Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Beware of sex-negative MRAs

A casual observer might get the impression that the Men's Rights Movement is growing, since there clearly are more self-identified MRAs now than ever. But actually, most of this growth sadly consists of a cheerleading chorus for the feminist sex abuse industry rather than any real antifeminism.

There is a deep schism in the MRM between sex-positive and sex-negative MRAs which is well illustrated by how Angry Harry is now treated at A Voice for Men. Angry Harry is a venerable old MRA, a founding father of the movement, and for him to be ostracized like that just for being eminently reasonable is a travesty.

AVfM purports to be an MRA site but is actually a cesspool of feminist filth, where they worship radical feminists like TyphonBlue. She is a particularly nasty promoter of the feminist sex abuse industry including the lie that women are equally culpable for sex offenses. TyphonBlue is so extreme and clueless in her feminist thinking that she even attributes my former rage over celibacy to "processing (badly) some sort of overwhelming sexual trauma from his past." In the feminist worldview, sexual abuse is the only explanation for every perceived problem, and any man who disagrees with feminist abuse definitions must have been abused himself and is in denial.

TyphonBlue, the AVfM crowd and other feminists have a special poster boy for female-on-male "rape" in the former marine James Landrith. I always felt James Landrith was one of the most unsavory characters on the entire Internet, as his advocacy for the expansion of rape law has disgusted me for many years now. Even if he were telling the truth, it is patently absurd to take his sob story of female sexual coercion seriously as rape. The story inspires jealousy in normal men instead of sympathy and Landrith is a hypersensitive outlier to be traumatized by whatever experience he had. Angry Harry says so himself,
Furthermore, even if these particular memories were 100% correct, it seemed very unlikely to me that a 'normal' man would be so traumatised - and remain traumatised even 20 years later - by the incidents described in his article. So, as I said, I groaned inwardly, being somewhat depressed at the thought that false memories and/or 'particularly sensitive' victims were invading one of my comfort zones in cyberspace.
Now it turns out this feminist poster boy is exposed as not only a preposterously sensitive moron but a fraud as well. Angry Harry has caught James Landrith carefully changing his story and relying on recovered memories just like any other feminist accuser of the most untrustworthy kind. Now Landrith even claims, based on memories recovered in therapy, that the woman spiked his drink before "raping" him, making the feminist melodrama complete.

I myself called out the female sex-offender charade several years ago. To me, nothing screams bullshit as loudly as claims of sexual abuse by women. I have emphatically stated that women cannot rape men nor sexually abuse boys. I regard it as crucially important for MRAs to make it perfectly clear that we do not acknowledge female sex offenders even in principle. It was clear to me from the beginning that the female sex-offender charade only serves to promote feminist sex laws that ultimately hurt men immeasurably more than it can help a few rare particularly sensitive outliers who are traumatized by female sexual coercion (if they even exist). It is unreasonable to make laws based on hysterical outliers, and most importantly, the laws they want correspond exactly to the most hateful feminist sex laws which hurt innocent men every day. Therefore, I cannot emphasize enough that anyone supporting the female sex-offender charade is not a true MRA. This is a very good test to separate the wheat from the chaff -- ask how someone feels about female sex offenders, and if they respond that male victims of women are marginalized and female sex offenders need to be prosecuted more vigorously (or at all), then they are most certainly not one of us.

The word for such people is feminist or mangina. And now I've got some bonus advice for manginas: If you want to be sex-negative, then there are ways to go about it without catering to the feminist abuse industry and without advertising how stupid you are. For someone brought up in a feminist milieu this might be difficult to grasp, but guess what -- there are ways to prohibit and punish undesirable sexual activity without defining it as "abuse" of some helpless "victim." Traditional moralists have done so for millennia. One example is Islamic sharia law. Another is traditional Christianity and our laws against adultery, fornication, sodomy and so on in place until recently. Even obscenity can be dealt with on grounds of morality rather than the hateful and ludicrous persecution of "child porn" we have now, where teenagers are criminalized as sex offenders for sharing "abuse" pictures of themselves. A blanket ban on obscenity such as in the old days would be infinitely better and more fair than this charade. I don't agree with the sex-hostility of traditional morality either, but at least it isn't as retarded as the false-flag MRAs who apply feminist sex abuse theory to males. So if you want to be taken seriously, it would serve you better to advocate for traditional moralist values and laws instead of the feminist sex-abuse nonsense.

