be wealthy to be attractive - in fact, most of the women I know would far sooner be with someone who valued them rather than their jobs."

Of course, men don't usually value women for their jobs and neither do I. Women are valued for their bodies and men are valued for their jobs/wealth/status. Men work in order to have sex and women work so they can avoid having sex (at least with betas). Women work so that they can be independent and men work so we can be intimate and dependable.

But yeah, there are other alpha characteristics that can attract women besides wealth. E.g., establishing myself as a notorious violent criminal would attract more women overnight than a lifetime of conscientious labor.

Anonymous said...

You think you're analyzing your situation objectively. But it's all bullshit. It's a matter of who you are as a person. Develop some interpersonal intelligence and you can have sex.

Eivind Berge said...

Since I have been able to have sex and even relationships in the past, clearly I don't lack interpersonal intelligence. The bane of my sex life has been virulent feminism driving up the cost and all-around difficulty of women beyond my means. My mate value has also plummeted because I am way poorer now than expected at my age, but I would indisputably be able to have sex at least occasionally if it wasn't for radical feminism. This is war.

Anonymous said...

There's no getting through to you. You don't accept any input that doesn't support what you already believe. You have a ton of people here pointing out the errors of your thinking, but it's of no use.

Deetac said...

There's no getting through to you. You don't accept any input that doesn't support what you already believe. You have a ton of people here pointing out the errors of your thinking, but it's of no use.

What's most depressing is the way that Eivind takes statements that are clearly founded on experience and common sense and runs them through various ideological filters to see if they compute with his mindset. The idea that people can have a hugely successful decade-plus relationship (and marriage, in my case) purely because they have matching personalities and senses of humour seems utterly alien to him - yet such an arrangement is at the core of the happiest relationships I know.

I've had one girlfriend who was obsessed with wealth and status. Our relationship didn't last long - and I met up with her ten years later to find that she considered her life a massive disappointment because nobody measured up to her (or, more accurately, her mother's) perceived standards. By contrast, all her successors went out with me because they liked me (it certainly wasn't because of material wealth or jobs, unless they were severely deluded), and although I was the one who ended the relationships, they all remain good friends, not least on Facebook.

So might I suggest that if Eivind truly believes the stereotypes that he's peddling, this is most likely because he's chasing the wrong women?

Anonymous said...

But yeah, there are other alpha characteristics that can attract women besides wealth. E.g., establishing myself as a notorious violent criminal would attract more women overnight than a lifetime of conscientious labor.

"Attraction" in these cases is generally expressed through long rambling letters written by these deluded, often damaged women, since the criminal in question is usually unable to pay them closer attention. How much pussy do you think Charles Manson has had in the last four decades?

Seriously, Eivind, what's the point? You obviously don't have the cojones to be a proper notorious violent criminal (you've been crying wolf about this for so long that it's becoming hilarious), so how is pretending to be one going to make you more attractive?

I would want to be remembered as an antifeminist cop-killer, not as a buffoon.

You can't engineer people's memories of you. And as soon as you carry out this threat to become "an antifeminist cop-killer" (whatever that means), people will be crawling over every corner of the Net for your back-story. Do you really think they're going to paint a flattering portrait based on what they find?

You're not a Charles Manson, you're a Cho Seung-Hui - and how many people fancied him, either in real life or posthumously?

Anonymous said...

"Attraction" in these cases is generally expressed through long rambling letters written by these deluded, often damaged women, since the criminal in question is usually unable to pay them closer attention. How much pussy do you think Charles Manson has had in the last four decades?

That's bullshit like the rest of your worthless opinions. The max sentence for murder in Norway is 21 years, and the most anyone has ever served is 15 (Vikernes). And they get plenty of fucking from female fans in private visitation hours after a few years.

Anonymous said...

purely because they have matching personalities and senses of humour seems utterly alien to him

That's just one of the many things you like to believe to feel good about yourself. Unfortunately it's bullshit too. Science seems more in line with Eivind's views - females are usually hypergamous, ie. they want someone who has something more from men than they have - more money, more influence, more physical dominance, superior attitude etc. And as societies tend to produce men that have less and less compared to women because of how we treat them, more and more men like Eivind are left alone. He's a perfect example backed up by science really. You're just bragging about your supposedly happy 10 year+ (wow, must be a record in the US) marriage, while you're oblivious to the fact that money is just one of many hypergamous trait and god knows what else, because it benefits you to say preach conventional truths.

Eivind Berge said...

Varg Vikernes is a near-contemporary of mine, from the same town, and I remember well the trial and all that brouhaha back around 1994. Poorly did I realize at the time how much more successful he would be in life than I, which became painfully apparent as he was about to be released a couple of years ago and had a woman waiting. He has a family now while I am languishing in celibacy.

Women absolutely love violent men. Just witness all the forums where they declare their love for convicted felons and discuss things like "Can we still get married if there is a restraining order?"

It is blatantly obvious that violent men in prison get far more than rambling letters from deluded women. They are loved by beautiful young women who do everything they can to seek them out.

Eivind Berge said...

"You're not a Charles Manson, you're a Cho Seung-Hui - and how many people fancied him, either in real life or posthumously?"

I am nothing like Cho Seung-Hui. I don't have any mental disorder like selective mutism or paranoid schizophrenia and am by no means that creepy. But I bet some women would want him too if he had lived, and one is all it takes. He was just deranged though; not a politically aware activist, so there is no comparison. My online record reveals a coherent anti-feminist ideology and scientifically sound world view that I am quite happy for people to find. Only my lax proofreading and somewhat frequent typos are embarrassing.

"Seriously, Eivind, what's the point?"

At the very least, some manner of revenge is realistic, eventually. At the rate feminism is escalating, it may not be possible for me to ever find love or have regular sex. But if I can kill or maim a single cop on duty to thwart my happiness in the name of feminism, I shall not have lived in vain. Just making the best of a bad job in this hateful feminist Utopia.

Cop said...

I don't believe for a second that you didn't write those anonymous comments supporting yourself, Eivind.

Eivind Berge said...

You can believe whatever you want, but I did not write any of the anonymous comments around here. All my comments are signed using my Google account.

Anonymous said...

My online record reveals a coherent anti-feminist ideology and scientifically sound world view that I am quite happy for people to find. Only my lax proofreading and somewhat frequent typos are embarrassing.

But we're not talking about your opinion of yourself - we're talking about other people's opinion of you.

Do you seriously think that too many other people are going to read what you've written and go "Oh, that Eivind Berge! Sound fellow, sound opinions - but dearie me, those typos!"

Psychiatric prisons are full of people who are convinced that they had a "scientifically sound world view", though fortunately many of them will never get another opportunity to test it against the real world. Ian Brady, for instance, dismissed his torturing and killing spree as "merely an existential exercise" (one of the reasons he'll never be released), and I suspect he'd recognise a kindred spirit if anyone was to send him some of your posts trivialising rape.

Eivind Berge said...

"Do you seriously think that too many other people are going to read what you've written and go "Oh, that Eivind Berge! Sound fellow, sound opinions"

No, I know most people are going to hate me and cling to the lie that I am insane. I know I am going down and it's a desperate situation. That's why I say it's war. But I have made myself clear enough to my satisfaction and I know many smart people understand me. I didn't write any of those anonymous comments and that's just the tip of the iceberg. In fact, there is already a sizable men's movement espousing the same views, in just slightly less violent rhetorics. Just look into what is loosely known as the manosphere or Roissysphere -- check out my blogroll for starters. I certainly don't need to shill for myself in order for these things to be said...

Cops underestimate how much people hate them at their peril. They smugly believe they can enforce progressively more oppressive laws without losing respect in the population. But they are wrong. Society isn't just shutting out men with genuine mental issues like Cho anymore. An increasing proportion of healthy men are being rejected by women from channeling our energy into becoming husbands and fathers while cops enforce our celibacy. And so men who would normally be productive citizens grow hateful and destructive instead. Things can get really ugly when you keep the wrong men down.

Balty said...

As a long time follower of Varg Vikernes, I can assure you that he wasn't loved just because of his violence. Varg had an immense cult following mostly among men (90% of his fans are male) and among those there was also a small percentage of women. He had a woman already before he went to jail and if I'm not mistaken he already had a child (a daughter, I think, if I'm not mistaken he already mentioned her in Vargsmal). Well, either way, he already had some sort of a commitment back then. Knowing him and how big a following he attracted, I'm actually surprised that he had so few interactions / romances with women (but this is also due to his character/values). His attraction is not in his delinquency per se, but in the force with which he was ready to defend his ideas. Besides that, Varg was a rather handsome man (and you can say he still is, I guess). It wasn't just his lover that was waiting for him to get out of jail, but thousands of other people. He had (has?) a cult following and this is not just because he was a criminal, but because of the certain ideas that he defended. And I repeat, he was physically a very attractive young man during the time those events transpired and even during the time he was in jail.

Balty said...

And Varg aside (btw, I wouldn't sleep with him or marry him even though I read his books and listened to his records)... it is by far not just violent and incarcerated men that are getting female attention. The majority of men are actually rather mellow, and not even that violent, at least, not violent in an extreme way. And most men are getting laid / are in relationships / are married. People fuck constantly. The majority of men are betas, or a combination of beta and alpha, very few are alphas. Very few are violent criminals. Very many gentle, considerate men are having passionate sex. A man doesn't have to be rich or a criminal to have a relationship with a woman.

Given how much hatred and verbal aggression you have already communicated online, and how vehemently and belligerently you have stood out, you could already be qualified as one of those "violent" men and you should have girls lining up to talk to you.

Balty said...

Ok, I correct that: he had a daughter who was already big when he went to jail, so she is a teenager now. He also has a little boy. I think this is with another woman. They live in Telemark now. Anyway, it's nothing extra ordinary, just a father with a couple of kids, completely normal, like many others. And maybe he's old now, but he was very attractive when he was 20 (around the time he had his first child). And even when he sported the NS look. So nothing really extra ordinary about his family / romantic life.

Anonymous said...

Cops underestimate how much people hate them at their peril.

Actually, you seem like one of the few MRAs that really see cops as the problem. If anything, cops should be part of the solution, because they can act with authority and they're usually white men who see the reality of today's society, so they're very susceptible to MRA-ideas. They're pretty much the last ones you'd not like to have on your team. Instead you seem to be obsessing about them in an inconstructive manner. It's just a problem, it's just destilled bad feelings (which are natural) poured into the wrong jug.

Ok, I correct that: he had a daughter who was already big when he went to jail, so she is a teenager now. He also has a little boy. I think this is with another woman. They live in Telemark now. Anyway, it's nothing extra ordinary, just a father with a couple of kids, completely normal, like many others.

Yeah, he's just your normal 12th century stave church arsonist murderer world's most notorious metal artist farmer living it out with his family making black metal and being a living idol for thousands of people without trying to on the side. Nothing special, I would agree.

BTW, according to the wikipedia-article, he had one daughter born 1993, and one son born 2007, and expecting another child. Guess it wasn't all astral projection, reading, writing and music in jail... :-)

I don't believe for a second that you didn't write those anonymous comments supporting yourself, Eivind.

You mean yourself yourself, yourself... But okay, if it makes you feel any better, I'm just a figment of Eivind's imagination, and there aren't thousands of active MRA (men's rights activism) bloggers out there. Now go on and try to follow the discussion.

Cop said...

Of course there are a lot of men's rights activists who hold a lot of the general opinions that Eivind holds. But the way he applies his understanding of the issues to his personal life is pretty outrageous. I would say that anyone supporting his assertion of living a worthless life because of feminism, would be no better than a person claiming to see the hallucinations of a crazy man. Why join in delusions?

Eivind Berge said...

Being delusional means believing things that aren't true. It is a fact that feminists pushed through the law criminalizing the only way besides rape that I could have sex right now. Cops are enthusiastically enforcing this law and even boasting just last week in the local news that "no one should feel safe" referring to men looking to buy sex. And this law is just the tip of the iceberg, or crown jewel, of feminist reforms that make life easier for women and worse for men.

It is also not delusional to feel that sex is pretty important for one's quality of life.

Fuck you, cop.

Cops are the enemies of men and plenty of MRAs hate their guts.

Balty said...

I didn't say Varg was not extra ordinary, I meant that his family / love life doesn't sound as anything extra ordinary. Yes, indeed, he does have another child on the way. That's really nice to hear.

Either way, he should have women not because he was in jail, but because he generally has a huge following and would be getting a lot of attention anyway, besides most of his fans are male.

"..and even boasting just last week in the local news that "no one should feel safe" referring to men looking to buy sex."

Was this in Dagbladet? I wonder if it's the ideological / moral persuasion of these male cops (or is it just because they have to enforce the law).

Eivind Berge said...

No, it was in the local newspaper BA.

As to Varg Vikernes, yes, he had a lot going for him even without the arson and killing. Having a couple kids is also not really all that spectacular, but it is evidently a lot more than I can hope for. A bona fide criminal record would certainly help even if you aren't a cult hero, and the more heinous the better for attracting women.

Anonymous said...

Okay, so he's extraordinary, let's agree on that. Anyway Balty, you are still confirming Eivind's general world views. Vikernes has a bucket of alpha traits - physical specimen, intelligent, aggressive, good looking, iron will etc. Basically he could have had thousands or at least hundreds of women if he was the kind of guy who thought screwing thousands of them would fill the void in his soul. But he's not, so he's not that much different from the ordinary.

But the main thing is - he's an alpha and he could have had a ton of women if he cared to, even if he's probably had more than his fair share. Somebody has to pay for all this alpha fucking, and this blog belongs to one of those who does...

Anonymous said...

Of course there are a lot of men's rights activists who hold a lot of the general opinions that Eivind holds. But the way he applies his understanding of the issues to his personal life is pretty outrageous.

I'd say counterproductive rather than outrageous. After all, if his entire mental well-being depends on getting laid more frequently, as he tells us again and again, why does he go out of his way to make comments about rape that are guaranteed to alienate the overwhelming majority of women who read them?

If you Google 'Eivind Berge', you get a powerfully negative impression of the man even from reading the summaries of the search results - and delving deeper doesn't make the picture any more attractive.

Balty said...

I never denied he was an alpha. However, I think he is rather chaste(but I may be wrong). Actually, he now reminds of some of those alpha men who have monogomous natures.

Either way he's alphaness is not directly related to his criminality. In fact, many women would be scared of him.

And I never denied that women (and men) tend to be attracted to alpha men. In line with your argument, this situation with Eivind would be just the same in a natural environment anyway (has nothing to do with "feminist" state). In fact, in a more unequal society hypergamy would swell to an extent that you have never even seen in Norway. When women lack resources and are insecure/unequal, they are much more ruthless and calculating when selecting/leaving a man.

MRAs tend to bring this alpha/beta dichotomy to extremes. The reality is - most women are with betas. Because they happen to love those particular men.

Eivind admitted this himself when he showed his surprise at some regular guys with wives and kids. He was surprised that these "shmucks" or whatever he called them could get it and he couldn't. While in fact those men are just normal, everyday loving men with good hearts and a sense of responsibility.

Anyway, Eivind, my earnest wish to you is that you get laid soon.

Balty said...

I think his goal is other than to just get laid. To show off is a much bigger goal.

Cop said...

Yes, Eivind, a lot of people would agree that sex is an important part of life. But you're saying that unless someone has sex with you soon, you'll fucking kill and rape people. It's not that important... Life is a lot more than sex, but you're saying none of it matters to you because you can't persuade people to have sex with you. I don't think this is really an issue of sex. It is a case of being addicted to misery and self-pity. You have no self-worth. You think it would be a good idea to commit a violent crime that would alienate 99% of women, in order to possibly attract a few spaced out ones.

Even if a woman came along who would yield to your sexual demands (which is not going to happen), you would still be the miserable son of a bitch that you are now. Life is what you make of it, and this is who you have chosen to become.

But you're just preparing your legacy on this blog apparently. We shall all know why you committed your self-righteous suicide.

Eivind Berge said...

Balty, at what point would you acknowledge that the feminist state has something to do with the fact that I can't get laid? If I went out right now and got arrested and prosecuted for trying to pay a prostitute, would my frustration still have nothing to do with feminism? And would I be trying to "show off" more than desperately satisfy a basic need?

Attitudes like yours show that reason and arguments are futile and that men indeed will have to fight this out with cops. There will have to be blood in the streets. Cops need to die in the line of enforcing your luxury feminist laws. Then women will at least comprehend that something is amiss with the way this society is set up, even if they will never sympathize with celibate men.

And no, women would not be more ruthless if they lacked resources and were insecure/unequal. You wouldn't be able to afford it. Rejecting any man you want is a luxury uniquely afforded by feminism. At the very least, there would be some poor women compelled to sell sex cheaply out of sheer necessity, and buying wouldn't be a crime.

Anonymous said...

Eivind admitted this himself when he showed his surprise at some regular guys with wives and kids. He was surprised that these "shmucks" or whatever he called them could get it and he couldn't. While in fact those men are just normal, everyday loving men with good hearts and a sense of responsibility.

Indeed - and Eivind's problem is that pretty much everything he's written here and elsewhere suggests that he's profoundly selfish and irresponsible.

The combination of a massive ego and a knee-jerk tendency to blame everyone else for problems largely of your own making makes for a deeply unattractive prospect as a partner - and that's without the added turn-offs of him becoming a poster-boy for "rape advocacy" and his violent fantasies about murdering policemen.

In fact, isn't the whole "if I become notorious I can get laid!" fantasy comprehensively undermined by the fact that Eivind has been internationally notorious for months now? I can't see how becoming a violent criminal as well is going to make much difference. Especially not if he's looking for a long-term stable relationship with which to produce children.

Eivind Berge said...

"Even if a woman came along who would yield to your sexual demands (which is not going to happen), you would still be the miserable son of a bitch that you are now."

No, you moron, I have had sex before and it made me happy. I know from experience how important sex is and the deleterious effects of not getting it. I am not ranting out of ignorance here. Of course I would still harbor political disagreements, like everyone else, but I wouldn't personally be profoundly unhappy, hateful, bitter and violent if I had a girlfriend.

Balty said...

Eivind, nobody owes you anything. A woman's body belongs to the woman herself. This formula that you keep repeating over and over how men are the wallets and women are sex objects is getting really boring. I would like you to look beyond that. Yes, it is somewhat true on a rudimentary level, but there is much more to love and sex than that (actually there's a whole superstructure of sexual/romantic relations on top of it). Women are humans too, worthy of equal respect as men (and this includes respect towards women's sexuality). You are a guy who pays a lot of attention to detail, so try to see the nuances there. Yes, on the one hand sex is a female resource, but that is too dogmatic. Sex is largely about sharing.

