Friday, September 09, 2011

Baumeister Now Claims Gender Equality Leads to More Sex

I have previously cited noted psychologist Roy Baumeister for his work demonstrating that sex is a female resource. Now a new study of his published this summer has been doing the rounds. It has been portrayed as proving that gender equality leads to more sex. If true, this would pretty much overturn the standard MRA narrative regarding how feminism correlates with the availability of sex. Sex is still very much seen as a female resource, but the new evidence would appear to indicate that feminism actually leads to women putting out more freely. That would be ironic because we tend to think of feminism as a sexual trade union designed to maximize the value of female assets, driving up the cost of sex.

This is the reference:
Roy F. Baumeister & Juan Pablo Mendoza (2011): "Cultural Variations in the Sexual Marketplace: Gender Equality Correlates With More Sexual Activity." The Journal of Social Psychology, 151:3, 350-360.
Sexual economics theory assumes that heterosexual communities can be analyzed as marketplaces in which men offer women resources such as love, respect, money, and commitment in exchange for sex. In response to economic, political, and other disadvantages, women collectively restrict their sexuality to maintain a low supply relative to male demand, thereby ensuring a high price. Hence, we tested the hypothesis that sexual norms and practices would be more restrictive in countries marked by gender inequality than in countries where the genders were more equal. An international online sex survey (N>317,000) yielded four measures of sexual activity, and 37 nations' means on all four measures were correlated with independent (World Economic Forum) ratings of gender equality. Consistent with predictions, relatively high gender equality was associated with more casual sex, more sex partners per capita, younger ages for first sex, and greater tolerance/approval of premarital sex.
I always keep an open mind and am able to admit I have been wrong when I encounter new evidence invalidating my previous views. However, having read this article, I don't think the data prove that gender equality leads to more sex for men. Let's look at the actual figures. The numbers in the below table form the entire basis of Baumeister's conclusion. He didn't bother to conduct any surveys himself. Instead he relied on an online sex survey done by condom manufacturer Durex in 2005, from which it was not possible to obtain separate data for males and females, or even gays and straights. Numbers from this database were then combined with an index of gender equality for each country obtained from the Global Gender Gap Report 2006.

For one thing, the least gender-equal country in the data set (Turkey) is also the one with the highest number of partners, and they are also not terribly far behind on casual sex. How do they do this? But let's say Turkey is some kind of aberration and these correlations are generally accurate. Even so, it's easy to understand that they don't necessarily warrant the conclusion that women dispense sex more liberally when they get more gender equality. If you for example have a bunch of people trading monogamy for casual sex once a year, you get fabulous scores on these "indices of sexual activity," yet there is less sex going on, to say nothing of happiness or quality of life. Clearly these indices can be misleading. And even if there is more casual sex going on in gender-egalitarian societies, and women are willing to be more promiscuous, we have reason to believe a great deal of this extra sex befalls alpha males. The number of partners in the table is just an average, which says nothing about the distribution of these partners. It may not be so egalitarian after all. More likely, something like a Pareto distribution is in effect. It would be consistent with this study as well as every observation and everything I know that 20% of men get 80% of the casual sex. In Norway a full 30% of the population hasn't had a single one-night stand, either. So what if there is less casual sex in non-feminist countries, and you have to wait a couple more years to lose your virginity? As long as you are pretty much assured a wife, this is a better proposition for beta and omega men who rarely if ever would get laid in a feminist society. We already knew alphas have a good time under feminism (at least until they get hit by a rape accusation), so there is really nothing new under the sun in this study.


Che said...

So will you tell us who you are voting for in today's election mr. pacified terrorist? Or maybe you have given up voting? It's only a local election, but still, it would be interesting to hear where you stand.

Eivind Berge said...

I've always voted for Fremskrittspartiet. However, since I moved to a different county right before the election, apparently I'm not registered to vote here yet, so I'm not voting this time. I suppose I could vote in Bergen, but since this is just a local election after all and I don't live there anymore, I'm not bothering to go there today just for that.

FrP is the major party closest to my views, but I'm by no means happy with them. I vote for them because they ostensibly want the least taxes and government regulation, but they are still socialists by my standards. Some of them also appear to be fascists, in favor of more power to the police and more surveillance, a national DNA registry, mandatory drug testing for all schoolchildren, etc. But the other parties are even worse.

I wish we had a decent libertarian, anti-feminist party. Failing that, maybe next time I will actually vote for Høyre, if FrP continues to push their fascism and generally make dumbasses out of themselves whenever they open their mouths.

Anonymous said...

Myths about male rape

What do you make of this? Still proud of trolling that sexual abuse support group?

Eivind Berge said...