When a boy gets lucky with an older woman such as a teacher, quit insisting he was "raped" or "abused," because sexual abuse is not what is going on here. Forcing these relationships into a framework of "rape" or "sexual abuse" designed for women only serves to showcase your lack of intelligence and ignorance of human sexuality. It is also not needed in order to proscribe such behavior if you really believe it needs to be a criminal matter. You can punish the woman (or both) for fornication and/or adultery if you insist on being so sex-hostile. No victimology is needed! No denying the boy got lucky and ludicrously attempting to define him as a "victim." No sucking up to the feminists and no display of extreme imbecility on your part.

I can't really argue with moralism, because it basically consists of preferences about what kind of society you'd like to live in or claims about the will of some deity. It is not in the realm of rationality, so beyond simply agreeing or disagreeing, there isn't all that much to say. But when you make claims about abuse and victimhood like the feminists do, those claims can be tested because they bear relation to the real world and human nature, which is what science is about. Thus scientific methods such as is employed by evolutionary psychology can greatly illuminate the nature of rape and sexual abuse, and whether women can be perpetrators, and it can easily be shown that feminist jurisprudence makes thoroughly unscientific claims. Feminist sex law is neither based on evidence, rationality nor morality and should not be taken seriously. It is mere pseudoscience concocted to justify an ulterior motive. If you still insist on it, you are left with pure absurdity, as is easily demonstrated by a simple thought experiment.

Feminist sex abuse is so arbitrarily defined that if you are blindfolded and transported to a random jurisdiction where you meet a nubile young woman, you would have to consult the wise feminists in the local legislature before knowing if you can feel attracted to her without being an abuser (or even a "pedophile" if you are utterly brainwashed). And if you see a romantic couple, you similarly cannot know if the younger one is being "raped" without consulting the feminists you admire so much. That's how much faith manginas place in feminists -- they allow them to rule their most intimate desires and defer to them unquestioningly. Manginas are feminist sycophants and the MRM is now full of them in places like AVfM, The Spearhead, and the Men's Rights subreddit.

What is going on is this. The manginas are so steeped in feminist propaganda that the only tool in their intellectual toolbox is "abuse." And so in Western countries, even conservatives and religious fanatics (barring Islamists) will only ever argue that any type of sexual activity needs to be banned because it constitutes "abuse." Old concepts of sin or crimes against nature/God have been almost entirely supplanted by the feminist sex "abuse" paradigm. In terms of "abuse" is now the sole means available to conceptualize anything you disapprove of regarding sexuality, so everyone, including devoutly religious people, jumps on the bandwagon and promotes the politically correct abuse industry. Even prostitution is now to be legislated exclusively in terms of sexual exploitation or "trafficking" of (mostly) women -- traditional morality does not enter into it and of course all whores are themselves only innocent victims while the johns are the abusers. Feminists and manginas simply cannot help themselves because they know no other morality after a lifetime of being exposed to feminist propaganda. Feminist theory is so pervasive, any alternative is literally unthinkable for liberals and conservatives alike these days. This is how you get the bizarre charade of putting women on trial for "raping" willing and eager 17-year-old boys. Prosecuting female sex offenders is the most comical and perverse legal charade in history, yet false-flag MRAs support it along with the feminists because they have been that well indoctrinated with feminism. Brainwashing really works. Last night I got a comment from a true believer which well illustrates the profoundly obtuse mindset of a male feminist:
if he says no, it is rape. if he is forced, it is rape. if he is under the legal age, it is rape and child molestation. plain and simple. same laws for all...and if women want to enjoy the privileges of modern society, they must be held accountable under the same laws and to the same degree.
Such blind devotion to feminist sex law is the hallmark of a mangina. They neither comprehend that men and women are different, nor do they see anything wrong with these hateful sex laws when applied to men either. Instead they unflinchingly support equal injustice for all. We real MRAs need to denounce these fools. Don't be led on by these impostors who claim to be on men's side while promoting the very worst aspects of feminism. Rest assured that real MRAs are not like that and we do exist. The real MRM will trudge on despite our depressingly small size at the moment.

152 comments:

Anonymous said...

You seem to be convinced that all men and women think and feel the same. There are huge differences among men, and equally among women.