In an egalitarian state, the woman can choose a man based on other qualities than his earning power/status. It's actually better for a sweet beta guy. If you lived in an unequal country, you would have to support a woman. In Russia, for instance, it is an unwritten law that the man always pays. And not just for coffee or dinner. Where I'm from, the most beautiful women hop from one man to another, ever higher, without any qualms. They have no reservations and are not ashamed of their gold digging because the rules of the game are so ruthless. This behaviour has an effect on beta male health that nobody wants to recognize openly. And women accept it, whereas in Sweden for instance women shame other women who try to live off of a man.

And on prostitution.. Scandinavia has a special stance here, but, let's be honest, prostitution exists even there. You can buy a woman even there. Yes, the women are pricey, but they offer their services and since their ads are still there, it would imply that the clients are still there too. Sure, technically it's illegal, but it's not like it doesn't exist at all. Besides, Scandis are lax about sex and enjoy very rich nsa sex lives. You should too. And could, if you were a bit more loving and humane.

Balty said...

And about white knights and the women friendly betas. I have always liked / prefered them, but now that I have encountered the MRA movement, I will show them extra appreciation (in all ways). Just in case.

And above all. Nobody owes anyone anything.

Anonymous said...

Of course I would still harbor political disagreements, like everyone else, but I wouldn't personally be profoundly unhappy, hateful, bitter and violent if I had a girlfriend.

But how is constantly ranting about how unhappy, hateful, bitter and violent you are going to get you a girlfriend? Who on earth is going to find that attractive?

You've locked yourself into a vicious circle, and only you can break out of it - but it involves taking a long, hard look at yourself and how you come across to other people, and serious efforts towards making drastic changes.

You absolutely aren't a lost cause at 32 (I didn't meet my wife until I was much older), and you've been getting some excellent, highly practical advice - a surprising amount considering how rude and dismissive your responses usually are. Perhaps if you took some of it on board for once, you might start to climb out of the hole you've dug yourself into?

Anonymous said...

Trond Kirkvaag - Sipper'n - Jeg vil pule!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGfbr2mQN-Y

Anonymous said...

Trond Kirkvaag - Sipper'n - Jeg vil pule! (Artist name, Whiner - I want to screw)

Yes, we're told to laugh at men's unfulfilled basic needs just like we're told to ignore their deaths and pains of all sorts. That doesn't make for a very healthy society though, because most healthy men, you know, the ones who make all the funny gadgets and things in the world you live in work, tend to move away from places that express strong hatred towards them. So in not too long a time, maybe men will be the ones laughing watching their shameless women hammering their thumbs trying to build shacks for minus 20 degree winters. Something tells me you personally would find that a lot less amusing.

Anonymous said...

It's obviously not a representation of any man. I'm sorry if you fail to see the humor.

Anonymous said...

I didn't actually see the video before I made the comment, I was talking about the prevalent tendency to mock men's suffering in general. It seemed pretty lame to be honest, characters cut out in paper and dialogue dead and unrealistic, but then again, I have high standards. I'm sure you tend to fail to see the humor in racist jokes or jokes that make fun of handicapped and lesbians some times too, so that makes two of us I guess. Which is fair enough, each to their own. However, they're not going to build your fucking roads and houses once you've chased the last good men away from this country, are they?

Anonymous said...

The reason I posted the video is because it shows a man throwing tantrums because he wants to have sex. Which is kind of what Eivind is doing.

I'm afraid I can't reply to nonsensical questions.

Balty said...

Fact is, for the past decades there has been a movement towards the "women friendly" countries, not away from them. There are people, both men and women, streaming towards Scandinavia now and the population is growing due to immigration (not even such a nice development).

Nobody was really leaving America up until now either. Now that there will be economic problems in America, some people are thinking of migrating from there. Some people also migrate away from the West because it is too stressful there and the demands of life, esp. financially, have become too high.

Yes, some Western men are going to Asia, and that's their prerogative. They are free to seek happiness where they can find it.

Having said that. Ofc, one shouldn't be mean to their men, esp. the good Western men. Most of them are wonderful and should be treated well.

And about jokes.. I have always disliked the blond jokes and how normalized they are. Those are both sexist and racist.

And, yea, I agree that lately there has been too much ridiculing of men, esp. white men, in the media, and esp. jokes about violence towards men. Somehow it is supposed to be funny when you hit a man on the head or kick him in the balls. An example where it is going out of its way is Dudesons on MTV. Kinda funny.. but not even that funny when you really think about it.

Eurosabra said...

Balty, the thing about beta appreciation is, you're going to have to fuck them. Lots of men have decent apartments, median income, etc, but the CDC report showed that 10% of straight men in the US 18-44 had never had sex, and 37% had not had sex in the past year. The shortfall is in sex and it needs to be made up in sex. (And this is not addressing unemployment, US urban underclass, quality of life issues etc.) The rise in never-married men with no kids in Norway from 16% to 25% in the past decade is similar.

Balty said...

"..the thing about beta appreciation is, you're going to have to fuck them."

That's what I meant. There are quite a few men who are kind towards women who are pretty fuckable. And when you see these aggressive, women loathing MRAs, why not be extra nice to a guy who isn't like that?

Yea, these numbers are interesting. 37% is quite a lot but it is distributed among a rather large demographic of men. 25% in Norway with no kids is quite alarming but you would have to look at the age of those men as most men tend to delay having family until they're in their 30s. But it is indeed a bit alarming, I have checked out Scandi guys on dating sites and it is rather common to see even an attractive guy in his late 20s and 30s with no kids. To me it seems like a bit of a waste of their good genes.

Never married is not a good criteria anymore because many ppl simply choose not to marry but live together. The important statistic is the children. Maybe they don't want kids (or don't want them until they're past 30). Many men prefer not to get married/get into serious partnerships and have kids, but instead live in serial monogamy or just live on hook ups, that seems like an attractive life style choice for many men.

But one very important thing is true though - the sex ratio. In the West it is rather favorable for women (and for very young women it is super favorable).

Potocki said...

Eivind on Saturday:

Of course I would still harbor political disagreements, like everyone else, but I wouldn't personally be profoundly unhappy, hateful, bitter and violent if I had a girlfriend.

Eivind on Sunday:

Scandinavia is a cauldron of hate against men festering with such ferocity you have to be here to fathom it. And so women have it coming...

So have you changed your mind about wanting a girlfriend? Because comments like that pretty much guarantee that any halfway sane woman will give you the widest possible berth - and who can blame her?

Seriously, what on earth is a potential girlfriend going to get out of a relationship with you? Isn't she going to be constantly worried about what you might do to her when her back is turned, or when she's asleep? What else do you have to offer to make that a risk worth taking?

Balty said...

"Scandinavia is a cauldron of hate against men."

Oops, I didn't see this before.

Eivind Berge, you think you can blasphemize Scandinavia and get away with it? Scandinavia is a place where men will find themselves well and live a good life. And be loved (and sexed) by myself and thousands of Swedish and Norwegian women. If you keep throwing words like these around I will literally go there and kick you out.

Eivind Berge said...

Potocki: No, I certainly haven't changed my mind about wanting a girlfriend. It is a fact that there is a climate of extreme hate against men here in Scandinavia. I was simply tweeting the truth. Sweden is the worst, of course, but Norway is not that far behind and we generally adopt most Swedish feminist innovations a few years later. Just look at what is happening to Assange. Pretty much the whole world understands that Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism now and the Swedish "justice" system is the laughingstock of the world. Assange is literally facing a "rape" trial in secret without a jury based on something every reasonable person in the world understands is not rape except by the twisted misandry of radical feminism. Get this: the Swedish system is so bizarrely corrupt to its core that rape trials are routinely conducted behind closed doors... So there would be no fair trial even if the charges made sense, and this alone is a sufficient argument against extradition. In Norway trials sometimes do stoop to that Kafkaesque level of a mockery of a court of law, but generally only when children testify. Sometimes women too I guess, but at least it is not routine and the whole trial is certainly not conducted in secret.

But of course no woman has anything to fear if she wants to give me what I want and have sex with me. Duh. A girlfriend would be perfectly safe with me and there isn't anything in my writings that should lead her to be afraid of what I "might do to her when her back is turned, or when she's asleep." I think you are being deliberately obtuse here.

Balty, it seems your appreciation of betas is limited to words. Aren't you planning on being a single mom because no man is good enough?

Balty said...

All my boyfriends have been betas, with the exception of one. We had great sex. And I'm dating several Swedish men now, also betas with a few attractive characteristics each.

Eivind, if there was a woman today who said she wanted to have a child with you - what could you give to this woman? Could you take care of her/your child? Are you ready for it? Or are you just ready / able to blabber on senselessly online about social injustices?

Potocki said...

But of course no woman has anything to fear if she wants to give me what I want and have sex with me. Duh.

But suppose there's a night when she doesn't want to have sex with you for whatever reason? Or a week? Or longer? Would you respect this?

A girlfriend would be perfectly safe with me and there isn't anything in my writings that should lead her to be afraid of what I "might do to her when her back is turned, or when she's asleep." I think you are being deliberately obtuse here.

Actually, there's a great deal in your writings, specifically your explicit (and obsessively detailed) defence of certain types of enforced sexual activity not being rape, that would make any reasonable individual think precisely that.

There's nothing obtuse about this at all: just try reading what you wrote from the perspective of a potential girlfriend. Why on earth should she trust someone who holds your views?

Balty said...

Sorry for the harsh words (esp. on the eve of Valentine's day). But, please, do not spread lies about the Nordic societies.

I will ask Freyja that you have love (and peace) in your life.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, Balty, I am ready for a woman to have a child with me. I would then adapt to the situation and try to earn enough to support them, and in any case you know how generous Norwegian welfare allows babies to be had with no worries even if neither of us make any money. Or especially then...

Social injustice needs to be exposed and I would continue to talk online about MRA issues now and then, but this wouldn't interfere with my personal family life. Celibacy, on the other hand, inexorably kills.

Anonymous said...

Eivind, what do you have to offer to a woman? What's in it for her?

Eivind Berge said...

Potocki, you are a mangina whom the feminists are playing for a fool. Women don't fear any of the bogus feminist rape I have called out as such. Women deciding to sleep with me wouldn't need to fear me any more than they fear Assange, which is not at all. Anna Ardin continued to sleep in the same bed with him and Sofia Wilen didn't even realize she had been "raped" until the cops explained it to her. Such technically rape by the feminist legal definition only serves as a weapon against men, and you are quite stupid for thinking this is something women fear. A woman doesn't fear when she decides to sleep with a man that he is actually going to fuck her in the normal fashion without a condom (which I have made clear is my intention anyway), or whether she is fully awake the exact moment he penetrates her the third time. These trivial disputes only become an issue if the woman wants revenge for some reason and the legal system is corrupted by feminists in order to allow women to use rape law against any man they had sex with.

"But suppose there's a night when she doesn't want to have sex with you for whatever reason? Or a week? Or longer? Would you respect this?"

I have no problem respecting not getting sex on a particular night in a relationship. It wouldn't be so urgent then. I wouldn't carry on a relationship for a long time with no sex, though, and I don't respect a wife's right to regularly deny her husband sex. Even so, women didn't fear marriage before the marital rape exemption was abolished starting around the 1970s, so this would hardly deter them either. Finally, seeing how women are positively drawn to very violent and genuinely dangerous men indeed, I don't think my rejection of radical feminist legal protections for women will instill much fear.

Eivind Berge said...

"Eivind, what do you have to offer to a woman? What's in it for her?"

Just love and what you see. I guess I don't have anything out of the ordinary to offer. Which makes it hopeless when women are so picky. What more do you want, exactly?

Anonymous said...

But I don't see any love. You say you are going to continue to hate until somebody loves you. Maybe you ought to start cultivating your love sooner rather than later.

Eivind Berge said...

You are saying I should be a docile fool even as a complete loser. That would be really convenient for women, eh? Supplicate all my life begging for scraps, end up with nothing, and I am still supposed to "love"? I need to exude unconditional love no matter how far I am downtrodden, while women get to engineer a society which gives them unlimited protection and benefits at the expense of men. And I shouldn't even question feminism. That's the kind of dupe you take me for?

Anonymous said...

And what kind of dupes do you take women for? They're supposed to take your word that once a relationship has been established you turn into this great loving fellow? So, you say you only have love to offer, but then you make it clear that you're not the kind of fool who offers it in advance, so really, you don't have anything to offer at all.

Eivind Berge said...

Any woman who gave me a chance at all would discover that I am quite loving. It is unreasonable to ask that I love everyone and blindly accept all the excesses of feminism first.

Eivind Berge said...

Also keep in mind that you don't see any love because you are witnessing the upshot of three decades of progressive feminist hostility. I wasn't born hateful.

Anonymous said...

Any woman who gave me a chance at all would discover that I am quite loving. It is unreasonable to ask that I love everyone and blindly accept all the excesses of feminism first.

No-one is suggesting this. They're merely asking, quite reasonably, why you should be given a chance when the persona you display online is so repellent. We obviously have no way of knowing how close this persona is to your real-life one, but if it's even halfway there, the root causes of your inability to attract women are glaringly obvious.

What exactly is gained by calling someone "a mangina"? It's the kind of insult that says far more about you and your mindset than it does about anything Potocki has written. In fact, I'm very pleasantly surprised by the sheer quantity of excellent advice you're being offered here, given that you instinctively reject everything that requires you to change your attitude. But what has sticking to your guns brought you, aside from derision and hatred?

Someone once said that you come across as a horny teenager trapped in a 32-year-old's body, and I think that's spot on. Obviously, your emotional immaturity stems at least partly from the fact that you've never had a proper relationship lasting more than a few weeks - but while this is understandable, it's also a profound turn-off. And when you throw violent fantasies into the mix, especially when they involve non-consensual sex, you become even less attractive.

Basically, Eivind, if you want your life to change, YOU have to change. If you carry on as before in the hopelessly deluded belief that you're right and the rest of the world is wrong, you're guaranteed an utterly miserable existence - and I'd have thought you'd seen ample supporting evidence of this already. And the idea that you're emotionally ready for fatherhood is frankly laughable.

Potocki said...

Potocki, you are a mangina whom the feminists are playing for a fool.

Someone's already mentioned this, but your use of "mangina" as an insult reveals infinitely more about you and your fundamental contempt for women than it does about anything else.

Women don't fear any of the bogus feminist rape I have called out as such.

If I read your posts correctly, you seem to classify virtually all non-consensual sex that doesn't involve actual physical violence as "bogus feminist rape". How many women have you - or anyone - met who would agree with you?

Such technically rape by the feminist legal definition only serves as a weapon against men, and you are quite stupid for thinking this is something women fear.

So we've had "mangina", and now I'm apparently "quite stupid" for asserting that women generally don't appreciate being forced to have sex against their will. Funny - until now, I'd never regarded that as a particularly controversial proposition. In fact, I still don't.

These trivial disputes only become an issue if the woman wants revenge for some reason and the legal system is corrupted by feminists in order to allow women to use rape law against any man they had sex with.

Having sex without a condom isn't a trivial issue, especially if the partners are unaware of each other's sexual history or alternative contraceptive arrangements.

I have no problem respecting not getting sex on a particular night in a relationship. It wouldn't be so urgent then. I wouldn't carry on a relationship for a long time with no sex, though, and I don't respect a wife's right to regularly deny her husband sex.

Even if there's a physical or psychological reason behind it?

For instance, suppose you persuaded her to have a contraceptive implant because you're so obsessed with condom-free sex - but which depresses her libido to the point where she's simply not interested in sex any more?

Now the sensible answer would be to get her to come off that particular contraceptive and return to having sex with condoms - or consider alternative contraceptive methods.

The ruinously stupid answer, by contrast, would be to force her to have sex against her will - because that will have only two plausible outcomes: either she'll leave you, or you'll have a miserable relationship based on mutual disrespect and distrust.

Do you seriously think that's a more attractive option?

Anonymous said...

Eivind, what do you have to offer to a woman? What's in it for her?

Basically mating with a (near) genius.

Anonymous said...

Basically mating with a (near) genius.

And bearing his children.

Form an orderly queue, ladies - don't all rush.

Eivind Berge said...

@Potocki

"If I read your posts correctly, you seem to classify virtually all non-consensual sex that doesn't involve actual physical violence as "bogus feminist rape". How many women have you - or anyone - met who would agree with you?"

Potocki, you have internalized all the despicable feminist propaganda, but unfortunately for feminists and manginas, in real life women don't oblige you and get traumatized by bogus feminist rape like they do from real rape. Thanks to Sofia Wilén and Swedish prosecutors so intoxicated with power that they don't realize they are pissing in the well of female privilege and comity of nations, the whole world now gets to witness the bizarre and draconian mismatch between what is legally a very serious crime with minimum two years in prison for the man (three in Norway) and a trivial experience for a woman (and a ridiculously neurotic woman at that) where all she is worried about is potential disease risk and merely feels that he should get tested. She does not even claim to be afraid of Assange and did not realize it was rape until feminists explained it to her.

Also, while it no doubt pleases you have a policeman in every bedroom ready treat men like horrible criminals as soon as they don't do exactly what women say, the redefinition of low levels of coercion any indeed any sexual regret as rape is backfiring on women as we speak. It is likely that your kind of pathetic white-knighting ends up doing women more harm than good. Hate breeds hate and defining all men as rapists trivializes the crime even though you still retain the terror of the police state for a while longer.

Even my own experience with forced sex flies directly in the face of feminist propaganda. I forced a girlfriend once to complete intercourse although she wanted to stop because she got self-conscious about the noise we were making while her father was in the next room. A clear-cut case of rape in feminist jurisdictions which allow women to withdraw consent at any time and don't require the woman to resist to her utmost. But she didn't behave like a good feminist. Instead she apologized the next morning for being silly to resist me and thought nothing more of it. Real relationships do not operate on the principle of "no means no" and all the other feminist hogwash. In real life, women tend to appreciate men who exert a certain amount of domination and don't ask her every five seconds if she is OK and can he get explicit consent to proceed now or else it is rape and she is damaged for life and the man deserves years in prison.

Eivind Berge said...

You have accepted wholesale the propaganda that any sex which leaves the woman anything less that 100% satisfied is rape. There is nothing in between being 100% courteous to women all the time and being a rapist. There is no such thing as simply bad sex or being a bad lover -- everything displeasing to women is rape or abuse -- in addition to a great deal of behavior that doesn't even offend them until they are indoctrinated with feminism. What feminists have done with rape reform would be the equivalent of expanding the definition of murder in order to improve people's manners. The kind of logic that says if we only define any undesirable behavior as murder and punish it as such, the world will be a better place. You seriously believe this kind of reform is justified and effective? Over the past 11 years, the legal definition of rape here in Norway has expanded from sex accomplished by serious violence or threats to include threats to end a relationship or start a rumor about a woman, as well as sex with an intoxicated or sleeping woman no matter how intimate you already are, and at the same time the MINIMUM punishment has been increased from one to three years. As people are catching on to the absurdity of feminist justice, manginas like you increasingly stand out as clowns. Defending feminists amid this hateful climate of feminist corruption of justice does not make you look good, dude. Just imagine what kind of nonsexual violence you would have to commit to get that kind of time. You would have to beat someone to within an inch of his life and you would still probably get off lighter than a man convicted of the mildest bogus feminist rape. Women's sexual regrets, no matter how mild, are so profoundly important that they merit this kind of draconian response? What is it about women's sexuality that makes the slightest perceived violation stand out from all other crimes?