Women cannot rape or sexually abuse males for fundamental ontological (or at least biological) reasons. That site adds no new arguments that I haven't demolished already. And I wasn't "trolling" that other site. I left one sincere comment expressing my opinion about the feminist lie that women can be sexual abusers.

To reiterate, here is some of the ridiculous propaganda at this new site:

"Myth: Adult men cannot be sexually assaulted by women.

Reality: Although the majority of reported perpetrators are male, (97 to 98%), women can, and do, also sexually assault men but is seldom reported... not that many males feel safe reporting rape anyway.

If you include emotional blackmail as a way of giving the victim no choice, then the number greatly increases."

Emotional blackmail isn't rape regardless of who the perpetrator or victim is. Only by a corrupt feminist definition would this be rape even if it is done by a man to a woman. Rape involves force or at least the threat of serious violence, not just emotional blackmail. Do these people really imagine it would benefit men to define rape so loosely? Just think about how many men will go to prison for each male "victim" who can get his female "rapist" prosecuted based on such a bizarre concept of rape. Sadly this kind of feminist jurisprudence is already implemented in many jurisdictions, and men need to fight it and reverse feminist rape reform, not think of ways we can qualify as victims ourseleves under such unjust laws.

"Also don't think that if a woman rapes you that you have to penetrate her, there are such things as vibrators that she can use on you as well."

That isn't even sex, let alone rape. Of course women can physically assault and abuse men and this is and should be a crime, BUT IT ISN'T RAPE by any reasonable definition.

"If you think a female can not force a male to get an erection against his will, think again, you have little (to no) control over that part of your body with your will power."

This trite straw man is irrelevant, because even if a man is forced to have intercourse with a woman, there is no sexual violation because women raping men is in my opinion fundamentally ontologically impossible, sex being a female resource. I simply refuse to acknowledge victimhood of any male for sexual coercion per se by a female and I will do everything I can to undermine all attempts to confer such victim status on males or to hold women culpable for rape or sexual abuse, morally or legally.

FS said...

Sorry Eivind, but a woman, at least in theory, could rape me. I do not want to have sex with most women as I am only attracted to the hottest of the hot chicks. This means that despite the fact I attract lots of women, I go long stretches without sex as I refuse to have sex with most of them. I'm OK with this.

There's a fat chick with my name on her right now, but I'm not touching it. I understand that I am probably an exception to the rule though, as most guys will sleep with whatever they can get.

Anonymous said...


You just defined rape as a sexual experience you do not like. In other words, it is not rape if the hottest of the hot chicks forces you to have sex with her. But if a fat chick forces you to have sex with her, it is rape because you did not enjoy it.

FS said...

No I didn't. I define rape as forced sex, and sex without a woman's consent, like if a woman is passed out on the floor, and some guy has sex with her anyway without her knowing.

FS said...

Oh, and just in case people who are less intelligent than I am misunderstand, I do believe rape is wrong.

FS said...

I say that because there are stupid feminists who seem to think I think rape is ok, and love to misrepresent my opinions, just because in some ways, I agree with Eivind. In other ways though, I think he is crazy, ableit, very intelligent.

I sympathize with his hatred of feminists and police fully.

Eivind Berge said...


"I define rape as forced sex, and sex without a woman's consent, like if a woman is passed out on the floor, and some guy has sex with her anyway without her knowing."

Sex with a woman simply passed out on the floor is not rape, and wasn't defined as such until very recently. This used to be considered sexual exploitation, with a far milder possible sentence, until feminists legally redefined it into rape. In Norway this happened in 2000. If you agree with this kind of feminist rape law reform, then you are part of the problem, FS.

I agreed with the old law under certain circumstances. Sex with an unconscious person should be a crime if she didn't get herself into that situation by her own actions (which is usually the case, e.g. by willingly getting drunk and going home with a man), but it isn't rape and doesn't deserve the same punishment. It would be sexual exploitation if you chance upon a random passed-out woman and have sex with her. Only if the victim is drugged/incapacitated forcibly against her will by the rapist with the specific intention of accomplishing sex is it rape, and the law agreed with me on this too until 2000. Why do you support feminist corruption of justice, FS?

FS said...

I support the feminist perversion of the word rape, because it will eventually help men. If feminists want to define rape as sex with a passed out woman, not getting off a woman for 1 second after her asking you to, or getting a woman drunk to have sex with her, then I am all for it. I just hope they don't expect me to give a shit when these things happen though, because I won't and I don't.

BTW Eivind, since you are against this perverting the definition of the word rape, which is fine, then surely you should have not have titled the name of your infamous post as "rape is equality." You should have said "sexual affirmative action is equality" because what you were proposing was not exactly rape in it's classical meaning.