From a biological point of view, women are worse parkers than men, because they have a lower spatial intelligence. Do you think men should be punished harder, if they smash up a car? Is that justice in your definition of the word?

The same hateful laws should apply to everybody. Because that is what equality is all about. The only way society is going to change for the better, is the day when female sexuality is being demonized as male sexuality is today. Only then will people wake up and see the stupidity behind the sex laws in the first place.

Eivind Berge said...

A man or a woman crashing a car are doing the same thing, with the exact same consequences. And anyway, women ARE punished more for smashing up cars than men -- through higher insurance premiums to account for their higher risk, as they should be, but that is really a different sort of economics than criminal law and not directly relevant here.

A man and a woman having sex, however, are not doing the same thing. The acts of penetrating or being penetrated do not even physically look equal, so it takes a tremendous amount of feminist brainwashing to even entertain the notion that they are perfectly equivalent. You have to suspend all your instincts and common sense to go along with this charade. And even if the courts treat women exactly the same (which they may nearly already do for all I know), I doubt things will change for the better because women are much less interested in illegal sex anyway, being hypergamous rather than attracted to youth, most of the time. So even if women are treated "equally" under sex law, the law will have such a disparate impact on men and women that I doubt women will be discouraged from supporting these laws. How do you expect that to happen when most men don't even wake up and oppose hateful laws against us today?

Eivind Berge said...

Of course, what goes on in the brain is far more important than the physical appearance of the sex act, and the fundamental reason why women cannot be sexual predators is rooted in the difference in sexual mentality, but my point is that the respective sexualities of the sexes do not resemble each other at any level, even the most superficial one. So how feminists managed to convince anybody that they are equal just boggles the mind.

Eivind Berge said...

And no, my argument does not assume that all women (or men) think and feel the same. It is sufficient that there are great differences between the groups on average. When it comes to rape, the differences are so profound that the rare outlier who accuses a woman of rape should not be taken into account for all intents and purposes. I mean, we are talking about an event so rare that it has happened exactly once in all of Norwegian history, for example (in 2004), even though the cops and feminist justice system have been more than willing to accommodate such accusations at least since 2000 and most men will even say they believe women can be rapists due to all the feminist propaganda. But men simply don't feel compelled to accuse women of rape because it isn't a real problem. When just 1 in about 10,000 rape accusers since 2000 is a man accusing a woman, don't you think we can justifiably talk about some profound difference between the sexes here?

Eivind Berge said...

Angry Harry has just published another most excellent article against the abuse industry.

http://angryharry.com/Your-Sexual-Behaviour-And-Your-Genes.htm

Key quote:

"Evolution did not make human beings who are damaged or hurt by sex."

Duh.

Anonymous said...

If there is a female equivalent of forcible rape, it is sex with a child. Dominating a child under her care, overpowering his natural impulse to mate with the young and fertile, violating social structures assuming male support of his mate--it's an altogether vile act. Women's hysteria over males selecting younger partners (even if the woman is in her 20s and showing signs of aging) is partly a projection of this internal taboo. I would argue that "statutory rape" is something only a woman can do, though the feminist hypocrites have shifted the stigmatization almost exclusively on males.

Maybe MRAs talking about women raping men are too mired in the feminist perspective. But, take the example of intoxicated sex. Feminists will claim that the woman was raped, while the man wasn't even if she grabbed his penis and stuck it in. By applying the law equally here, and coming to the conclusion that both parties were raping the other, it's more likely that the law will be revoked rather than sex become illegal. Otherwise women will continue on happily with sex being just illegal for men.

Eivind Berge said...

I disagree that women having sex with young boys is an issue either. So what if the boys prefer young and fertile women? It's not like fucking a few old women is going to prevent getting nubile girls later. On the contrary, it will help them have more success with all women through preselection and the confidence of experience.

If we are looking for a female equivalent to real, forcible rape, two alternatives stand out, to which female sexual coercion (or underage sex) is a grotesque red herring in comparison.

1. Paternity fraud
2. False accusations of rape

Number 1 is the closest match in a reproductive sense (actually worse), commandeering the man's reproductive resources to her own selfish ends. In the mating game, a man's provider resources are the equivalent to women's bodies. And false accusations of rape can easily produce traumatization equal to or exceeding rape, so I guess #2 will come closest to being perceived similarly.