"So we've had "mangina", and now I'm apparently "quite stupid" for asserting that women generally don't appreciate being forced to have sex against their will."

You asserted that they would be afraid of what I might do to them based on my writings. This is not the case. Women are better able to read people and situations than you give them credit for and they are not in fact the fragile victims in all sexual situations as your feminist propaganda will have it. Furthermore, if you think about what it actually means to be "forced to have sex against their will," you will find that it logically requires resistance to the best of the victim's ability, which usually means real violence where the woman is kicking and screaming and biting and doing everything she can to make him stop. Or else the woman isn't forced -- she is letting him have it. So you aren't even consistent in your own words.

Eivind Berge said...

"Having sex without a condom isn't a trivial issue, especially if the partners are unaware of each other's sexual history or alternative contraceptive arrangements."

Having sex without a condom has been considered perfectly normal for most of human history. It still is unless you buy into the hysterical sex-hostility of feminism. And unless you are prepared to treat a woman who lies about being on the pill as a horrible criminal on a par with a rapist, then you are a hypocrite, too.

"Even if there's a physical or psychological reason behind it? For instance, suppose you persuaded her to have a contraceptive implant because you're so obsessed with condom-free sex - but which depresses her libido to the point where she's simply not interested in sex any more?"

I realize that there can be legitimate reasons to turn down sex. I was referring to a wife who breaks the marital contract for no good reason and withholds sex. As long as a husband's obligations are enforceable, even with no-fault divorce, it is not fair to treat husbands as rapists if they take what they are promised. Why would a man want to sign up for an arrangement where he has no rights and only responsibilities? Your contrived scenario wouldn't be applicable to me, though, since I don't want women to use any kind of contraception at all. I always do my best to impregnate women.

As to me being "obsessed with condom-free sex" -- as I see it, I am the normal one and society is infested with a sickening, neo-puritanical chastity-ideal heartlessly stifling intimacy. Inordinate emphasis is placed on safety at the cost of living. It doesn't surprise me that you have internalized this sort of political correctness as well. And of course, as the full force of the institutions are brought to bear to make sex safe for women and absolve them of any sort of responsibility for their actions, sex has become correspondingly risky for men. Which is all fine and dandy for you manginas and white knights. But you are dinosaurs. We have an incipient men's movement now and there will be a backlash against women and the feminist reign of terror against men.

Anonymous said...

Condoms are about sex-hostility of feminism? I wasn't aware of that. I thought they were used to avoid catching STDs. Or are you talking about sex in monogamous relationships?

Potocki said...

You have accepted wholesale the propaganda that any sex which leaves the woman anything less that 100% satisfied is rape.

There is nothing that I have written that would lead a reasonable person to draw that conclusion. Stop building straw men.

I am talking about unambiguous rape, by which I mean sexual intercourse forced on somebody who has said "no" right from the start. In other words, situations where the rapist has no possible legal or moral defence.

Just to be clear, this does not include someone who was willing to commence intercourse but who changes her mind partway through, but it does include a situation with a husband forcing himself on an unwilling wife.

As to me being "obsessed with condom-free sex" -- as I see it, I am the normal one and society is infested with a sickening, neo-puritanical chastity-ideal heartlessly stifling intimacy.

So "intimacy" = condom-free sex? Once again, you're revealing just how emotionally immature you truly are.

Take two scenarios. The first involves condom-free sex with someone you don't know - in your case, probably a prostitute. The second involves safe sex with someone with whom you've been in a close relationship for several years - you're just using condoms because for various reasons it's the most convenient contraceptive at that particular moment.

Are you seriously trying to argue that the first scenario involves more intimacy than the second?

Inordinate emphasis is placed on safety at the cost of living. It doesn't surprise me that you have internalized this sort of political correctness as well.

Since when has it been "politically correct" to take sensible precautions against unwanted pregnancy or STDs?

Which is all fine and dandy for you manginas and white knights.

Eivind, every time you call me a "mangina" you remind me (and, I imagine, most other people reading this) what a truly revolting misogynist you are. So do please carry on: it has no other effect on me whatsoever.

We have an incipient men's movement now and there will be a backlash against women and the feminist reign of terror against men.

And to prove my point, you say "a backlash against women". Not feminists, women. Which is merely the latest of many implied threats that you've issued against women. Which might explain why you seem to have such difficulty finding a girlfriend.

Eivind Berge said...

"Condoms are about sex-hostility of feminism? I wasn't aware of that. I thought they were used to avoid catching STDs. Or are you talking about sex in monogamous relationships?"

Prosecuting men as rapists for what amounts to simply not wanting to use a condom is certainly all about feminism.

While condoms are useful sometimes, the risks of not using them are greatly exaggerated in what can only be described as either a modern form of puritanism or feminist sex-hostility, or both. The propaganda for condoms goes way beyond any reasonable need to protect against STDs. Condoms are upheld as a form of vicarious moralizing by people who really hate the idea of people enjoying sex, and especially men. It isn't politically correct to say you are against sex outright, so instead we get this nauseating obsession with barrier contraceptives. In a milieu of untrammeled feminism as in Sweden, this sort of malignant brainwashing even carries into monogamous relationships, corrupting the minds of naive young ladies:

"Police spoke to Miss Sofia Wilen's ex-boyfriend, who told them that in two and a half years they had never had sex without a condom because it was 'unthinkable' for her."

At 26 years old, Sofia Wilen has never had unprotected sex... If this bizarre fixation on "safe" were to be applied to other areas of life, you would have to crawl under your bed and cringe in fear of going anywhere or doing anything. In truth, this extreme risk-aversion is selectively applied to sex due to ulterior motives of promoting chastity and misandry.

Potocki said...

If this bizarre fixation on "safe" were to be applied to other areas of life, you would have to crawl under your bed and cringe in fear of going anywhere or doing anything. In truth, this extreme risk-aversion is selectively applied to sex due to ulterior motives of promoting chastity and misandry.

No, it's because careless sex can leave you with life-changing after-effects, be it an unwanted pregnancy or an even less wanted (possibly lifelong and even fatal) STD.

What other regular everyday aspect of human existence carries these risks?

Anonymous said...

What other regular everyday aspect of human existence carries these risks?

Well, duh... Alcohol (100k overdose deaths/year/world, aspirin (1000), traffic (million), pollution (million). Not to mention the absolutely unsafest of all is to stay home doing nothing all day, as it radically increases mortality compared to active people. In fact, you'd probably statistically live longer having an active life crossing roads without looking in the city than staying home doing nothing all day.

Potocki said...

Well, duh... Alcohol (100k overdose deaths/year/world, aspirin (1000), traffic (million), pollution (million).

Please explain how alcohol, aspirin, traffic and pollution lead directly either to unwanted pregnancy or to catching a transmittable and possibly permanent infection.

Granted, alcohol can be a contributing cause, but other factors have to come into play too.

Anonymous said...

Please explain how alcohol, aspirin, traffic and pollution lead directly either to unwanted pregnancy or to catching a transmittable and possibly permanent infection.

I don't need to. The topic was level of risk aversion and safety, and clearly deaths in the thousands and millions are worse compared to what you list. The fact that they're not the exact same effects is irrelevant.

Potocki said...

The fact that they're not the exact same effects is irrelevant.

Aside from the minor detail that I explicitly said "these risks" - i.e. pregnancy and STDs.

What's unique about sexual intercourse in terms of risk is that it generally involves two people, and in a mutually consensual situation it's very easy to minimise risk to the point where it's pretty negligible, provided both partners are mature and responsible.

Eivind seems to think that removing these risks somehow lessens the experience, and that condom-free sex is somehow "more intimate" by definition. It can be, but this is more a matter of the relationship between the people in question than about the actual mechanics. For instance, some of the most truly intimate sex I've had, in terms of being a meeting of minds and emotions as much as bodies, has involved condoms.

In fact, you can argue that the minimising of risk helps increase the intimacy, if only by eliminating distracting worries and allowing the partners to focus on pure pleasure.

Conversely, though I admit to having no personal experience of this, I seriously doubt that condom-free sex with a prostitute that you've only just met can possibly be considered "intimate" by any definition of the term. The feeling is unlikely to be mutual, and surely that's a prerequisite for the term to have any meaning?

Anonymous said...

Conversely, though I admit to having no personal experience of this, I seriously doubt that condom-free sex with a prostitute that you've only just met can possibly be considered "intimate" by any definition of the term.

That may be true a lot of places, including the US. The problem is, you just project all your bad feelings onto the terrible word "prostitute", and who would think sex with THAT would be intimate, huh? But many "prostitutes" are just young, horny girls from other parts of the world that want to make a buck and fuck too, unlike normal Western girls, who just get fucked usually. I find condom sex with "prostitutes" really nice and intimate, but I'm ok with condom sex, and the girls I screw look more like pretty girls than whores, and they're not used to rough prostitute lives.

Eivind Berge said...

@Potocki

So "intimacy" = condom-free sex? Once again, you're revealing just how emotionally immature you truly are.

All I said was that not using condoms makes it more intimate, everything else being equal.

Take two scenarios. The first involves condom-free sex with someone you don't know - in your case, probably a prostitute. The second involves safe sex with someone with whom you've been in a close relationship for several years - you're just using condoms because for various reasons it's the most convenient contraceptive at that particular moment. Are you seriously trying to argue that the first scenario involves more intimacy than the second?

Probably not, but both scenarios are more intimate without condoms. I never said sex with prostitutes is ideal, but it is certainly better than no sex at all and does involve some intimacy, more so without a condom.

Not only is raw-dogging more intimate from the man's point of view. Women tend to agree, too, and in fact semem acts as an anti-depressant for women.

"The team also found that depressive symptoms and suicide attempts were more common among women who used condoms regularly compared with those who didn't. The results will appear in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior."

This might make up for some of the risk.

As to pregnancy, I consider children a blessing rather than a risk. And indeed, becoming parents leads to more responsible behavior and less risk-taking, so even if your sole purpose in life is to minimize risk, even unwanted pregnancy is probably a net positive, at least if you, like me, are against abortion. Even pregnancy itself is beneficial. Women who've never carried a pregnancy to term have a much greater risk of developing breast cancer later in life.

Eivind Berge said...

"I am talking about unambiguous rape, by which I mean sexual intercourse forced on somebody who has said "no" right from the start. In other words, situations where the rapist has no possible legal or moral defence.
Just to be clear, this does not include someone who was willing to commence intercourse but who changes her mind partway through, but it does include a situation with a husband forcing himself on an unwilling wife.
"

The wife has agreed to sex by agreeing to marriage, making rape impossible. Do you really not see that the current situation is unfair to men? Australian Man Facing Trial for 1963 Spousal Rape -- before it was even a crime, but that does not stop feminists from prosecuting. Beatty Chadwick spent 14 years in jail because he refused to pay alimony. Women have access to the unlimited violence of the state in order to coerce men to fulfill their marital obligations to the point of supporting them even after no-fault divorce, and if the man takes what he married for, he is also imprisoned. If you believe this is as it should be, then you are indeed what we call a mangina.

This is one aspect of MRA that is actually starting to sink in. Men are beginning to realize that marriage is a bad deal. Certainly for men who are wealthy enough that women with their hypergamous natures actually want them, marriage no longer entails any enforceable obligations for the woman. For the man, marriage is merely an opportunity to sign up for indentured servitude. We can be rapists outside of marriage, thank you very much.

Now, I wouldn't have to pay alimony or stand to lose in a divorce because I am so poor, so women don't want me anyway. Thus in any case, marriage is irrelevant. Notice how women constantly ask "What's in it for me?" and conclude "nothing" in my case. Suppose men started asking the same question before getting married.

Anonymous said...

Eivind, people ask "What's in it for me?" because a relationship is a give and take thing. Why on Earth should I keep giving love to a specific person if I get hate and disrespect in return? In your case, I think women ask "what's in it for me?" because you sound dangerous and crazy to them, and they wonder if there is anything that could make up for that (something like genuine respect and love, perhaps?). I don't think it's possible to make up for a bad personality and views like yours in a long term relationship... So I doubt your lack of wealth is women's primary concern (I'm referring to women on this blog, btw).
Emma

Anonymous said...

For the man, marriage is merely an opportunity to sign up for indentured servitude. We can be rapists outside of marriage, thank you very much.

This pretty much illustrates the main reason why most people react to your posts - your shocking lack of empathy. Which is a common neurological effect of alcoholism. Fortunately it can be rebuilt since serotonergic systems can continue to branch out as long as you try to look at the bright side and don't drink. The problem is, your positive thoughts seem to be limited to when some of the many people you don't like die or get injured in some way. And that doesn't really count. Also, as has been pointed out, you're really, really far outside what Norwegian and Western guys think. Has there been anyone yet who thought your actions were a really good idea? I haven't seen one yet. If you say you want to hurt someone because you have a lot of pent up bad feelings, then at least you're being truthful.

Emma, you're right and you're wrong. Sure, women don't like what Eivind's saying, because besides his dark feelings and bad reactions to his situation, he's mostly right about sexual politics. And that never made any panties moist.

But you're also wrong because men like Eivind turn up in increasing droves because slut shaming is out and female freedom (the freedom to fuck a selected few, while extracting the labour from the rest of the men) is in, resulting in more and more lonely men. And that's hardly the fault of the male individuals.

Eivind Berge said...

I need to point out that insofar as I lack empathy (which is not completely true), this is not a result of alcoholism, but of celibacy and specifically the complete lack of touch. While I don't think I ever drank enough to seriously mess up my serotinergic system, I can be absolutely certain that my current state of mind isn't caused by alcohol because I have a lot less empathy and vastly more hate in me now than when I had my last drink over a year ago. I need to feel female flesh. I NEED it, and if I don't get it, the outcome will be horrific.

I don't hesitate to admit that I am an alcoholic and that this has caused immense morbidity, but lack of empathy is not one of the effects and I don't drink anymore. You're gonna have to trust that I have some insight in these matters. I am not cured, of course. Like all alcoholics, I am one drink away from insanity, but through a process that can only be described as spontaneous remission, I don't have the desire to drink and am confident that I am through with that shit. I've been to AA and therapy and tried for ten years to quit by willpower -- none of which works -- until one day by a rather mystical process that I wish I could but can't put into practical steps for other alcoholics to follow I lost the desire to drink. Perhaps I found a higher power or became spiritual in some roundabout way. Perhaps I went through a dark night of the soul and emerged as a new man. I am not sure exactly. But this isn't really relevant to the issues we are discussing here except I am a little handicapped because I can't actively participate in the sort of drunken situations where most hookups take place. It is unfortunate that women's judgment generally needs to be impaired for sex to take place, but I just can't ruin my life drinking in order to be around drunk women. I did consider this an acceptable risk for a long time, but now I realize sex is so unlikely anyway it just isn't worth it. If I go out and drink, I might have a 1% chance of getting laid at the cost of a 99% chance of blacking out and getting into crazy shit that may well kill me. I need to pick up women while sober, but I haven't figured out how to do that yet.

I am very happy to be sober, which feels very liberating, and I lead a healthy life now except the celibacy which is killing me. But I can assure you: no amount of sobriety will ever make me more empathetic to rape victims and the seething hatred in my heart will only increase as long as I remain celibate, and fatally so. As my focus and health have returned, this only magnifies hatred and the aggressive reaction to celibacy, really, and makes me a potentially far more dangerous man to the powers whose job it is to keep me celibate. No chemical addiction distracts from my single-minded pursuit of pussy or revenge.

Anonymous said...

I'm happy you're not drinking anymore. And while I do understand your seething hatred, the thing is to separate the hatred and your best solutions. Which is where you mess it up, it seems. You see your hatred, which is there and to a large degree a result of natural causes, but you also see it as a solution, which is mostly wrong. And if you don't think rape victims deserve any sympathy - why not at least just stop thinking about it? I mean, it doesn't do you any good, and it doesn't do them any good. You need to get away from those low thought levels, those hell realms of the mind, because they attract similar reactions, and they feed on themselves. Finally the void will be staring into you, and there will be nothing left.

And rape as a rational idea to get sex in a civilised society is bonkers. It's mostly about acting out bad emotions in your case. Use you brains for something useful for a change and get a cerebral job instead. If you have money, you'll always get women.

Eivind Berge said...

"The problem is, your positive thoughts seem to be limited to when some of the many people you don't like die or get injured in some way. And that doesn't really count."

This is disingenuous. Just because someone is not on your side in a war does not mean they lack empathy. There is no inherent reason to say someone who empathizes with men falsely accused of rape like I do rather than accusers (only a small minority of whom are true rape victims) is any more lacking in empathy than feminists and manginas who have infinite sympathy for women and none whatsoever for men no matter how badly we are hurt by the system. I empathize with other MRA issues as well while feminists empathize with feminist concerns, some legitimate and some not. As I see it, this is more a difference of being on opposing sides in a gender war than a function of one's ability to empathize.

And you can be sure that I would have some positive thoughts that do not involve hurting my enemy if a woman were nice to me. It doesn't even take sex. A little touch goes a long way. One time I managed to get a woman (who looked like a cancer patient, btw) home with me who didn't want sex and even refused to take her clothes off for some reason. But she allowed unlimited cuddling and I didn't feel like killing anyone for days afterward. Usually, though, if I can get that far, getting sex is a simple matter. Women are normally easily aroused if I can get them into bed with me.

Eivind Berge said...

Emma, no woman would get hate and disrespect in return for loving me. It is possible to attack social structures/institutions and ideologies without hating individual women, and especially women who are nice to me I would never hate. Even the women who broke my heart I still love them, and no, they didn't reject me because they thought me dangerous or crazy. The truth is, my love isn't worth anything because I lack the extra resources or alpha qualities that women demand and now are in a position to be more picky about than ever before. You may say and even believe that "genuine respect and love" is all it takes -- but women's actual sexual behavior doesn't correspond to this.

A long-term relationship probably wouldn't work if the woman is an ardent feminist, but those don't get along with anyone anyway and not all women are like that.

"...relationship is a give and take thing."

Yes, that's what I have been saying, contrary to feminists who see women as perpetual victims in relationships and everywhere and men as a resource to be looted when we aren't being prosecuted for sex crimes. It is feminists who don't understand the "give" part, but I do and traditionally marriage has entailed mutual obligations and not been the one-way street it legally is today.

Anonymous said...

As I see it, this is more a difference of being on opposing sides in a gender war than a function of one's ability to empathize.

I think that's part of the equation. Obviously you don't have accepted opinions. However, I would still maintain advocating rape as any kind of effective tool against male oppression or forced celibacy in a civilised society is pretty bonkers.

Eivind Berge said...