You are a very smart man Eivind, but really naive in some ways. The feminists love abusing political language, so you should do the same. They brought no honour to the fight against you, and neither should you bring any in your fight against them.

Eivind Berge said...

Would you care to explain how feminist perversion of rape law can help men? The fact is women and cops use the feminist concept of rape every day to harass and jail men. It doesn't really matter that we see through the charade and don't give a shit about these supposed "rape victims" as long as feminists control the police. Sometimes they also succeed in obtaining convictions and men go to prison for years based on feminist corruption of justice.

By comparison to all these thousands of men affected, since all sanity was abolished from rape law in 2000 only one woman has been prosecuted in Norway based on this new absurd definition of rape. That was for performing oral sex on a man while he was asleep, which is not a legal protection men need and in any case you have to take into account that the law is used by women against men at least 10 000 times as often. There is really no benefit for men in sight here, only increased terror by the police. The feminist reign of terror against men just keeps escalating every year. As I see it, the only realistic way this can get better is if MRAs start assassinating policemen so they start to feel our hatred. Some minor headway in that direction has already occurred this year, so I am guardedly optimistic about the future of activism for men.

FS said...

When people think of rape these days, they say shit like "rape" or "rape rape." This is a good thing. Eventually it will get to the point where rape is not seen as much of a crime, and the feminists will have brought it on theirselves.

Eivind Berge said...

"Eventually it will get to the point where rape is not seen as much of a crime, and the feminists will have brought it on theirselves."

Yes, I hope so too and there are signs this is happening already. But this can only go so far. It will not prevent cops from harassing men at the whim of any woman crying rape, no matter how ludicrous the accusation, and to roll the dice to see if they can ruin a man's life by bringing the case to court. There can come a point when having a rape conviction on your record will carry little stigma or even be a badge of honor, but the years spent in prison are nonetheless detrimental to your life, as is the cash awarded the woman out of your property.

As an analogy, recreational drugs are more or less socially accepted and drug dealers are generally looked up to and seen as an asset to have in your social circle, yet none of this prevents the authorities from fighting the war on drugs. Similarly, there is plenty of room for the feminist state to ramp up the war on male sexuality and keep persecuting men even though it is plain to any rational person that they have done nothing blameworthy.

To carry the drug war analogy further, look at what is happening in Mexico right now. If the Mexicans know what is best for them, they will give up the drug war, because it is generating way more harm than drugs ever could. Only when MRAs fight back with such ferocity that the negative consequences of feminism are seen as simply not worth the cost of maintaining the regime will the tide be turned, methinks.

Anonymous said...

you make me sick. you're just as bad as Breivik. burn in hell.

Anonymous said...

I think it's a fitting statement that this anon thinks "Eivind is worse than Breivik" for stating his eloquent and original opinions on a blog compared to the worst mass murder in recent history. Unfortunately Norway isn't very tolerant to other people's opinions or the expression of them, or they seem to be, but they just all say the same things. That's what a recent survey said anyway, which placed Norway on level with authoritarian military 3rd world countries on the conformity chart.

Anonymous said...

To the last Anonymous: You're wrong and I think Eivind Berge would agree with me here. He was just invited to present his opinions in public at a debate at the University of Bergen.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, even though the debate devolved into a vicious meta-debate about whether I should be allowed to present my opinions, I must give kudos to the university for inviting me, and also to the media for giving my views a fair hearing.

Anonymous said...

I made two statements: Firsty that the last person before me said Eivind was as bad as a recent mass murderer for excercising free speech. We have no real legal protection or respect for free speech in Norway, and this blog is full of threats and vulgarities that reflect this fact. Secondly I mentioned that a new study placed Norway among third world military countries in terms of conformity. I was trying to find a source for this study, but I can't find it. If you think I'm making it up I guess I can try harder.

Berge was never invited to any debates before Breivik, in fact he was actively kicked out and barred from expressing himself almost everywhere before that happened. Afterwards they needed some guy who had some infinitely small sympathy for Breivik to show an actual public Norwegian Breivik-supporter to get a discussion going, because some smart person had figured out that supressing men's opionions forever might not be such a good idea if we want less mass murders. And lo and behold, after searching the entire country they found Eivind, who then ended up in a debate mostly about how anyone like him could possibly be allowed to speak publically. So yes, it is a small very conformist country with tight margins you need to stay inside when it comes to acceptable and unacceptable opinions.

Anonymous said...

Men du bor hjemme hos mammaen din og belaster henne og hele familien din med synspuktene dine. Kom deg ut og stå på egne bein. Bli voksen