Perhaps equal application of rape law can serve to derail some rape cases where the parties are both held to have "raped each other" since both were drunk, but wouldn't it be better to define rape sensibly in the first place, so that drunken regretted sex is never prosecuted as "rape" in any event? Why advocate some retarded stopgap measure when the entire issue can be solved by attacking feminist rape reform altogether?

Anonymous said...

Women pay lower insurance premiums than men.

Eivind Berge said...

I thought women paid less for car insurance than men until they are 25 or so, at which point men become safer drivers because they lose some risky habits. Men are better drivers at all ages, but young men are so bold and reckless that they cause more accidents than young women, hence women start out paying less. Still, women pay more in total if you count their entire lives.

But it may have changed since last I checked (forced "equality"?) or I may be wrong. Anyway, it doesn't change my arguments concerning the abuse industry.

Eivind Berge said...

Ok, it looks like I was right about the risks but wrong about the premiums. Seems older women also end up paying less:

http://www.aswd.com/why-women-pay-less-for-car-insurance.php

Eivind Berge said...

And here comes the forced gender-equal premiums in the EU:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/oct/05/car-insurance-women-rise-premiums-eu-ruling

More feminist stupidity which means that although women will now have to pay as much as men for car insurance, men are screwed on pensions, which makes a much bigger difference.

Eric said...

Anon929:
"The same hateful laws should apply to everybody. Because that is what equality is all about."

NO. That is what TYRANNY is all about.

"The only way society is going to change is when female sexuality is demonised as male sexuality is today."

It will change alright---for the worst.

Too many MRAs cannot grasp this simple concept, although feminist leaders fully understand it: gender equality and gender polarity are NOT the same things. Even Andrea Dworkin admitted that feminism could never succeed in a society where 'equality' alone prevailed; but gender polarity has to be destroyed first---and that is EXACTLY what demonizing sexuality accomplishes.

"Only then will people wake up and see the stupidity behind the sex laws in first place."

Again, false. The AOC laws punish both parties and all that has accomplished among the populace are paedohysterical witch-hunts and the establishment of organized crime syndicates like Child Protective Services.

Eric said...

Eivind:
Just as a side note, this AVfM mangina considers anyone who doesn't believe Landrith's story 'an asshole'.

http://www.deanesmay.com/2013/01/30/raped-on-active-duty-why-he-didnt-report/

"...having to explain to people what I'm talking about is just exhausting. Yes, women do rape men. With their vaginas. And its more common than you think."

Dean Esmay, you are disgusting maggot and blood-brother to David Fraudtrelle.

Male sexuality is only going to become more deeply repressed by victimizing it, as Angry Harry, a REAL MRA has pointed out.

Anonymous said...

I tend to believe that James Landrith is, if not lying about what happened at a basic level, has indeed added some details to make his story more compelling.
Date rape drugs (as several studies show) are rare. Yet now he claims to have been drugged, not merely intoxicated. Seems like the story has "expanded" over time. And even if I agree he was a victim of sexual coercion, I don't think that excuses his later behavior like he seems to think it should.

That being said, I don't understand how you could think most guys would consider him lucky. Pregnant women turn off quite a few men all by themselves, and while it wasn't Roseanne on top of him that night, the woman involved wasn't a raving beauty.


And as far as it goes, Elvind, you'd make a good feminist. Quite a few of them apply double standards to male and female (group average) sexuality all the time, and will never be found taking a woman to task for anything. At least you make exceptions for false rape claims and paternity fraud, but if I was a 9 year old boy who was repeatedly "gifted" with my 40 year old aunts decaying body on the threat of beatings, I wouldn't find you a single bit different. You'd be quite useless to me.


Clarence

Eivind Berge said...

How did the woman guess that Landrith was such a total dunce that she needed to drug him in order to have sex? Have you ever seen a woman in a bar thinking she needs to resort to drink-spiking in order to get laid, pregnant or not?

And then it takes him 20 years to "remember" that he hadn't really been drinking much anyway, and must have been drugged. Yeah, right.

As to your aunt scenario, no sympathy there, unless you were also genuinely abused as by beatings and such. Of course women can abuse boys in various ways, but by sex per se is not one of them. Making the problem out to be about "sexual abuse" only arouses envy rather than sympathy. 40 isn't even old anyway and even less so to a young boy, who tends to be so horny the age of the woman scarcely makes a difference.