"And if you don't think rape victims deserve any sympathy - why not at least just stop thinking about it?"

Actually, I think eroding sympathy for rape victims is a crucial part of men's rights activism right now. The current oppressive regime of feminist rape law was built by deceitfully leveraging natural male sympathy for victims into the powerful tool any alleged victim can use against men today whenever she regrets sex regardless of the circumstances. I don't see any other way out of this feminist reign of terror than to demolish sympathy for rape victims. And we are making some headway, largely thanks to the incredibly stupid actions of feminist prosecutors themselves. Whether you like it or not, there isn't much sympathy for Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen outside of radical feminist circles and a whole lot of outrage. As the world wakes up to the fact that these bitches are your garden-variety "rape victims" in feminist justice, this will be a big step for antifeminsm. There is a reason Swedish rape trials are conducted in secret, but now they can't contain the details: the cat is out of the box and the feminist definition of rape cannot operate in daylight.

Also, see here for an example of how feminist rape law hurts women. The zeal with which feminism has encouraged women everywhere to accuse rape left and right whenever they feel the slightest regret after a sexual encounter has not been an unmitigated good for women, eh?

"However, I would still maintain advocating rape as any kind of effective tool against male oppression or forced celibacy in a civilised society is pretty bonkers."

I disagree, but don't you at least see the value of my argument that rape is equality as a rhetorical figure? It might make people think twice about the legitimacy of affirmative action for women when the logical result of the same type of thinking leads to the acceptance of rape.

Anonymous said...

I don't see any other way out of this feminist reign of terror than to demolish sympathy for rape victims.

Democratic process? Intellectual debate based on science? Sound reasoning? Putting someone with a little bit of sense in charge? They do exist, although rare.

I disagree, but don't you at least see the value of my argument that rape is equality as a rhetorical figure?

It's a valid argument, at least.

It might make people think twice about the legitimacy of affirmative action for women when the logical result of the same type of thinking leads to the acceptance of rape.

Judging by this blog though, it's more likely to freak them out.

Anonymous said...

I've seen a couple of videos on Youtube of people who identify as involuntarily celibate. They don't hate the world like you do. You are choosing to feel hatred and rage. The emotions are by no means caused by your celibacy. And naturally, these emotions have no value for anyone other than yourself (not really yourself either of course). Don't you get it? You really do have nothing to offer as long as you are choosing to feel this way. No one's gonna respond to your perceived injustice and fuck you in order to bring out your love.

Balty said...

You do deserve to be hugged and held, and hopefully you will get some affection soon.

But if you wonder why women ask the question "what's in it for me?", which is a legitimate question for both parties... then I can just note that I have already noticed two things that appeared in these comments that a woman might want. One is the consideration or, if you will, respect, for the woman and her wishes / needs. I know this is a hard part for you and other MRAs, to have respect for a woman. But it is important for the woman that the sex is safe. Likewise, we would also be considerate of the man's needs and wishes.

The second thing that a woman might want is that emotional sex which is permeated with love, shared by both partners. This is also the best type of sex I've had and the type of sex I yearn and long for the most. I have also had sex where it felt like a mystical experience, it was something quite extra ordinary and he felt it too. Maybe this is once a lifetime.

But for the most part, a woman wants that loving sex - that's what's in it for her. Romantic love is probably the most important or at least the most beautiful thing in the world.

You probably long for that type of sex and love too, as it adds immensely to the quality of life. I really wish it for you, but you should also remove the hatred that stands in the way of it. Hatred that is generated by none other but yourself. Maybe you need to motivate yourself or change your perception somehow that you would see that you can do things to raise the quality of life and that you can get the sex you want. Don't waste time - imagine how much wonderful sex can be had during all the time you waste on useless hateful theoreticizing. Maybe you have stagnated too much in your views and you are stuck in your hatred. That's why I suggested you take a trip or something. Something that would pull you out of the current state/environment. Your own "Eat, Pray, Love". :) Lykke til.

Anonymous said...

Look, about rape charges in Sweden.

More often than not, sex crimes accusations in Sweden don't lead to formal charges, a new study shows.

http://www.thelocal.se/32182/20110221/

Just for your info.

Anonymous said...

A suggestion I would make to you, Eivind, is to take some time off from sexual thinking. For an extended period of time, don't masturbate or focus on sexual issues. This will bring other aspects of your life into focus, and you might be able to see your sexuality from a different vantage point later.

Anonymous said...

"Emma, you're right and you're wrong. Sure, women don't like what Eivind's saying, because besides his dark feelings and bad reactions to his situation, he's mostly right about sexual politics."

Frankly, I'm not good with politics. But yes, it seems Eivind is right about many things. I just don't agree rape should be accepted/legal.

"But you're also wrong because men like Eivind turn up in increasing droves because slut shaming is out and female freedom (the freedom to fuck a selected few, while extracting the labour from the rest of the men) is in, resulting in more and more lonely men. And that's hardly the fault of the male individuals."

That's very sad. Anyone in this situation gets my sympathy. I was talking about Eivind personally though, and reactions of women on this blog. I was just saying that at least on this blog, women aren't too tempted to give him a chance because he doesn't sound like a safe choice... Or maybe I shouldn't have spoken for other women here, maybe I should have only spoken for myself.

There is also another thing that might make women feel uneasy. Eivind, you keep saying you don't like condoms. If you've had unprotected sex, you might have STDs, it's not very inviting. I'd check for them if I were you, if you haven't already done, because many of them can be symptomless for years. Also, wouldn't you say that sex with a condom is better than no sex at all?

Also, you said once that you and your girlfriend were having sex, and she was worried about the noise, and asked you to stop, but you didn't. If a boyfriend did this, I would not be happy. I wouldn't call the police about it, but he wouldn't be my boyfriend anymore, because of loss of trust.

So, yeah,there's definitely nothing unattractive about you except all that stuff I just mentioned.

Emma

Anonymous said...

I've seen a couple of videos on Youtube of people who identify as involuntarily celibate. They don't hate the world like you do. You are choosing to feel hatred and rage.

So you're saying people are all equal mentally. A drone was made to have sex - a worker ant wasn't. They will react differently to not getting sex. For one it's okay, for another it's unacceptable. Humans are more in the middle, with Eivind pretty far out on the "I won't accept celibacy"-side. In former times some people used to gladly pluck their eyes out and amputate their genitals to be guaranteed food and not treated too badly basically, because they didn't want to starve any more. Some though would rather fight and get women and riches or die trying. I think it's safe to say Eivind here belongs to the last category!

I wish he spent his time more constructively trying to utilize his cranial capacity instead of being negative and bitter, though. There's obviously tons of talent to be developed there. Few things make women more enthralled than a very capable man absorbed in what he does best, not even noticing the girl. When she's air to you and you're making something magnificent, that's when she'll start to love you.

Anonymous said...

Also, you said once that you and your girlfriend were having sex, and she was worried about the noise, and asked you to stop, but you didn't. If a boyfriend did this, I would not be happy. I wouldn't call the police about it, but he wouldn't be my boyfriend anymore, because of loss of trust.

What if it made you dead horny? I mean, you have no experience with it. Experience shows a lot of women are really turned on by it.

Otherwise I agree with most of what you're saying, you seem emotionally sound. As so was the justice system to a certain degree until it got changed.

Eivind Berge said...

"I've seen a couple of videos on Youtube of people who identify as involuntarily celibate. They don't hate the world like you do."

I don't hate the world. I merely hate the forces that keep me celibate, specifically feminists and their enforcers. This is a wonderful world with so much beauty surrounding me -- the only problem is I don't have access to any of the beauty, and I believe some major reasons for this are flagrantly unfair, morally justifying hate and aggression.

I am also by no means the only hateful involuntarily celibate man. Remember George Sodini? Approval was only thinly veiled throughout the manosphere at the time of his violent death and now he is established as a sort of patron saint of MRAs or at least incels. His manifesto evinces much the same feelings as mine, though he is less politically aware. He was much further gone than I, celibate for nearly twenty years until he finally lashed out and shot up a gym full of women. Actually, to me, the most striking aspect of Sodini's life is his stoicism. There is no way I can or will go on for anywhere near that long without sex.

"You are choosing to feel hatred and rage. The emotions are by no means caused by your celibacy."

This is delusional thinking women use to lull themselves into a false sense of security and complacency. I guess it is needed so you can deny any negative consequences of feminist policies. This is the false feminist dogma which holds that the male sex drive does not really exist and that rape is not even motivated by sex. I have access to my state of mind and you don't. I know what motivates me and it's not what feminists think. I know how I feel when I have sex and when I don't get sex. I know your statement is a lie. It may be convenient to think male aggression is never influenced by sexual deprivation, but it is utter bullshit. You seriously believe I would feel the same way if I had a girlfriend and were sexually sated? You think sex has no impact on a man's well-being? Your ability to delude yourself is astonishing. It would be like me saying women are never traumatized by rape even as properly defined, but I don't make ludicrous statements like that because I remain in touch with reality. If you want me be to be sympathetic to women though, you have to at least first acknowledge that men also have feelings. As it is, I advocate raping women knowing well that it hurts them, in order to offset the pain of celibacy induced by feminism, which feminists deny even exists. Feminists don't get to decree how men react to celibacy in order to suit their ideology. The male reaction to celibacy is an empirical matter and I am positioned to speak of it.

Men with normal sex drives probably feel more or less the frustration and rage I do if equally deprived. These emotions are not much amenable to choice. How we act on these emotions, however, is up to us. Of course, many will not be violent. Perhaps because they believe rape/violence is morally wrong, and until recently that was a valid point. But the world has changed so much lately that the old objections to rape and cop-killing are obsolete. And with raised awareness by MRAs of the new feminist sexual politics comes more aggression also. Women are in for a rude awakening.

"And naturally, these emotions have no value for anyone other than yourself (not really yourself either of course)."

Yes, they do potentially have value for someone else. They can have tremendous negative value for someone else. Imagine being so sexually irrelevant that the only thing you can realistically get out of life is revenge. That's the reality I am facing. Sodini's hatred certainly ended up having negative value for someone else.

Eivind Berge said...

"No one's gonna respond to your perceived injustice and fuck you in order to bring out your love."

I know. It is a truly hopeless situation. I am disillusioned and fully cognizant of how difficult women are and the extent of the social machinery they have erected to cater to their hypergamous impulses. Women don't make compromises when it comes to sex if they don't have to. It is a ruthless sexual marketplace in the feminist Utopia and it calls for desperate measures. There comes a point when I have only one card left to play.

Eivind Berge said...

@Balty

But for the most part, a woman wants that loving sex - that's what's in it for her. Romantic love is probably the most important or at least the most beautiful thing in the world. You probably long for that type of sex and love too, as it adds immensely to the quality of life.

Yes, I do long for this and agree romantic love is more important than anything. But loving sex can't be what women mean when they ask what's in it for them. They can have that right now -- no need to wait for me to get wealthy or something.

Eivind Berge said...

"A suggestion I would make to you, Eivind, is to take some time off from sexual thinking. For an extended period of time, don't masturbate or focus on sexual issues. This will bring other aspects of your life into focus, and you might be able to see your sexuality from a different vantage point later."

I don't think so. At this point, after so much celibacy, the last thing I need is less sexual focus. That is just how women and society want me to be -- asexual and docile. I refuse to oblige them. I need sex now and am prepared to die trying. So much of my life has been wasted already and I don't have much time.

"More often than not, sex crimes accusations in Sweden don't lead to formal charges, a new study shows."

Sure, there is a mountain of unfounded or blatantly false rape accusations that are thrown out. But the cases that actually do go to trial show that the threshold is ridiculously low, and it is the feminist legal definition itself that is the core of the problem and must be redressed.

Eivind Berge said...

@Emma

"I just don't agree rape should be accepted/legal."

I don't expect you to. What I am getting at is if you see my point of view, then you would want to change the system and abolish coerced equality for women so I could no longer argue that rape is justified. At the very least you would want to provide for a legal outlet like prostitution! I see very little evidence that this is happening. Women just deny that sexual deprivation of men is even a problem and scream for more extreme feminist policies, reinforcing my arguments for rape. Just witness the comments above saying my emotions are "by no means caused" by my celibacy... I don't think you are that stupid though.

"There is also another thing that might make women feel uneasy. Eivind, you keep saying you don't like condoms. If you've had unprotected sex, you might have STDs, it's not very inviting. I'd check for them if I were you, if you haven't already done, because many of them can be symptomless for years."

Well, I haven't had sex for years now and still no symptoms. And in the situations that would be most risky I did use condoms, not because I wanted to but because prostitutes tend to require them. Also the few girls I've had in more recent years (three one-night stands in seven years) would have told me if they came down with something. My last girlfriend was in 2004 and since then she has given birth and so been thoroughly checked. It would be totally unnecessary and hysterical for me to get tested now. But I will do it if that's what it takes for you to sleep with me?

"Also, wouldn't you say that sex with a condom is better than no sex at all?"

Yes, of course that is much better than no sex at all. I never said anything else.

"Also, you said once that you and your girlfriend were having sex, and she was worried about the noise, and asked you to stop, but you didn't. If a boyfriend did this, I would not be happy. I wouldn't call the police about it, but he wouldn't be my boyfriend anymore, because of loss of trust."

It wasn't an issue of trust to her. You can trust me not to hurt you. You might not always trust me to stop right before orgasm for no good reason. If you were truly distressed it would be another matter, but just because you felt we might be making too much noise? You seem indoctrinated by feminist ideology into thinking you are entitled to the expectation that male sexuality is something 100% "safe" and controllable at all times, even after you have surrendered to the sexual act, and if your lover does not comply with your slightest whim immediately then you can call the police and have him prosecuted for rape. You do indeed have that legal right now thanks to feminist corruption of justice, but it is a toxic way to approach relationships. You are better than the feminists who would actually call the cops, but you appear immature for thinking this defines trust. Also, good luck finding a man so dull and passionless that he meets your criteria for trust.

Another time, with another girl, I did stop when she told me to in the heat of passion just as a sort of test, I think. Her reaction? "You have too much self-control for your own good."

Anonymous said...

If you are determined to show how victimized you are by feminism, you cannot at the same time hope to have sex. These are pretty much mutually exclusive. In order for you to have sex you would need to balance out your emotions. You seem more interested in indulging in your negative emotions. So you are really choosing to be a manifestation of the results of the cruelty of feminism, rather than making a realistic attempt at establishing sexual relations. I don't know why you would want to be a martyr. There is no eternal reward for MRA martyrs, is there?

Eivind Berge said...

"There is no eternal reward for MRA martyrs, is there?"

Perhaps not. To be clear, I am not trying to be a martyr. My goal is to establish sexual relations, of course. I don't think stating my opinion on a blog is incompatible with making a best effort. And it may not by realistic anyway to find love, in which case it is better to be an activist than just another anonymous celibate loser.

Anonymous said...

It's good that you don't want to be a martyr. It's just that you keep dropping hints about something along those lines. Whether or not you find love is dependent on you and how you focus your energies. It is not a matter of assessing the behavior of today's women. You can't leave yourself out of the equation. And you are not just a "man".

You are not less of a loser because you are an activist. And you are not furthering your cause. You would need to be in a different state of mind in order to be a positive influence with regards to men's rights. You are a victim as a person and a victim as an activist. Victims reinforce the status quo.

Anonymous said...

"What if it made you dead horny? I mean, you have no experience with it. Experience shows a lot of women are really turned on by it."

Alright, I have no experience with it, maybe it would make me dead horny. (Although "a lot of women" is not the same as "all women"). In that case I'd tell him to go ahead. But what if it DIDN'T do anything for me? Nevermind, I think I might have misunderstood what happened anyway.

Eivind,
I don't remember the exact words you used but it was something like "forced her to finish the intercourse", which made me imagine a girl struggling while you hold her down. Yeah, I wouldn't ask the guy to stop for no good reason (why spoil it), but if I asked to stop (maybe it hurts, or maybe I realized I'm late for a meeting, or the food is burning, whatever), and the guy forced me to go on using his strength even though I was resisting and made it clear that I wanted to stop, it just wouldn't be pleasant, that's all. Please notice I didn't say anything about taking the guy to the police if he doesn't stop immediately (also, I didn't say I'd be pissed if he "didn't stop immediately". I meant if he used force for a longer period of time). Of course it's a toxic way to approach relationships. No, I don't believe I'm indoctrinated by feminism, haven't noticed any specific feminist traits in myself... No, I don't expect the guy to comply to my slightest whim, I just don't wanna be forced, what's feminist about that? But oh well, you said you'd stop if there was real distress, fine.

Oh, and yeah, the new prostitution law has had bad consequences, I hear. It really should be legal to buy sex, not sure why they made it illegal. Would have been better if they just put some order into it.

Emma.

Eivind Berge said...

"It really should be legal to buy sex, not sure why they made it illegal."

Then I shall explain it to you, Emma. Buying sex was made illegal in order to drive up the cost of sex. Women pushed this law through not out of concern for actual sex workers -- whose conditions we already knew would only deteriorate as a result -- but so that average women can extort more resources out of men and generally get more mileage out of their sexuality. This motivation is not always conscious, but it is the underlying cause. If you are a woman living in Norway, then you are a beneficiary of this law, which is the crown jewel of feminist sex law reform. It is a matter of pure luxury for you. This might help to put into perspective my seething hatred and righteous homicidal rage against pigs: Norwegian cops enforce laws to keep me down in the walking death of celibacy so that the world's already most equal and affluent women can have men spend more money on them before they will have sex. I have to be celibate so that you can have things like more expensive dinners paid for you. The criminalization of buying sex pays rich dividends for you every day in your relationships and interactions with men, allowing you to be more picky and difficult every step of the way because both you and the men know you have blue thugs working for you to brutalize and rob men for seeking a cheaper sexual option. Don't come here and pretend you don't understand it behooves you to keep men from having alternative, less expensive outlets, Emma. Feminists didn't enact this law because they are misguided. They knew exactly what they were doing and it isn't really confusing at all when you think about it. You seem like a woman who likes to benefit from feminism without incurring the stigma of identifying as a feminist, which is now a really bad epithet even in Norway. Those are so common around here now that I sadly more or less can refer to women and feminists interchangeably.

Eivind Berge said...

The sexual politics that you have trouble understanding, or the basics of this world is this: sex is a female resource and the quintessential commodity of the world. Women are sex objects with humongous value wrapped up in their bodies just because they are born with a pussy, while men have no intrinsic value, a penis being worthless or a major liability, so we have to pay with external resources to get what we want. The optimal strategy for women in life is to curtail cheap substitutes in order to drive up the cost of sex, while men of course want to get as much sex as cheaply as possible. Thus women everywhere oppose prostitution more than men (as well as other cheap substitutes that some men not including me will be content with instead of spending lots of money on you, such as pornography and stripping, etc.). This usually happens under the guise of "morality" which calls for the equal criminalization of whores and johns, but when women get really, really empowered, they dispense with the pretense (or rather pretend it is about helping poor victims of "trafficking" in a charade transparent to all but the most retarded) and just outright criminalize men while allowing women to sell freely. This is the state of sexual politics in Scandinavia, and it isn't going to get better just because the bad consequences for prostitutes and men are made known. Women banned purchasing sex because they are selfish and greedy, not because they care about anybody else. In light of the true purpose behind the law, it is a resounding success. A commenter above called for change through "Democratic process? Intellectual debate based on science? Sound reasoning?" rather than violent activism -- but this is naive at least with regard to prostitution. Women, being the majority, do have democratic power, and sound selfish reasoning based on science leads precisely to the conclusion that this law is a good thing for most of them. That is, until men start fighting back and create really unpleasant consequences on a societal scale. The only way back, as I see it, is to fight it out with the blue thugs in the streets. Increased violence against women might also make them change their minds. The problem is, men don't want to be martyrs. Men only want one thing, which is sex, of course, so they pay the whores and then many pay the fine in stride as well if they are caught, not even bothering to fight it in court. So until the pigs encounter a very idealistic MRA or a man with nothing to lose such as myself burning with hatred and poised to kill, there won't be much turmoil. We are stuck with this law for the foreseeable future. I don't want to be a martyr either, like I said, but I will make a bloody mess if I end up as a celibate failure anyway. Giving women the vote was the original error that led to this sorry state of affairs. Women's greed knows no bounds. No matter how equal and privileged, they will always push for more ways to tread beta men down and get more luxuries for less sex until men are officially slaves and sex is reserved for alphas only.

Eivind Berge said...

That was the rant, and here are a couple scholarly references to back up what I just said:

Baumeister, R.F., & Twenge, J.M. (2002). "Cultural suppression of female sexuality." Review of General Psychology, 6, 166-203:

The female control theory was based on a model of social exchange by which women could exert control over men and gain resources from men by regulating men’s access to sexual gratification. Prostitution and pornography offer men alternative sources of gratification. (We use the term pornography as synonymous with erotica, referring to all depictions of sexual activity or sexual stimuli.) To the extent that these sources can satisfy men, women’s bargaining power would be reduced. Prostitution and pornography can be regarded as a kind of inexpensive competition that could potentially undermine women’s monopoly on access to sex (Cott, 1979). Hence, the female control theory would predict that women would be particularly opposed to prostitution and pornography.

Which is confirmed and was once again evident in the public debate and political process leading to the Norwegian criminalization of buying sex in 2008, as Sweden had done ten years previously.

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:

There are also some data on prostitution supporting the view that the price of sex is linked to women’s general economic circumstances. First, despite the fact that modern, rich countries generally have more permissive sexual atmospheres, so-called sex tourism generally flows in the opposite direction: Men from rich countries travel to relatively poor ones, such as Cuba, southern Asia, and eastern Europe, for low-cost sex. The relative poverty of those countries entails that many women become motivated to engage in occasional prostitution to supplement their income, especially when relatively wealthy foreign tourists offer prices that are high in comparison to other financial opportunities.

Women's economic prosperity and male sexual satisfaction are directly opposing forces. Scandinavian women are the most difficult in the world to sleep with because they are both equal and also have the full violent force of the public institutions lined up behind maximizing the price of sex. It would be best for men if women didn't have economic parity. But at the very least, we need to do away with the unfair laws that drive up the cost of sex beyond any sense of decency, such as the prohibition of buying sex, which applies to all Norwegian men in the entire world, even where it is locally legal. Now do you understand why I am so angry, Emma?

Balty said...

Scandinavian women are the most beautiful in the world, men from all over the world desire them the most. They should not be easily accessible and "easy to sleep with". Scandinavian women should live in exclusive relationships with Scandinavian men, marry them, and have children. This is how it is for most of them.

And porn and prostitution are demeaning and humiliating to women as a sex. It's not just a matter of "driving up the price".

Anonymous said...

Thanks for all the info, Eivind, it's very interesting.

"Don't come here and pretend you don't understand it behooves you to keep men from having alternative, less expensive outlets, Emma."

And you don't pretend you know what I'm really thinking. If it makes people like you happy, then there would be less anger, frustration and rape, why would I be happy about some other people out there driving up the cost of sex so much?

"You seem like a woman who likes to benefit from feminism without incurring the stigma of identifying as a feminist,"

You found me out! xD
Jokes aside, I think you assume too much about people you speak to (What negative feminist characteristics have you noticed so far? Maybe I do have some :) )

"Women's greed knows no bounds. No matter how equal and privileged, they will always push for more ways to tread beta men down and get more luxuries for less sex until men are officially slaves and sex is reserved for alphas only."

I think I know why you assume. You keep lumping women together, as if they all think the same and have the same goal (which seems to be to exploit betas). And not only alphas are attractive. Don't you know there are women who like betas, and even women with a massive omega fetish?

Also, are prostitutes only female? Aren't there any male ones?

"Women are sex objects with humongous value wrapped up in their bodies just because they are born with a pussy, while men have no intrinsic value,"

Nobody has intrinsic value, if you really think about it... Value is something humans atribute to things. In the end, we'll all die and so will the human race, eventually. And from where I'm sitting, sex is a male resource, since I'm straight. That's besides the point though.

But yes, I understand why you are angry. I'm sorry it is that way for you. I wish you happiness.

"And porn and prostitution are demeaning and humiliating to women as a sex. It's not just a matter of "driving up the price". "

Balty, what's demeaning to specifically women in porn? Men participate in it too. And if you are talking about humiliating porn, then I've seen both sexes get humiliated in it.

Emma

Fintan said...

Giving women the vote was the original error that led to this sorry state of affairs.

Wow. Just... wow.

And that's coming in the wake of assuring future girlfriends that if they don't put out, you'll rape them.

For someone who seems touchingly desperate for love, you seem oddly hell-bent on guaranteeing that any prospective partner will break a land-speed record to get away from you once they read this blog.

Anonymous said...

I'm Norwegian like you and I concider my self an anti-feminist.

I think Emma has a point that you keep lumping women together.

If you don't get out much and mainly have contact with women through feminism debates on the internet, then It's easy to get the impression that almost all women are feminists.

You've also studied for a long time, and there probably aren't any places with higher feminist ratios than universities, and these feminists often ends up in politics, media and such.

In the real world, at least it's not quite as bad.

Anonymous said...

For someone who seems touchingly desperate for love, you seem oddly hell-bent on guaranteeing that any prospective partner will break a land-speed record to get away from you once they read this blog.

Indeed. However, the real world situation is Eivind has received tons more female attention from this blog than he has from his alpha-hunting sisters outside the blogosphere, no matter how bad and distasteful his writing is claimed to be. Kinda like violent criminals often seem to end up with the good looking chicks. It's just one of those ugly, true things we're told to ignore.

Anonymous said...

Also, are prostitutes only female? Aren't there any male ones?

Sure there are, if we're talking about heterosexual ones. They need international model looks and tuned up hardbodies to compete, the pay is lousy, there's lots of competition, and the women who need to pay for sex are usually so depraved and ghastly looking these men have all my sympathy.

If you're talking about gay prostitutes you're talking about an industry almost the size of heterosexual prostitution though, because paid sex is so much more common among gay men.

Eivind Berge said...

Why would I be happy about some other people out there driving up the cost of sex so much?

Because it benefits you, too. Criminalizing men for purchasing sex gives you more leverage over men even if you aren't officially a prostitute yourself, since the entire heterosexual scene can basically be understood as men exchanging resources for sex. I am sure you demand payment one way or another. But if you don't support the law, that is great.

What negative feminist characteristics have you noticed so far? Maybe I do have some :) )

Emma, you keep denying the female advantage in the mating market, just like feminists who claim gender is a social construct and there are no innate differences in sexual desire. It is really frustrating, but maybe you just can't help yourself. Do you really not see how much power you have compared to me?

Don't you know there are women who like betas, and even women with a massive omega fetish?

Betas get some love, but I seriously doubt there are women with a massive omega fetish. A woman attracted to men rejected by all other women is just about unimaginable, almost by definition.

Also, are prostitutes only female? Aren't there any male ones?

There are practically no male prostitutes catering to women. For example, the entire legal brothel market in Nevada couldn't even support a single male prostitute. One tried and had to quit after getting fewer than ten customers in his career, some of them just journalists reporting on the novelty of it. If you ignore gay prostitution, which isn't relevant to the heterosexual mating market, male prostitutes are so rare they are virtually unknown to science:

In practice, hardly any man has much chance of supporting a drug habit or paying off his gambling debts by getting women to pay him for sex. Atchison, Fraser, and Lowman (1998) reported results from several multimethod searches for clients of prostitution, and they found only two female clients, both of whom had merely participated in a threesome with a boyfriend and a female prostitute. “We do not yet have a single instance of a woman reporting that she had purchased sex from a man” (p. 198), the researchers reported with disappointment. A small partial exception was identified by Herold (2000), who reported that some Canadian women travel to the Dominican Republic and have sexual affairs with native “beach boys,” affairs that are often accompanied by transfers of money from the women to the men. Yet even this exception supports the basic validity of the general pattern. Herold observed that the cash was almost never given in overt exchange for sex (as was typical when vacationing Canadian men had sex with local women). Instead, the (typically young) local man would pretend to fall in love with the (typically older) woman, and she would reciprocate his ostensible feelings, and then he would feign some family emergency or other financial need, whereupon she would give him money as an affectionate gift. Thus, the exchange of money for sex had to be camouflaged, consistent with the view that it violated the basic script by which men give women resources in exchange for sex. Moreover, the coupling is one that would not usually occur, in the sense that it pairs an older woman with a younger man of a different ethnic background. In that sense, women may occasionally pay men for sex (although camouflaging the transaction), primarily when the sex would not be available to the woman otherwise.

--Baumeister, R.F. & Vohs, K.D. (2004). "Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions"

I had to pay to lose my virginity as a healthy 21-year-old man. A comparable woman would be at the peak of her sexual value and could auction off her virginity for a fortune. There is no way to escape the inequality of this reality even if you manage to dredge up some male prostitute somewhere.

Eivind Berge said...

I think gay prostitution can be explained by the male preference for youth, by the way. Even though gays are equals and have abundant access to sex, youthful partners are still scarcer than demand, so young men can sell sex to older homosexuals. But there is no way they have to pay just to have sex as a young man like I did. Straight men uniquely face a level of scarcity where it often isn't possible to have sex for free no matter how low standards you have even in your sexual prime.

Eivind Berge said...

Nobody has intrinsic value, if you really think about it... Value is something humans atribute to things. In the end, we'll all die and so will the human race, eventually.

This is a cop-out that could be used to excuse any kind of inequality and injustice. Except it turns out not even death can level the tremendous advantage of pussy power. Genetic research shows twice as many women than men who were ever born managed to reproduce. It is much easier for women to leave behind a genetic legacy. You can get pregnant any time you want as long as you are fertile, while I am powerless.

And from where I'm sitting, sex is a male resource, since I'm straight.

No, sex isn't a male resource to you either. The fact that sex is a female resource does not depend on your point of view. Just about any man will eagerly fuck you whenever you want, and if you so choose, there are droves of men willing to pay you for it as well. Do you still not see how skewed the sexual market is in favor of women? If sex is a male resource to you, why did you ignore my invitation to have sex?

Balty, what's demeaning to specifically women in porn? Men participate in it too.

It is very naive to think men participating as well makes it equal. Since sex is a female resource, a couple having sex are not doing the same thing. Sex is a service women provide to men, and thus porn depicts the transfer of value from women to men. A pornographic scene is a depiction of a man getting lucky and a woman putting out. Porn is always complimentary to the male porn star and can be more or less demeaning to women, depending on how much the porn actress gets paid. The feminists are actually right on this, though not for the reasons they claim. This is how Baumeister puts it:

Some feminists have claimed that prostitution and pornography are inherently degrading or exploitative to women, although these views have been disputed as inconsistent with the fact that nearly all the money comes from men (which would suggest that in economic terms it is men who are exploited, if not degraded; see Loebner, 1998). Our economic analysis can offer some support to the feminist view, however, because it can offer an explanation for the one-sided analysis that otherwise limits the plausibility of saying that pornography degrades women. That is, if an erotic film depicts a man and a woman engaging in sexual intercourse as equals, why should this be degrading to the woman but not to the man? But if sex is a female resource, then a filmed scene of heterosexual intercourse is essentially a depiction of a man getting something from a woman. If there is no implication that he gives her something else in return, then the implication is that her sexual favors command a very low value, which would effectively degrade her, as the feminist complaint suggests.

Thus porn does not have to show humiliating acts to be degrading to women. (Heterosexual) sex is simply not an act between equals no matter how you look at it. Sex is something women have and men want. And porn is a very paltry substitute for the real thing. Men's ability to be aroused and somewhat satisfied by mere images of women is a by-product of evolution and actually counterproductive for individual men. In this sense porn is degrading to the porn consumer. We should rather be out there pursuing real women. But insofar as porn can reduce the competition and thus lower the price of sex somewhat, I am all for it. I just don't want to have to rely on it myself.

Anonymous said...

You can't deny the existence of male prostitution just because you have something against it, Eivind. Just because some egghead didn't find any doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it means either it didn't exist or the egghead couldn't find it. Female prostitution in Africa and Caribbean is still prostitution, everyone sees it that way including the customers and male prostitutes and all others, it's just a bit more elaborate than the usual kind. Many of the uglier women who aren't at least part trophy are also pretty straight forward about what they want for their uh holiday romances, rather like male punters. Many other countries where prostitution is illegal and girls can get in real trouble if they are suspected of prostitution have these kinds of male female relationships too. Pro male porn stars all get paid, some even more than women (kind of like alphas really, women have higher value on average, but some men have really high value). And as for the West, of course a male prostitute in a ranch would fail, because no woman would drive all the way to that shithole just to get laid for some astronomical sum (or even cheap). What they would want would be some exceptionally handsome discreet man quietly slipping in and out and shagging her for while for not too much money. Which is the reality of most of the usual male prostitution in the West.

The real difference between male and female prostitution is that even if male prostitution exists in measurable quantities, female prostitution is so vastly stronger it makes it prove sexual differences more than anything. You'd have to contain most normal men not to have sex with a willing better than normal looking 20 year old if it had no consequences, but you'd have to be extremely attractive as a man to arouse those same feelings in women. That's the point really, not if there is some minimal 0.1% of female amount of very attractive male prostitutes making a little money or not out there.

Eivind Berge said...

All right, maybe male prostitution does exist as a (very marginal) phenomenon. It just can't be used to deny sexual differences, as you note.

Anonymous said...

"Because it benefits you, too. Criminalizing men for purchasing sex gives you more leverage over men even if you aren't officially a prostitute yourself, since the entire heterosexual scene can basically be understood as men exchanging resources for sex. I am sure you demand payment one way or another."

And again you assume. You ignored what I said - I said that I'd rather give that up than have frustrated men be around and try to rape me out of desperation. But I could say it differently: I'd rather other people felt better (got their cheap source of sex) than have this priviledge, which I currently have no use for. I guess if I got really poor, I could uh, sell myself a little, but I got enough money right now not to do that. Also, maybe I AM getting something in exchange for sex, just too dence to realize it. You tell me, what can it possibly be, since I don't get expensive dinners, jewelry or any other stuff? And I think many women would think the same as me. Plus, don't people usually split the bill on dates in Norway?

"Emma, you keep denying the female advantage in the mating market, just like feminists who claim gender is a social construct and there are no innate differences in sexual desire."

Actually I wasn't denying that. Everything I've seen points to the fact that it's probably true. Once I asked one of my male friends a question: "Why are women who fuck a lot concidered sluts, while men who do the same are considered cool?". He said it's because it's easy for a woman to get laid, so if she gives in too much, then she isn't doing anything spectacular. But a man who sleeps with a lot of women must be good, because women are harder to get into bed. I couldn't disagree. It's unfortunate, but true. The only thing you said I disagreed with is that it benifits me that men have no cheap outlets. It doesn't benifit me, I already said why. (And maybe it COULD benifit me, but I refuse to use it). And after I read your blog, I went out and attempted to use that power I supposedly have, and didn't get anywhere. Sure, there are gender differences, but we are still all the same species, we are more alike than different. In a university, the differences are blurred even more, at least in my experience. Or maybe I just don't see them.

Oh, I know a few girls with an omega fetish. People are all different and some are truly strange.

"It is much easier for women to leave behind a genetic legacy. You can get pregnant any time you want as long as you are fertile, while I am powerless."

I guess so, but who cares, if we'll die out anyway? Oh, and I'd give this power to you if I could, really.

"Just about any man will eagerly fuck you whenever you want, and if you so choose, there are droves of men willing to pay you for it as well. Do you still not see how skewed the sexual market is in favor of women? If sex is a male resource to you, why did you ignore my invitation to have sex?"

One, I didn't know it was an invitation, I thought it was a retorical question. Two, we live in different cities.

"But if sex is a female resource, then a filmed scene of heterosexual intercourse is essentially a depiction of a man getting something from a woman. If there is no implication that he gives her something else in return, then the implication is that her sexual favors command a very low value, which would effectively degrade her,"

Now you are just trying to make sex sound like a bad deal for me. Oh well, you know what they say about the joys of giving... Alright, I'll stop kidding. I think this has an element of truth in it, but women, just like men, want sex. So if a woman has sex with a man without getting anything in return (I assume you mean something material), then she degraded herself? Using this logic, I can see:
1)She had a lot of fun.
2)She gave something generously, which is kind of her.
Not very degrading. But I see your point.

Emma.

David Scott Hatfield said...

Eivind, this is a great blog.Very interesting read

I'm amazed by the sheer quantity of abuse and harsh reactions I read here but I applaud you for ignoring these idiots.

I'm not entirely convinced that AA justifies rape because, as number of people pointed out...

1. some women also go for poorer betas
2. betas could do things to improve even with AA
3. line between an alpha and a beta is not always clearly drawn

Right now I'm more inclined to agree with a guy commenting one of your previous articles who said that it's actually a lot more comparable to robbery.

Eivind Berge said...

@Emma

And after I read your blog, I went out and attempted to use that power I supposedly have, and didn't get anywhere.

You must have gone straight to an alpha, then. You do have that power, even if it may take a couple of attempts.

Sure, there are gender differences, but we are still all the same species, we are more alike than different. In a university, the differences are blurred even more, at least in my experience. Or maybe I just don't see them.

Actually, the differences are accentuated in a university setting. Plenty of women who will end up settling for a beta later when their looks fade don't give betas the time of day in college. It is really brutal, but you don't notice because most men are sexually invisible to you. My first girlfriend (for one month) was a 34-year-old mother of three when I was 21 and a sophomore in college. If you are beta in college, you might as well ignore the coeds and go for cougars because that is probably all you can get anyway, would be my advice.

Oh, I know a few girls with an omega fetish. People are all different and some are truly strange.

So hook me up, unless you want me for yourself.