I certainly do take women to task for the real, blameworthy crimes they commit. There is no double standard or pedestalizing, just simple recognition of what is harmful and what is not and what is even extremely desirable yet perversely defined as criminal by feminist sex law. Men should be a lot more concerned with the real damage women can do to them than the red herring of female sex offenders. How is it possible to pretend female rapists is a huge problem while ignoring that paternity fraud isn't even recognized as a crime and false rape accusations are rarely prosecuted? And how can a man advocate a legal concept of rape that is 10000 times more likely to be used against him than to be useful for him? It makes no sense, and calls into question either the intelligence or motives of those who claim that type of activism is good for men.

Emma said...

Let me try a slightly different perspective, Clarence.

Unlike Eivind, I don't think a boy will necessarily be happy if a woman forced him into sex or simply seduced him. I think the fact that he sees ALL such boys as lucky or happy blurs the real issue.

The real issue is separating sexual violation from abuse in general. Threatening a kid with beatings to make him do anything can be seen as abuse. Spanking might be one thing, but you are not supposed to beat your kid, or threaten with that. If you take sex out of it, it's possible to fuck up your kid with shitty parenting alone. I remember Richard Dawkins, who said that teaching kids about hell might be seen as child abuse, because it can cause anxiety and nightmares, for example.

Quite a lot of men wouldn't react the same way a woman would, if they woke up and found a member of the opposite sex on top of them, having sex with them. It just seems like for a lot of men, this type of thing could produce indifference, a degree of happiness, irritation, confusion, and in worst case anger about the woman being insolent (I'm basing that on what these guys have said). But it still isn't the same reaction that a woman has. The latter might require therapy, the former not so much.

But of course, some men do react the same way as women. And I don't know what the percentages are, but Eivind thinks it's not usual for a man to feel sexually violated by a woman.

What Eivind is insisting upon, is that persecution for rape and sexual abuse should only take place when there has been a sexual violation, but not when it comes to other types of abuse. Other types of abuse and torture should be taken care of by laws against abuse and torture. For example, women sticking a stick up a man's butt to torture him is torture and physical abuse, but not rape. A woman threatening a boy with beatings to get sex from him is abusive, but not a rapist.

And these are Eivind's thoughts. Whether you agree with him or not on whether women can sexually violate men, you can't say he's pedestalizing women. It simply isn't true.

Emma said...

One more note. Eivind bases his views on science. Biology. Yes, the road from facts about life towards how it should be organized, is still individual and subjective, but his isn't based on letting women off the hook and giving them a pussy pass as much as possible. That I know.

alanvaughn said...

@Clarence
You said among other things:
"That being said, I don't understand how you could think most guys would consider him lucky. Pregnant women turn off quite a few men all by themselves, and while it wasn't Roseanne on top of him that night, the woman involved wasn't a raving beauty."

I've had WORSE than 'Rosanne' on top of me and you're right: I didn't consider myself 'lucky' at all...
However by the same token, it doesn't mean I want to subscribe to that misandrist, FEMINIST abuse-industry victim-hood status and spend the rest of my life wallowing in self pity either.

I am a man, not a mangina, I move on. I get over the unpleasant things that I and EVERYONE else experiences from time to time, throughout their lives. That's what being an adult and being a man is all about.
'Equal Injustice for ALL' will achieve NOTHING for either men or women. All it will do is validate their Draconian male sexuality laws, via validation of their abuse industry fairy-tales, such as: repressed memory recovery of things like 'Satanic Ritual Abuse'.

It is THAT kind of feminist bullshit WE as MRAs are opposed to and trying (without YOUR help) to eliminate.

Go back to mangina Elam and his blog 'A Voice for manginas', where you belong.

fschmidt said...

Eivind, you take our insane world so seriously. Read "Alice in Wonderland" to put it in perspective. Modern culture is insane. There is no point to arguing with lunatics.

Eric said...

Eivind & Emma:
Part of demonizing sexuality has had this component of making 'sex crimes' into a completely seperate category of criminality. IOW, by taking what is already criminal behavior and adding a sexual element to it to make it worse.