I guess so, but who cares, if we'll die out anyway?

So just because we are all going to die means we shouldn't enjoy ourselves and make the most of it? Are you a nihilist?

Oh, and I'd give this power to you if I could, really.

You can make me very happy and it isn't power I want anyway. I just want you to share some love.

One, I didn't know it was an invitation, I thought it was a rhetorical question. Two, we live in different cities.

It wasn't rhetorical and I am perfectly willing to come and visit you, so if those are the obstacles, it's a done deal.

Now you are just trying to make sex sound like a bad deal for me.

I didn't mean to. Firstly, women do enjoy sex when they have it, even with me. It's just that they can afford to be extremely picky and/or get something more than casual sexual enjoyment out of it. It doesn't have to be material and it doesn't have to be immediate. Just companionship might sometimes suffice, or sharing in the man's higher status. Even being a microcelebrity blog villain ought to count for something. :) My political views can't get in the way since you are already familiar with them and it can only get better. Perhaps you will really like me and we can have a relationship. In any case I will love you for letting me have you and be grateful. There is this concept called mate insurance which explains how it can be useful for women to be promiscuous and have more than one man attached to her here and there. Someone to fall back on. Even if nothing more comes of it than a one-night stand, you will have a friend, and who knows how I might be able to repay you in the future. I assure you it won't be a bad deal for you at all.

1)She had a lot of fun.
2)She gave something generously, which is kind of her.
Not very degrading. But I see your point.


Exactly! That's what will happen, at a minimum, and it isn't degrading unless you are very cynical about getting the most rewards out of your sexuality. That sort of logic does not take the joys of giving into account, and frankly it seems women are very rarely charitable when it comes to sex, but if you are so inclined then that is wonderful. Now you better have an omega fetish, or else I have ruined it by being too eager. But you already knew I was desperate and haven't had sex in years too, so nothing can go wrong, really, and I don't have to game you; don't have to pretend I am something I'm not. What do you say, Emma?

FS said...

Eivind, why don't you just start lying to get laid? Even though I don't agree with you a lot of the time, you seem like a very intelligent guy, so use your intelligence to come up with scams to get women in to bed. Pretend to be a doctor, or tell chicks your parents got killed by a bus, and you won millions in compensation.

Also, I would suggest making loads and loads of female friends. LOADS. Even if the women you want to have sex with may say no, they'll probably have hot friends that you can have sex with.

Not quite the same situation, but my sister is a slut, so she has loads of slut friends as a result. I asked her to find me a slut who is guaranteed to put out, and she's sorting it out for me. According to my sister, this slut she knows slept with my cousin after only just meeting him, and having a few drinks, while my sister was in the other room. I'm just waiting to seal the deal now.

FS said...

Also, facebook is great for getting laid. First, get rid of the rape stuff from your profile, and start adding hot chicks to your friends list. Most chicks will reject your advances, but the idea here is to essentially spam for sex. 90% will say no, but that 10% is actually quite a lot of women if you cast your net wide enough. Also, appear to be in demand, and try to sub communicate that you're getting laid regulary, and women will fuck you just because you appear to be of high status.

BTW, another trick is to have mainly women as friends. Even if you aren't fucking them, you use them as a way to make chicks think chicks love you, and you're in!

Anonymous said...

"You must have gone straight to an alpha, then."

One of them definitely was, the other one was a man of an unknown status.

"So hook me up, unless you want me for yourself."

I'll see what I can do.

"So just because we are all going to die means we shouldn't enjoy ourselves and make the most of it? Are you a nihilist?"

Actually, I was saying that because you seem to want children because you are afraid of being an evolutionary dead end, not because you truly want them. Otherwise you are right, we should make the most out of life.

" Even being a microcelebrity blog villain ought to count for something. :)"

This blog made you famous, sure, letting more people know about you. However, by creating this reputation you also put a lot of obstacles between yourself and women who might be interested in helping you with your problem. You really kind of shot yourself in the foot there. But I'll keep everything you said in mind.

Emma.

Eivind Berge said...

Emma, you got my hopes up there with all that talk about giving, but I guess you are just like the rest. You naturally prefer an aloof alpha who will barely notice you to a lovelorn man who really needs some affection, and I doubt your friends are much different. The supposed joys of giving are left out of the equation in scientific accounts of human sexuality for a reason. Women only have sex for selfish reasons. Sure both sexes are selfish, but selfishness in women leads to a lot more rejection than in men because the optimal female strategy is extreme choosiness while men are best served by being indiscriminate.

"You must have gone straight to an alpha, then."
One of them definitely was, the other one was a man of an unknown status.


Alphas are not just men with high status. Whoever the most women want to sleep with is most alpha, as I believe it should be defined. This will often coincide with high social status and powerful positions, but not always, like alpha of the year Keith MacDonald whom I blogged about earlier. If you approached a man for sex and meant it, it is pretty much a given that he is alpha and the only reason he isn't interested is because he already has more female attention than he can handle. If you approach random men, however, it is difficult to get rejected, as shown in Clark and Hatfield's famous study "Gender Differences in Receptivity to Sexual Offers," where 75% of men and not a single woman immediately agreed to sex. This experiment was redone in 2009 with largely similar results except now 3.2% of women rather than zero were willing to go to bed with a moderately attractive man (7.7% would fuck an exceptionally attractive man and even a slightly unattractive man could hope to score with 1.8% of women). However, since these women were merely asked a hypothetical question rather than actually approached by strangers for sex, I take this new finding with a grain of salt.

Actually, I was saying that because you seem to want children because you are afraid of being an evolutionary dead end, not because you truly want them. Otherwise you are right, we should make the most out of life.

But I do truly want a family. It's not just an abstract fear of not reproducing.

This blog made you famous, sure, letting more people know about you. However, by creating this reputation you also put a lot of obstacles between yourself and women who might be interested in helping you with your problem. You really kind of shot yourself in the foot there. But I'll keep everything you said in mind.

You would never be talking to me if it wasn't for my reputation. Women in real life invariably reject me offhand without ever bothering to google me because I am totally irrelevant to them, so it doesn't seem to make much difference what I say on the Internet. Although many will be appalled by what I have written, when the alternative is to be a totally uninteresting person, it is better to at least be a little bit famous in the blogosphere. I don't think I shot myself in the foot. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

Anonymous said...

"Emma, you got my hopes up there with all that talk about giving, but I guess you are just like the rest."

Sorry. I underestimated how easy it was to get a man's hopes up. I will try to be more subtle next time.

"You would never be talking to me if it wasn't for my reputation."


That's what I said. I also said that all that pro-rape stuff made it difficult for anyone to approach you over the internet, even if they decided to give you a chance.

Emma.

Anonymous said...

Emma, regardless of you personally, you seem to ignore the real world situation in certain respects. If it wasn't common knowledge already, as Eivind showed, sex from a random stranger just by proposing it is usually seen as an insult towards women, but men will actually insult the woman by rejecting random NSA sex with her. It's deeply human - the minimum effort required for males to rear kids if women are willing to take care of them is so small that rejecting women only makes sense if the woman is extremely low value, so the man usually gives some good excuse, like a gf/wife.

And Emma, just because you don't immediately see how you can trade sex for something because you're a woman doesn't mean that's not true. This alpha you tried to see, was he a good match for you? Are you an alpha female companion? Or are you just using your female market leverage to snag better lovers, connections and maybe a husband or LTR while you're still hot?

Besides those two guys, there were probably tons of other guys there. But you didn't want any of them. Which is understandable for you, because you don't want to slut around (too much). The problem is women agree so much on who's hot and who's not, that's probably the reason why the alpha rejected you, because so many other women hit on him he already has a ton of sex. And when monogamy dies off and soft polygamy becomes the taste of the day, and there's no prostitution, you get a lot of rejected men. And they're usually not happy about it.

Anonymous said...

Just to make the point clear - to make up for those quarterbacks with erm 3000 touchdowns in college and their fellow high achievers, there's a large group of men that NEVER gets laid, because just as women all manage to spot winners, they manage to spot the losers too. Too well unfortunately. You know, the worst 10% of all those guys you ignored, although most are home. It's one of the problems with the shift from monogamy to de facto soft polygamy, it leaves a lot of aggressive men.

Anonymous said...

I also said that all that pro-rape stuff made it difficult for anyone to approach you over the internet, even if they decided to give you a chance.

This, I think, is a fundamental problem. Google 'Eivind Berge', as people inevitably will if they're in any way interested in you (especially if you encounter them online, which is otherwise an excellent way of meeting people that I wish I'd had when I was in my twenties), and they'll very quickly get the impression that you're at best an apologist for rape, at worst a potential rapist yourself.

I've just done it myself, and was immediately served a page of links that described you as a "pro-rape advocate" and "the nutbar who claimed that rape was a rational response to feminism", plus a claim that "Eivind Berge advocates for the rape of all women of voting age in Norway" - and all that was on the first Google results page: I didn't have to click on anything else. And even if I was unsure whether this was the same Eivind Berge, Google Images would remove all doubt.

So while I normally wouldn't endorse FS's recommendation that you lie to prospective partners (a recipe for certain disaster if you're after a genuine long-term relationship), in your case I really do think that a change of identity may be necessary. You've dug an almost unfathomably deep hole for yourself, and I honestly don't know how you're going to get out of it.

Unless of course this whole blog is some kind of elaborate Situationist prank, but I fear it's too convincing for that.

Anonymous said...

Making yourself a public identity as a defender of rape is probably the stupidest thing anyone trying to get laid could do. But it just shows that there are deeper underlying issues than sex that makes him lose his judgment. There is no way to help him with his "problem" on his own terms. It is unsolvable. Maybe he will seek to prove his impossible situation a while further, thus building up more righteous rage.

Eivind Berge said...

Even if I wanted to, it would be exceedingly difficult to escape my online reputation. I could use a different name, but not reveal a picture or meeting someone without risking detection. The technology already exists, though it isn't implemented yet, to point your cellphone at someone and look them up via face recognition, which then would turn up the same pages. So pretty soon, nothing short of reconstructive plastic surgery would do the trick. I think it would be simply pointless at this point to put effort into changing my identity. It is too late to start with a blank slate now. However, I think hiding my true persona is neither desirable nor necessary.

Just look at what gets said (and keep in mind The Spearhead is one of the Top 100 Blogs of 2010):

Violence – Still relatively rare but growing in number are those men who, pushed far enough into disillusionment and despair, decide to push back with full force and embark on a murder-suicide shooting rampage as their final protest against the society that made their lives unlivable. We may yet see some Western men take it upon themselves to punish feminist behavior in our streets and public spaces on a day-to-day basis.

As the Men's Movement gains steam, my vanguard rhetoric will stand out less and eventually be considered pedestrian. Because you see, rape is an appropriate response to successful feminism. Not all women deserve to be raped, of course, but feminists certainly do, and pretty soon saying so will not get you excluded from polite society because it is feminists who will be so reviled that they wish they could change their identity.

And as to pro-rape views scaring off women -- I just got an email from the very girl you quoted. What matters is women's actual behavior, not how they say they will react or how you think they ought to punish men who offend your mangina sensibilities.

Anonymous said...

Not all women deserve to be raped, of course, but feminists certainly do, and pretty soon saying so will not get you excluded from polite society because it is feminists who will be so reviled that they wish they could change their identity.

I get the impression that this rhetoric is supposed to chill everyone who reads it to the bone. Actually, I find it pathetic, in every sense of the word. It reads like a spotty teenager's fuck'em'all nihilism, without the excuse of age.

And as to pro-rape views scaring off women

No, not scaring them off - repelling and nauseating them. And who can blame them?

Your biggest mistake is that although there's a grain of truth in your assertion that notoriety equals greater attractiveness (although this is by no means a given), you decided to achieve that notoriety not by becoming a glamorous criminal, but by expressing views online that are more or less guaranteed to make yourself as repulsive to women as it's humanly possible to become. Which seems utterly perverse to me, given that your greatest desire seems to be to have a conventional long-term relationship with a woman.

In all seriousness, how can anyone with a functioning brain regard you with anything other than extreme suspicion? What price your promises when you've made it clear on many, many occasions that your attitudes towards sexual relationships are utterly selfish and amoral? You're clearly not stupid in an abstract intellectual sense, but you seem to have no emotional intelligence whatsoever - and you're not likely to develop any by continuing to go down this completely dead-end route.

You'd be far better off continuing to have sensible and constructive conversations with intelligent and articulate women like Emma and Balty - in fact, you've been getting some excellent and surprisingly sympathetic advice both in this thread and elsewhere, but you just don't seem capable of recognising anything that doesn't chime with your apocalyptically divisive worldview.

It's such a waste - but it's your loss, your decision, and your responsibility.

Anonymous said...

"sex from a random stranger just by proposing it is usually seen as an insult towards women, but men will actually insult the woman by rejecting random NSA sex with her."

Alright. I didn't know that.

"This alpha you tried to see, was he a good match for you?"

Probably not. But he showed interest, which is why I continued. I mainly did it as a test, I didn't pick him out because he was the most attractive (he was actually a bit too pretty for my taste, but I'd get over it).

" Are you an alpha female
companion?"

I'm probably not alpha, no.

"Or are you just using your female market leverage to snag better lovers, connections and maybe a husband or LTR while you're still hot?"

I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure what this means.

I hit on two guys but that's not because I didn't want any of the others. About 80% of men I know are hot in one way or another (when it comes to looks). But since they are all so hot, I don't know who to focus on and just sorta try them out randomly.

"And as to pro-rape views scaring off women -- I just got an email from the very girl you quoted. What matters is women's actual behavior, not how they say they will react or how you think they ought to punish men who offend your mangina sensibilities."

My actions don't contradict my words. I said your blog made it difficult for anyone to approach you. Not impossible. There are a lot of obstacles however. But I have to agree with you, Eivind - you probably can't get rid of your reputation. And lying about yourself is not a good strategy for a LTR.

Emma.

Anonymous said...

"Your biggest mistake is that although there's a grain of truth in your assertion that notoriety equals greater attractiveness (although this is by no means a given), you decided to achieve that notoriety not by becoming a glamorous criminal, but by expressing views online that are more or less guaranteed to make yourself as repulsive to women as it's humanly possible to become."


While I agree with mostly everything you said, I'd rather Eivind didn't become a glamorous criminal, and I'd rather people stopped encouraging him to do something violent. All is not lost, and becoming a criminal is not the only thing he can do to get women.

Emma.

Eivind Berge said...

What price your promises when you've made it clear on many, many occasions that your attitudes towards sexual relationships are utterly selfish and amoral?

I have never expressed and don't hold selfish and amoral attitudes towards sexual relationships. I am very loving and loyal in my relationships, if I can have any. In a descriptive sense, however, whether we like it or not, people often act in selfish and amoral ways. You must have misread my expounding of scientific explanations as amoral attitudes. The facts you attempt to gloss over about female sexuality are nevertheless true. Women don't tend to reward with their delights men who act as the lickspittles you uphold as ideal. Moral character seems to have little to do with attracting women, so it isn't worthwhile to focus on this. I have been a totally inoffensive personage, and it did not attract women. The way soft polygamy maintained by feminism works is there are bound to be a lot of losers even if they are good men, and so simply telling us to respect women is not viable.

Eivind Berge said...

I'd rather Eivind didn't become a glamorous criminal, and I'd rather people stopped encouraging him to do something violent. All is not lost, and becoming a criminal is not the only thing he can do to get women.

Emma, the only relevant encouragement is penis in vagina. I am not blind. If I see violent criminals getting women and no other way to get one myself, then I will seriously consider that tactic.

Anonymous said...

So are women as attracted to violent criminals in Norway as in the US?

Eivind Berge said...

"Or are you just using your female market leverage to snag better lovers, connections and maybe a husband or LTR while you're still hot?"
I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure what this means.


I didn't write that, Emma, but I can tell you it means do you use your feminist freedom to date out of your league? While you "try out" the hottest guys, and lots of women do the same regardless of their own relative attractiveness, this excludes men who would normally be a good match for you in a monogamous society. Your natural female power means just about any man will sleep with you and maybe have brief affairs with you, even higher alphas. But he won't necessarily commit. Thanks to feminism though, that isn't a problem for you and you can slut around with no shame and no consequences, at least not until you get older and find that maybe commitment/family is what you wanted anyway, but now your sexual power is rapidly waning along with your reproductive capacity and snagging an alpha is out of the question. And so you start looking at the guys you turned down while you were riding the proverbial alpha cock carousel. Now do you understand that they might be a little bitter by this point? Fortunately, you still have time to jump off and settle, say, for me :)

Anonymous said...

If I see violent criminals getting women and no other way to get one myself, then I will seriously consider that tactic.

Violent criminals, maybe - but how many rapists? Or even rape advocates?

I've always been under the impression that prison hierarchies that elevate certain crimes such as armed robbery tend to push rape very near the bottom of the pile, with only child molestation considered measurably worse.

There's certainly no cachet associated with a rape conviction - celebrity rapists like Mike Tyson and Roman Polanski had the fairly major advantage of becoming famous beforehand for immense natural talent in other fields. Whereas you're only famous for... advocating rape.

Anonymous said...

I have never expressed and don't hold selfish and amoral attitudes towards sexual relationships. I am very loving and loyal in my relationships, if I can have any. In a descriptive sense, however, whether we like it or not, people often act in selfish and amoral ways. You must have misread my expounding of scientific explanations as amoral attitudes.

No, it's because you've describes yourself repeatedly as a "rape advocate", and have backed up this position with many, many illustrative examples that make it clear that this isn't just a posture.

Which by definition means that you're strongly in favour of absolute selfishness and amorality when it comes to sexual relationships. How could a reasonable person draw a different conclusion?

Women don't tend to reward with their delights men who act as the lickspittles you uphold as ideal.

Another logic fail. I advocate the sexes treating each other with equal respect, not one being subservient to the other.

Moral character seems to have little to do with attracting women, so it isn't worthwhile to focus on this.

Actually, being a fundamentally decent person can be an extremely attractive quality, especially in a long-term relationship.

In fact, my wife has told me that the reason she wanted to have children with me and not with her previous partners was because she trusted me to be a good father who would prioritise our family above personal selfishness.

That's not the only reason, of course (mutual physical attraction, matching sex drives and a shared sense of humour are at least as important) but it's easy to see her point.

I have been a totally inoffensive personage, and it did not attract women.

But this is a fundamental mistake. It's perfectly possible to treat women with respect and behave like a decent human being without being "totally inoffensive" with it. Totally inoffensive people are deeply boring by definition.

I'm not at all inoffensive - I have very strong views on a wide range of subjects, and am rarely shy about expressing them in appropriate company. In fact, my wife first spotted me on an online forum when I made a tasteless joke about a politician that she used to work for. She sent me an even more tasteless joke in reply, and we hit it off immediately.

Now you have strong opinions too (and how!), but the major difference is that your opinions are based on the notion that even if you don't actively fear and/or despise women, you nonetheless regard them as some kind of remote Other, to be approached with extreme caution.

Another crucial difference is that I know when to keep my opinions to myself. You may sincerely believe that there's no difference between a very young child being repeatedly sexually abused by his mother and a horny teenager "getting lucky" with an older woman, but deliberately crashing a forum for survivors of such abuse in order to belittle and trivialise their experience is unwarrantedly aggressive, crassly insensitive, and was rightly regarded with universal condemnation. And not just condemnation - many people misread your post and assumed that you were in fact a paedophile trying to justify your urges.

The irony is, if you'd actually read some of the other posts and the rest of the site properly instead of using it as a springboard to showcase your immaturity, you might have learned something constructive about the limitations of your worldview. And you'd develop another useful skill into the bargain - I'm sure Emma and Balty will confirm that being a genuinely good listener is a rare and valued skill, especially in a man.

Eurosabra said...

I am becoming attracted to the idea that We westerners require a monastic class, and that so some men have been drafted for it. Sadly, this is painful.

Anonymous said...

"Fortunately, you still have time to jump off and settle, say, for me :)"

What is the benefit for a normal, regular, even a plain woman to settle for a verbally aggressive (even to the outside world, not necessarily her personally) guy who does not acknowledge the elementary notions of the modern (or any decent) society, such as the equality of women? No matter what the biological value of each sex, our society has concluded that both sexes will have equal worth, so that's how we will live. Old school, discriminating opinions are a turn off for women. If they weren't and if women really did gravitate towards verbal abusers, then you would have a whole line of groupies waiting to hang out with you, but this is not the case.

Have you ever thought that guys like this are in fact a liability. Why would a woman, who's got it all together for herself, who's got a normal job, who is self sufficient, educated.. why would she even settle for a "crazy" guy. What do you bring to the table? You say you are "loving" and would treat a woman well, but that is all overshadowed by how hostile you are to the world. A normal woman can settle for a "beta" guy with a job and with a "normal" personality. There is no reason for her to settle for a man who is in fact a liability - emotionally (your baggage, your pent up anger, your hubris) and financially.

And, again, you don't have to be like that, but that is what you have chosen.

Anonymous said...

Eivind, I think your best shot at having the sex you want is becoming a muslim and getting into muslim heaven. There you will have 72 virgins all to yourself.

Eivind Berge said...

No, it's because you've describes yourself repeatedly as a "rape advocate", and have backed up this position with many, many illustrative examples that make it clear that this isn't just a posture.
Which by definition means that you're strongly in favour of absolute selfishness and amorality when it comes to sexual relationships. How could a reasonable person draw a different conclusion?


Firstly, my illustrative examples have been of bogus feminist rape which even the "victims" themselves fail to perceive as rape, until radical feminist theorists and manginas like yourself have convinced them. Secondly, where I do argue in favor of real rape, perhaps you aren't intelligent enough to comprehend that my rape advocacy is somewhat more nuanced than "absolute selfishness and amorality." Indeed my rape advocacy is based on moral reasoning and only applies to very limited conditions in human history (the feminist Utopia). The reason why so many people get pissed off is exactly because they realize my argument has some merit. If someone advocates, say, the death penalty for murder, would it be accurate to represent him as simply pro-killing whenever it is convenient, regardless of the context? Are you really so stupid? A reasonable person, while he may disagree, can comprehend that both being pro capital punishment and rape as equality in the face of feminism are positions involving something beyond "absolute selfishness and amorality."

No matter what the biological value of each sex, our society has concluded that both sexes will have equal worth, so that's how we will live.

Very well, but then women should also be forced to live as if men had equal sexual worth, which in practice means raping them. You can't ignore biology. I cannot and will not ignore the soul-crushing loneliness and rage seething inside me brought about by sexual inequality amplified by treating women as equals in other areas. The feminist system with soft polygamy is creating more omegas and now even using institutionalized violence to deprive us of access to prostitutes. I refuse to accept my position as a complete sexual loser and will do what I have to do even if I have to kill and be killed in a last-ditch attempt to gain sexual access to women. Why should I accept women's equality, and even affirmative action to engineer it, when they don't respect sexual equality for men? Why is economic equality for women worth more than sexual equality for men, even though the distress of a celibate man far exceeds the pain women feel when they aren't equally represented everywhere?

What is the benefit for a normal, regular, even a plain woman to settle for a verbally aggressive (even to the outside world, not necessarily her personally) guy who does not acknowledge the elementary notions of the modern (or any decent) society, such as the equality of women?

I would not be verbally aggressive to her. I prefer not to discuss politics with my friends and family. Why bother with a handful when I can reach thousands on a blog? And I certainly wouldn't have to argue sexual politics with my girlfriend/wife, whose existence implies I am getting sex. As to being aggressive to the outside world -- all political speech is violent. Someone in favor of, say, invading another country, is a proponent of immense aggression, but that is no reason for women to find him impossible to live with. My mostly libertarian political views are actually less violent than those of 99% of the population.

Eivind Berge said...

@Eurosabra

I am becoming attracted to the idea that We westerners require a monastic class, and that so some men have been drafted for it. Sadly, this is painful.

From pickup artist to monk? How did this happen? Well, I lead a de facto monastic life both in terms of celibacy and abject poverty. I even get great spiritual insight into the abyss. There is nothing desirable about this lifestyle -- at least when it is imposed against your will.

Anonymous said...

verbally aggressive

I guess you'd like Eivind to humbly thank all the people who wanted to kill and torture him as documented on every blog post with more than a dozen replies.

guy who does not acknowledge the elementary notions of the modern (or any decent) society, such as the equality of women

Men who refuse to acknowledge flaws of society because they can prove them wrong, called thinking persons, have always been unpopular alive. At least they have their brains and the ability to shut up about what they see, although the latter can be hard.

Anonymous said...

I would not be verbally aggressive to her. I prefer not to discuss politics with my friends and family. Why bother with a handful when I can reach thousands on a blog? And I certainly wouldn't have to argue sexual politics with my girlfriend/wife, whose existence implies I am getting sex.

You are fundamentally unloving, as evidenced by all that you say. You can not resolve to be loving towards one person because they are giving you sex. That is not love. And the situation is not likely to arise, because there is no one who would see themselves as benefiting from that kind of fake love. I shudder to think who might genuinely respond to your present persona. You might be in for some twisted love yourself.

Eivind Berge said...

I don't have to "resolve" to love. It happens naturally upon intimacy, and is of course as real from me as from anyone else. There is nothing "fake" about it. The problem is women demand more than love. Politically correct opinions are usually not among their requirements, however.

I used to fall in love from a distance also, but that is so painful I suppress that possibility. I am vulnerable to falling in love from just a one-night stand, though, and can take years to get over it. Calling me "fundamentally unloving" is utterly ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

The fact that women now work and are breadwinners, along with assuming the most of child rearing responsibilities, is not a "flaw in the society". You owe your living standard to women.

Women's political and social equality will not be discussed.

It would be really useful for you to try to live in some of those countries where women are not considered as human beings with equal worth. With your opinions you would deserve all the tough life, hard work and war that these people experience.

The reason some men don't get sex is largely because of the sex ration, there is an slight excess of men and a deficit of young women. This happens in affluent societies where male lives are spared. However, this is not a big difference. Most people still have a lot of sex, a lot of which is nsa, the type of sex which would not have been so accessible just several decades ago. Men today enjoy a lot of sex without any responsibility. You are saying that these younger women won't give it to you - but what have you given to these younger women? Do you provide a roof over their head and pay their bills? Do you buy them food? Do you support their children? No, you don't, you never have and that is not your wish or intention. Neither does the government. Because most women work. It is hard for you to face this truth, that you cannot be on top anymore (even though some men still rule), but you have to face it because you have been liberated from your provider role. Your society and your welfare rests on women's work.

Anonymous said...

Maybe you do fall in love but you have no respect for women. You treat them as some other. As an object, not an individual. It is written all over your face / board. That you have some sort of a medieval / southern perception of women.

One should be able to discuss politics with his significant other. The world view must be similar in the couple. Otherwise it simply won't work. There can be disagreements, but they should not be fundamental.

Your real option could be some clueless Asian girl, it's doubtful that you will find a white woman, from our own society, that will be so clueless or insecure. But, yea, maybe someone twisted.

Anonymous said...

I don't have to "resolve" to love. It happens naturally upon intimacy, and is of course as real from me as from anyone else.

The intimacy is an expression of love. It is not the cause of it.

Eivind Berge said...

The intimacy is an expression of love. It is not the cause of it.

Are you saying love cannot exist if intimacy precedes it? If so, this is an astonishingly ignorant statement. It would exclude, for example, 100% of arranged marriages. Because that is what you must mean if my love is "fake."

Anonymous said...

Are you saying love cannot exist if intimacy precedes it? If so, this is an astonishingly ignorant statement. It would exclude, for example, 100% of arranged marriages. Because that is what you must mean if my love is "fake."

If you don't have love without intimacy you don't have love at all. Love is not a response. I'm addressing your personal beliefs.

Eivind Berge said...

Love is not a response? I guess in your fairy-tale world people only love their predetermined soul mate. How it really works is I can love just about any woman who meets my minimum attractiveness threshold, which is not very strict. Love can arise without intimacy; however, this is a terribly inefficient way to go about it. The male preference is to start with sex. The female preference is a wasteful courtship display which allows her to discard inferior males without putting out. Real life is a compromise. Intimacy can be both a cause and an expression of love.

Anonymous said...

You want to bypass what comes before sex, good luck with that very efficient approach.

Eurosabra said...

I get Ellinged a bit on housing, as I work from home, and here everyone else is rich. And I belong to a very Jewish community. You'd be surprised.

Anonymous said...

Of course, you wish women would put out for nothing. Like many men today, who want just sex as the first thing and don't provide anything. You think women are so stupid to just put out straight away? That's not how it worked in the old days - you had to marry her first and only then you could have sex. Today men often can have sex without giving practically anything in return. Be happy about it. Eventually women will start realizing the unfairness of this, and will be more careful about putting out to men who are not courteous, affectionate, loving and able to commit.

A normal relationship must start with friendship, affection, empathy. It doesn't have to be about money, and usually isn't. For instance, when young students fall in love with each other, they have very little in terms of wealth, yet they love each other, are friends and then have sex as a result.

You have it all backwards. The fact that you have linked to a page like Guess her muff shows clearly what a piece of trash you are.

Anonymous said...

If you were all you could be as a man, Eivind, and no women showed interest, you could start complaining about women being too picky. Until then, focus on becoming a real man. Don't be a whiny loser and pretend to be speaking on behalf of all men.

Anonymous said...

Firstly, my illustrative examples have been of bogus feminist rape which even the "victims" themselves fail to perceive as rape, until radical feminist theorists and manginas like yourself have convinced them.

Eivind, just when are you going to get it into your head that the term "mangina", although clearly intended as an insult, has no effect on me whatsoever, but merely betrays your inherent misogyny? You couldn't be more blatant if you added I THINK WOMEN ARE INFERIOR TO ME in bold block caps.

Granted, we all know that you think that already, but why go to such lengths to reinforce that impression? Why are you complaining on the one hand that women find you unattractive, while at the same time ensuring that this unattractiveness is amplified to the max? This seems utterly perverse to me.

Secondly, where I do argue in favor of real rape,

OK, stop right there. By your own admission you argue in favour of real rape. As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing more to discuss when it comes to your belief in sexual relationships founded on selfishness and amorality.

perhaps you aren't intelligent enough to comprehend that my rape advocacy is somewhat more nuanced than "absolute selfishness and amorality."

Your rape advocacy? I rest my case. Again.

Indeed my rape advocacy...

Bingo! We have a hat trick!

...is based on moral reasoning and only applies to very limited conditions in human history (the feminist Utopia).

Actually, it's based on you desperately trying to justify rape in your own head because you don't think you can get laid any other way. You can fool yourself, but you're not fooling anyone else - or at least no-one who actually has experience of normal human relationships. And especially not people who know real-life rape victims - as I do.

The reason why so many people get pissed off is exactly because they realize my argument has some merit.

No, they get pissed off because they think you're a selfish and amoral slimebag. With ample supporting evidence, not least in this single comment, never mind the rest of this thread (and your blog).

You can gibber on about this as much as you want, but that doesn't change the essential fact that there is no justification for rape. None whatsoever. Ever.

And until you grow up and realise this, you're doomed to remain single for a long, long time to come.

The problem is women demand more than love. Politically correct opinions are usually not among their requirements, however.

You really don't listen to a word anyone says, do you?

You know, Eivind, if you only started to take a fraction of the advice you've been getting on board, you'd really be making progress towards what you keep claiming are your goals. But instead, you cling to your ludicrous, wholly impractical and morally bankrupt theories as though you were a drowning man clutching at straws - wholly oblivious of the fact that it's these theories that are the problem, not the solution!

The simple fact is that if you aren't prepared to change, then nothing else will. If you want women to treat you as a decent human being, you have to prove that you are one first. I know it's hard to admit that your entire worldview is based on a fundamentally false premise - but at a stroke it would make you seem far more mature and responsible than you're coming across at present. And that would be the biggest step forward that you've made in years.

Anonymous said...

On the subject of love, as good a definition of genuine love as any is when you love someone regardless of current circumstances.

My wife had serious post-natal depression after the birth of our first child - I don't think either of us recognised how bad it was until much later. There were many, many symptoms, but a crucial one was that we didn't have sex for months, as she went through a period of just finding the whole idea repulsive.

In this very thread, we've seen that Eivind would be wholly intolerant of this, and at some point would demand sex. In other words, he's more interested in gratifying his own urges than in expressing concern for his partner's very real problems. By contrast, I acknowledged the problem, discussed it with her in as much depth as she was prepared to articulate, and although it took a long time for her to entirely get over it, ever since then we've been having what by mutual agreement is the best sex of our lives.

And I'm convinced that a major reason why the physical side of our relationship is so good now is that we went through that often agonising stress-test of the fundamentals of our relationship, and ultimately passed it with flying colours.

Now that's real love. And real intimacy.

Eivind Berge said...

You couldn't be more blatant if you added I THINK WOMEN ARE INFERIOR TO ME in bold block caps.

Once again you betray your poor reading comprehension. I never said women are inferior. The theme of my entire blog is sex is a female resource. I said only women have intrinsic value. Could I be any more explicit? Women are clearly vastly superior and I fully acknowledge this. Men are so worthless, we insult women by offering casual sex while women get insulted if we turn it down, for very good reasons. There is no question about it -- women are superior beings.

Women are just not so superior that they also deserve the backing of state violence in making their sexual value even higher than the astronomical worth it has by nature, through forced economic equality and finally the ban on paid sex to eliminate cheaper competition. And that's what my argument about rape comes down to. When the coercive powers of the state are employed in the service of unfairly boosting women's choosiness so that less men get laid, then the resulting celibate men are also morally entitled to use coercion to reclaim the sex that is lost. Ideally though, there would be no feminism and thus no reason to advocate rape, but this is what the world has come to.

wholly oblivious of the fact that it's these theories that are the problem, not the solution!

No woman has turned me down because of my theories and quite a few have talked to me because of them. Feminism hurts men who don't even know about these theories. They don't get laid, and they don't advocate rape -- yet.

Eurosabra said...

Longer explanation: After my father's death, I was forced to leave our shared apartment at the seaside, and I've been in hibernation in the Jewish Quarter for a year, which, after all, is suitable for mourning. What I did as a PUA is now impossible because of demands on my time and a much smaller (and still shared) living space. I am still dependent on translation piece-work, and although I am scraping by, and relocating soon, the Game is at a standstill here. I would encourage Eivind to do something about the anger, but can only say that mine burned out a bit. To echo his thoughts in the profile, I wish he were a PUA, it might heal him a bit.

Anonymous said...

"I didn't write that, Emma, but I can tell you it means do you use your feminist freedom to date out of your league?"

Thanks for explaining, Eivind. In that case, my answer to this question would be no. I'll say it again - I tried those two guys as a test, to see if anything interesting would happen. I didn't even know that guy was an alpha until much later, when I saw the amount of women around him xD

"Actually, being a fundamentally decent person can be an extremely attractive quality, especially in a long-term relationship."

Agreed :) I also have to agree that crashing a forum for sexual abuse survivors was a bad idea. Eivind, do you like it when people come here and tell you your anger is by no means caused by celibacy, and don't take it seriously? To a lot of people, your problem seems like nothing to complain about. And to you, those sexual abuse survivors have a "luxury problem". So if you don't like it when people make fun of your pain, don't make fun of others'.

"I'm sure Emma and Balty will confirm that being a genuinely good listener is a rare and valued skill, especially in a man."

Yes :) I'd say a good listener learns a lot by listening.

"The intimacy is an expression of love. It is not the cause of it."

I'm not sure about this, but I think it can be both...

"If you don't have love without intimacy you don't have love at all. Love is not a response"

I'll have to disagree - how is love not a response? You find a good person, you respond to their good traits, you love them. It's possible to have love without intimacy though(if it's non-romantic, or just unrequited).

Emma.

Anonymous said...

Since PZ Myers was the man who first triggered your global fame, I thought I'd share this post he made a few days ago:

Hey, guys who are making all these bizarre excuses for how hard it is to tell if sex is consensual: you're just announcing to the world that you've never had enthusiastic, mutually satisfying sex with anyone. Seriously, if your partner is reluctant, doesn't openly encourage you, isn't telling you what she likes, and isn't a full and equal participant, then STOP. You aren't having consensual sex.

It's
never difficult to tell.

Sex is an activity that involves two or more persons. It really isn't at all like your masturbation fantasies, or your evening with the blow-up doll, or like that glossy shiny porn you watch. It is two people being very open and personal with one another, and it isn't all about gratifying your penis. It's not something you get to demand, and it isn't about the other person submitting to being your toy for an evening.

The only way to have any doubt about whether you are raping or forcing someone to do something they don't want is to fail to realize all that.

Sometimes the person you are interested in does not want to have sex with you, but likes you enough that they'd enjoy dancing or drinking beer or even skinny-dipping with you. You do not have to have sex with everyone you drink beer with; you ought to be happy to have that much interaction with someone without demanding that they also do every single other thing you want.


Eivind will doubtless respond by calling referring to the author of this as a "mangina", but I really cannot see anything there that a normal decent human being could possibly disagree with.

So that's two definite steps Eivind can make towards rejoining the real world. The first is to understand why the vast majority of people would see this as no more than a statement of the obvious. And the second is to agree with it himself.

Eivind Berge said...

I also have to agree that crashing a forum for sexual abuse survivors was a bad idea.

Emma, that site keeps track of everything anybody claims is abuse by women and accepts it as gospel. They even have a page about adult male victims of female sex offenders. Protecting young boys who actually might feel pain is just a negligible part of this industry. Far more commonly, the boy is a teenager and he does not consider himself a victim at all. Consider this typical case:

According to Loveland police, an officer was on patrol at North Lake Park when he came upon a parked vehicle at 10:40 pm after the park had closed.

"The female was on top of the male and she quickly jumped off of the male when she saw my flashlight shining into the vehicle," stated the arresting officer. "I told both subjects that I could see they were naked and they needed to get dressed and talk to me."

Investigators say the boy initially told the officer he was 20-years-old, but when asked for identification he produced a school i.d. card that showed him to be in the tenth grade. The boy then confessed to being 16 years old.


Do you think the cops are heroes for catching a predator here? Or maybe they are assholes for ruining a date and taking his lover away from this boy. Does this reaction really fit the "crime"?

She was booked into the Larimer County Detention Center on charges of sexual assault, sex assault of a child by a person in a position of trust and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

These charges will be counted in the statistics of the literature which that female offender forum collects, and the incident is considered "abuse" not because it is but because that is just the hateful world we live in, thanks to feminism. The cops enforcing these laws are the absolute scum of the earth. They are enforcing feminist laws causing even more sexual frustration for boys and making sure they grow up in a cold world where even if they do get lucky the violence of the state will mess it up. Thus I think that forum and others who support the lie that women are sexual abusers deserve to be told the truth. They are promulgating a big lie. The legal fiction of statutory rape or abuse just because a person is under some arbitrary age and/or the other happens to be a teacher is reified and accepted by simpletons who populate such forums as the truth. Somebody needs to tell them the emperor has no clothes and that they are doing far more harm than good.

Eivind Berge said...

I really cannot see anything there that a normal decent human being could possibly disagree with.

The issue is not whether one should stop when sex appears unsatisfying for the woman. I don't have a problem accepting that usually we should. The issue is whether a man should be defined as a rapist, the full violent machinery of the state be brought upon him, and sentenced to many years in prison simply because he did not check (and can prove that he did) at every moment of sex that the woman was a 100% enthusiastic participant.

If you insist on making this a matter of instilling fear of cops and prisons rather than appealing to our sense of decency in respecting women, then you forfeit any moral authority you might have had and are reduced to the contemptible figure we call a feminist or mangina. I don't have a problem with people saying one should be nice and considerate. What I do have a problem with is corrupting rape law and turning it into such an instrument of terror against men that that there is nothing in between totally gratifying sex for women and a heinous crime. If you want rape to be considered a serious crime, you simply cannot define it in such a way that all it takes to be a rapist is a failure to make sure for a second that the woman was totally awake and consenting. This also infantilizes women to an absurd degree, so it isn't exactly respectful to them either. Now this is how rape is legally defined, but it retains a draconian punishment. So there is a preposterous discrepancy between the actual seriousness of the act and the punishment, and that is why MRAs are angry. It is not because we want to hurt women.

Eivind Berge said...

It is the difference between telling someone that this is how you should act because it is the right and honorable thing to do, and saying, "Do EXACTLY as I say (or just think, as rape law requires one to be a mind reader as well -- it is sufficient that the man 'ought to' have understood that the woman didn't consent even if he honestly thought she did, since mens rea is gone) or else we are going to call the police, have you dragged through the courts, cage you and ruin your life."

Whereas the first speaker might be worth listening too, the second scenario does not exactly inspire respect for women. Feminists have chosen the second option for dealing with even the most trivial grievances women might have about sex. This rightly breeds hostility and hatred in return. As feminists increasingly control the police and courts and use them against men for ever more absurdly minor offenses, their moral authority has diminished until all they have is brute force. We know you can send in your blue thugs, but there is no reason to take what you say seriously in a moral sense. It shines through that rape law reform is more about equipping women with a convenient weapon against men than about promoting decent behavior. Moreover, a social order built on violence without respect is a fragile one.

Anonymous said...

The fact that women now work and are breadwinners, along with assuming the most of child rearing responsibilities, is not a "flaw in the society". You owe your living standard to women.

Even if I don't live in a country of the hagbeasts you describe?

Women's political and social equality will not be discussed.

I'm sorry I didn't ask you about that first. Are you an admin or just a mod here?

It would be really useful for you to try to live in some of those countries where women are not considered as human beings with equal worth.

I do, because I'm self sufficient, and it's wonderful here. The only thing is when I make food or stuff like that, they really loathe me for it. Men here are supposed to be angry, smoke, drink and talk I think. But they do the dishes, so I guess the cosmic karma works out.

Because most women work.

Yeah, and they do an overrated job, and get far below replacement level kids. Great deal.

Your society and your welfare rests on women's work.

Norway isn't my society. I can take care of myself, I don't need the Norwegian government to change my diapers. That country is for women and male losers mostly. Also, women's employment looks to be Norway's downfall, you fucking mangina.

Anonymous said...


I'll have to disagree - how is love not a response? You find a good person, you respond to their good traits, you love them. It's possible to have love without intimacy though(if it's non-romantic, or just unrequited).


Love is the force that propels you into intimacy. You can't demand to have the intimacy first. Eivind would do well to trust in love operating through his biology, rather than denying his own sexual
value. He is working against nature.

Eivind's problems are obviously not just sexual. I don't really have to argue that. Kind of like Loughner didn't just have problems with politics.

From my perspective as not-Eivind, everything is as it should be when he is not achieving sexual relations right now.

Eivind Berge said...

Eivind's problems are obviously not just sexual.

The problem in my life which overshadows everything else is celibacy. Celibacy is a sexual problem which is solved by having sex. I would be happy if I had sex. I have had sex before and it made me happy. Who are you to tell me you know better how I feel and what motivates me? I know perfectly well that my pain and seething hatred is due to being deprived of sex. Obviously I am not getting sex because I have low mate value. But it doesn't mean there is something deeply wrong with me. It is even a mathematical fact that there is not one girl for each boy around here. And then you have de facto polygamy which makes it worse. Some men will necessarily not get a girl. It is a zero-sum game where there must be losers. Even if all men did exactly as you prescribe, there would still be losers.

I don't really have to argue that. Kind of like Loughner didn't just have problems with politics.

Loughner's rantings did not make sense. He said things like the government is controlling grammar for mind control (without being able to use proper grammar or write coherent sentences himself, mind you). Any linguist could tell you this is bullshit and not even possible. Loughner was out of touch with reality. In contrast, someone like PZ Myers finds no factual fault with my theories. He merely sides with women. That's all his argument amounts to -- that it's "fair and just" in his opinion that women get affirmative action and men don't. If you fail to see the intellectual difference between Loughner and me, then you are an idiot. Likewise if I am suffering from some psychopathology (besides alcohol dependence, which is under control), then what the fuck is it? I know for a fact there is nothing else in the DSM-IV I could be diagnosed with, but since you know so much better, please enlighten us. Saying "I don't really have to argue that" is a completely vacuous argument, you know.

Eivind Berge said...

Yup, Loughner is crazy and makes no sense whatsoever. To compare me to him you have to be an idiot as well. Excerpts from Jared Lee Loughner’s YouTube postings:

"The current government officials are in power for their currency, but I’m informing you for your new currency! If you’re treasurer of a new money system, then you’re responsible for the distributing of the new currency."

"In conclusion, reading the second United States Constitution, I can’t trust the current government because of the ramifications: The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar. No! I won’t pay debt a currency that’s not backed by gold and silver!"

"My hope – is for you to be literate! If you’re literate in English grammar, then you comprehend English grammar. The majority of people, who reside in District 8, are illiterate – hilarious."

"I know who’s listening: Government officials, and the People. Nearly all the people, who don’t know this accurate information of a new currency, aren’t aware of mind control and brainwash methods."

"If I define terrorist then a terrorist is a person who employs terror or terrorism, especially as a political weapon. If you call me a terrorist then the argument to call me a terrorist is Ad hominem. You call me a terrorist. Thus, the argument to call me a terrorist is Ad hominem."

Anonymous said...

Even if all men did exactly as you prescribe, there would still be losers.

I feel genuinely sorry for people (not just men) who lose out due to demographic issues or for other reasons over which they have little control.

But I feel no pity whatsoever for people who go to extreme lengths to make themselves as unattractive as possible and then whine about being celibate.

I have lots of single female friends, many of whom would make superb partners, and I make a point of introducing them to anyone I genuinely think might be a good match. But the chances of me introducing them to an unbelievably arrogant rape-defending misogynist-in-denial are as close to absolute zero as scientists have yet been able to measure.

Anonymous said...

I'm not looking to give you a psychiatric diagnosis. You are not
suffering from anything. But I would say you have some trouble
differentiating your outer and inner world. You assume causal
relationships between feminism and your life, and you think you are
entitled to aggress against women because of what they as a gender
have supposedly done to you. I would say you make some valid points about feminism, but the way you intermesh your intellectual
understanding with your own life is ridiculous.

What is celibacy overshadowing? It is not a case of you being unhappy
because you can't have sex, it is a case of you deciding to be unhappy because of your sexuality. You exist whether or not you have
sex. If you were happy with yourself at a deeper level then you would be able to handle your sexuality. It is secondary to your self. Your sexuality does not decide how you feel about your self, that is a fallacy.

What I see as "wrong" with you is your antagonism, which is NOT caused by lack of sex.

You could learn to convert your resources into interpersonal value.

Eivind Berge said...

You assume causal relationships between feminism and your life, and you think you are entitled to aggress against women because of what they as a gender have supposedly done to you.

Do you deny that feminists have criminalized me for buying sex, for example, and that the police here in Bergen are prepared to enforce this law? Do you think I am so stupid I don't discern this reality? There is no point in denying this; it just makes you look like an idiot. This is a direct causal relationship between feminism and my potential quality of life, and it is going to turn real bloody in a confrontation because I aim to take all the seething pent-up hatred of my soul out on the body of a police officer before I am through if enforced celibacy continues. My goal in life is sex. Plan B is revenge, and feminism has made revenge a morally justified endeavor.

You exist whether or not you have sex. If you were happy with yourself at a deeper level then you would be able to handle your sexuality.

Perhaps it will be clearer how fallacious this kind of reasoning is if it is applied towards a goal feminists disapprove of. How about I enslaved a woman and raped her every day. According to your logic, if she was unhappy about this, then I could just say, "You exist whether or not you are a sex slave. If you were happy with yourself at a deeper level then you would be able to handle the confinement and forced sex." We could use the same logic to deny the pain of all rape victims. After all, if sex has no bearing on how one feels, then rape victims ought not to feel any pain, either.

How can you expect me to respect women when you refuse to acknowledge that men have rights or even needs? If sex isn't important to men, then how can you say that equality is important to women? You really expect us to concede that women need all their entitlements when our needs and desires don't even exist in your worldview? If women were happy with themselves at a deeper level, then why do they need feminism?

Your sexuality does not decide how you feel about your self, that is a fallacy.

Why do you suppose Maslow put sex at the bottom of the pyramid, along basic physiological needs? Why is celibacy regarded as a form of asceticism? If sex were just a tangential aspect of life comparable to some arcane hobby, then there would be no need to call celibacy a sacrifice when practiced by monks, would it? And even if it is possible to live without sex, it isn't a "fallacy" for me to decide that sex is something I care deeply about. Indeed it is a perfectly reasonable and all but inevitable value judgment.

Anonymous said...

Prostitution has always existed, but there been have various degrees of sanctions against it in different places. So what if you happen to get caught and they fine you, big deal.

You would benefit from seeing your sexuality from a different perspective. It would still be there, it just wouldn't rule you like it does now.

And even if it is possible to live without sex, it isn't a "fallacy" for me to decide that sex is something I care deeply about.

OK, so you choose to be obsessed with (not having) sex. Fine.

Anonymous said...

OK, so you choose to be obsessed with (not having) sex.

That makes as much sense as telling a starving person he should get over his obsession with food instead of getting something to eat.

Eivind Berge said...

So what if you happen to get caught and they fine you, big deal.

I am not going to pay that fine. I refuse to live like that. They think they can impose this extra tax on being male and have you pay the state after you pay the whore like a second pimp -- while the whore is completely innocent and even gets to keep the money without paying income tax on it. The feminist enforcers will discover that they aren't dealing with one of the politically unaware, docile men who pay the fine in stride if they catch me. They will be dealing with an activist. A violent men's rights activist.

If I am caught buying sex, the matter certainly won't be resolved with a fine. There will be a trial, and it will be for murder as well.

However, the impact of the law isn't primarily the direct consequences for the relatively few men who get caught. As I have explained, the idea is to drive up the cost of sex across the board in order to benefit the typical woman. You can't dismiss this law as not a big deal, no matter how you look at it.

Anonymous said...

The law is not strictly enforced abroad. One can get through it easily. There are cheap deals too. The prices are in accordance with overall economic conditions in a given country. If a cup of coffee costs 5eu in Norway, then accordingly, sex will also be expensive.

Being starved of food will cause death, not having sex will not cause death. These two are not comparable.

Why don't you look at the problem from another perspective - how about neutralizing the alpha men and forcing them into monogamous relationships? Thus the alphas will be stuck with one woman and will no longer be available to the women who they otherwise would have monopolized. These women will have to look elsewhere. Sure, in Scandinavia most women would probably choose to remain single, but who knows. It could have a chilling effect and it might make them settle more quickly (for betas, not omegas though). Most people are average and sleep with their average counterparts.

Anonymous said...

"I do, because I'm self sufficient, and it's wonderful here."

Then why do you care and point fingers at how people want to live in the developed world? Enjoy the destitute women in the developing world who want to come to the West so desperately. Of course, you are self sufficient. Living in the third world with Western money. If you have found your bliss using the destitute and desperate women then why bother what happens here. It doesn't apply to you anymore and you are in no position to judge.

Anonymous said...

You should see a shrink about your constant projection of thoughts onto more successful individuals. You've never met me, and keep making baseless judgments that have no relevance to real life. I lead a successful and interesting life with money and attractive women. You're imagining things to keep your world from falling apart. Deal with it.

Then why do you care

Why do you care if I care?

then why bother what happens here

I wasn't around when it became a crime to care

Of course, you are self sufficient. Living in the third world with Western money.

Yeah, my filthy, white, self made money that was really handed to me in a chain of devices made to exclude women and minorities, although it might have looked like the entrepreneurial spirit that made colonialism and problems everywhere!

Anonymous said...

Being starved of food will cause death, not having sex will not cause death. These two are not comparable.

Did you just ignore the Maslow link just like you seem to ignore the things that don't fit your purpose, and imagine things that do? The reason Maslow placed sex along side with food and breathing in the physiological category was, it's a basic physiological need a long side with food and shelter, not that it resembles it in every way. There's a reason why they're lumped up there in the bottom, and it's because people tend to feel like Eivind when they are deprived of them.

It's an actual, basic need, separate, but not unrelated to love.

Anonymous said...

It is a basic need because of the drive to procreate, as food is basic for sustaining an organism. Sex is basic for sustaining the human race.

But it doesn't mean you will die on the individual level if you don't get sex. You will get a lot of mental, physical discomfort, esp. if you're a male, your self worth will be injured but you won't physically die.

I agree though that it can feel worse than death on a subjective level. Being unwanted and deemed unworthy or repulsive can be very painful.

But it's not an excuse to liken sex to food, as it's not as basic.

Anonymous said...

To the real angry expat: no, seriously, if your life is so wonderful, then why are you still so bitter and still coming here? If you really were that happy with all the women, you would be content. But you clearly aren't.

And, no, my world isn't falling apart at all (as I also enjoy the company of the opposite sex in the form of attractive, attentive men).

What I don't understand is why you are so hateful. And aggressive towards what I hold dear. Nobody is keeping you away from fucking those Asian women. Enjoy. But for some reason you really aren't, as you are visible agitated and unhappy.

Anonymous said...

p.s. And don't push the race issue. I am white too, and never said anything produced by whites was "filthy". I merely said that it is easier for a rich Westerner to have a good living standard in a developing country.

And, btw, I value my white race and would never scurry into the arms of exotic partners, like you have apparently done. So don't push your identity, if you don't really have respect for it.

Anonymous said...

Did you just ignore the Maslow link just like you seem to ignore the things that don't fit your purpose, and imagine things that do?

Maybe there is some confusion here. The Maslow quote was directed at me and I didn't write this quote that you disagree with (although I could have).

Maslow does not say that society has a responsibility to meet Eivind's sexual needs.

Eivind is unable to fully develop past the first stage of Maslow's model for personal development. It does not say that you have to have sex before you can do all the other stuff. Many people actively choose to wait till they're well into their twenties before they have sex. Are they suffering like you are, Eivind? No one's going to supply your sexual needs like they do with food. You're on your own.

Not many people share your perception that they are deprived of sex and so they don't feel blame and anger.

You think evolution is unfair, and society ought to take measures that would make sure the bad genes are passed on? In the bigger picture your misery doesn't matter, Eivind. If you can't adapt nature says goodbye to your genes, and everyone else is better off.

Anonymous said...

To the angry expat: if you're so happy, then why all the bitterness? Just enjoy your life, why all the anger still? Your tone betrays your real state of mind which is not happiness and contentment but bitterness.

And, no, my life is not falling apart, as I also have money and attention from attractive, caring men whose company I enjoy.

Anonymous said...

Since we're having problems seeing who's who here it seems, I'll be Abe, the angry bitter expat.

if your life is so wonderful

I don't think you get a wonderful life from external things like you are assuming and I never claimed mine was wonderful, but I think it can help some times.

I value my white race and would never scurry into the arms of exotic partners, like you have apparently done

That's very pure blooded of you. I'm sure the Führer himself would have been delighted to give one of those thumbs ups at that reply, had he been here to read it today, and had Blogger installed one of those thumbs ups scripts as standard in their blog services.

then why are you still so bitter and still coming here?

Why do you constantly demand explanations why I like to be here to exercise free speech? Are you a fascist as well as a white nationalist? I don't accept people who try to tell me what to do, whatever their excuse is. I happened to be born white and feel fine about it, but that's the extent of it really, it doesn't interest me that much. I'm mainly a don't fucking tell me what to doist.

Abe

Eivind Berge said...

Many people actively choose to wait till they're well into their twenties before they have sex. Are they suffering like you are, Eivind?

Voluntary celibacy has nothing to do with what I am feeling. Obviously if it is their active choice, then they have no reason to feel blame and anger. Are you too stupid to see the difference?

You think evolution is unfair, and society ought to take measures that would make sure the bad genes are passed on?

I never said that. All I said was society needs to stop taking measures allowing women to reject more men while still extracting resources from them, and on top of that even criminalizing paid sex. As it is, I am entitled to aggress. Evolution isn't unfair per se, but feminism is. Actually in a natural state there would also be aggression against alphas who monopolize women. Men would then all fight it out for women, and form alliances and so on. Now the alphas have the state to guard their harems, so aggression is appropriately directed against the state and its civil servants.

If you can't adapt nature says goodbye to your genes, and everyone else is better off.

We'll see about that. I will then make it my mission to see to it that somebody else is a whole lot worse off. Somebody responsible for enforcing feminism.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 221   Newer› Newest»