Take rape or what is known here as 'sexual assault' for example. Both crimes could be prosecuted just as easily under extant laws governing assault and battery. There's no need to add a sexual aspect to it unless the purpose is to stereotype sex as an 'aggravating factor' (as the lawyers say) which makes any event involving sex seem worse because of the presence of a sexual motive.

alanvaughn said...

@Eric,
You know it just dawned on me what makes this whole female sexual assault or rape (call it whatever you like) on men and boys so patently ridiculous...

Let's just say (pretend) that 1000 GENUINE sexual assaults are reported to the police in one jurisdiction over say 1 year.
Lets ALSO assume that Paul Elam and his indoctrinated mangina sheep get their way and "EQUAL INjustice for ALL" laws are passed and are therefore taken seriously by the judiciary.
I.e. they will come down equally as severely and unforgivably on women found guilty of sexually assaulting (or 'raping') men as they currently do on MEN perpetrators, who rape women / girls...

Out of the 1000 reported cases (remember all 1000 are REAL cases not false rape), how many do you think would be reported by MALE VICTIMS?

At a conservative guess I would say probably about 10...

The point they have missed or maybe they just don't care (because their femihag slave-masters are happy), because as Eivind keeps saying: WOMEN can get sex! Generally speaking: they don't have to rape or 'force themselves onto' men or boys to get sex! They are the ones who grant US (MEN), their permission, (Yes or No) as to whether or not WE get to have sex with THEM.

That is the essential difference between men and woman when it comes to sex:
Even ugly FAT old bags can usually find some man (young or old, but more than likely YOUNG), who will find them attractive enough to desire them sexually.

Especially young (and horny) men.
Just look to the 'Cougar' phenomenon...
This basic fact of life totally invalidates their whole ridiculous 'men can be victims of female rapists' argument.
Maybe they can be, but I'm sure they would find that in the real world, such victims would be VERY rare: insignificantly rare.

So if this stupid law of equal injustice for both men and women is passed it will make NO DIFFERENCE, OTHER than totally validate, beyond redemption the current Draconian feminist hate inspired: normal male sexuality laws and even further boost the already ridiculous levels of paedohysteria.

In the end, our society will be such a hostile environment for men, that gendercide might start looking like an attractive option or destiny.

These dumbed-down, brainwashed manginas MUST be stopped before its too late.

evilwhitemalempire said...

the whole point behind the 'man as sex victim' narrative is this:

when the woman is the victim, it is to keep the man from getting sex

but when the man is the victim, it is to keep.... the MAN from getting sex

questioning why women who have sex with teens are punished less severely than men who do the same is about as brave as stomping on bunny rabbits

but questioning why men are even punished for it in the first place takes balls of solid titanium

that is why avfm does the former

while sites like this do the latter

alanvaughn said...


"questioning why women who have sex with teens are punished less severely than men who do the same is about as brave as stomping on bunny rabbits"

and about as dumb as questioning why some humans are born with dark skin while others are born white

that is why avfm is a pro-feminist site, but thinks it's an anti-feminist MRA blog

while sites like this are anti-feminist MRA blogs

Anonymous said...

This is what it is all about. And as an "true mra" you support it. I can never be part of that thinking!

http://www.aftenposten.no/amagasinet/Hvorfor-behandles-kvinner-mildere-7107802.html

Eivind Berge said...

That article describes how women are punished less severely for all crimes, and for the most part, that is not fair. I am all for women being sentenced to just as much time for murder and other violence, for example. But it makes the mistake of equating male and female sexual acts. Again, a man and a woman having sex are not doing the same thing! It is absurd to pretend a woman's sexual act is morally equal to that of a man, because female sexuality is perceived and valued in a profoundly different way, and therefore it is entirely fair to never punish women for sex crimes.

Eivind Berge said...

I am curious as to why you would even think women should be treated equally when it comes to sexual offenses. Just blind faith in the feminist tenet that the sexes are equal?

Well, male and female sexuality clearly aren't valued equally normally, so why should they be when it comes to sexual offenses? There was recently a virginity auction which allows us to crudely quantify the difference.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/whats-the-price-of-virginity-213769.html

Female virginity: $780,000
Male virginity: $2,600

That's valuing female sexuality over male sexuality by a factor of 300. If female sexuality is worth 300 times more, must we not conclude that female sexual "abuse" is probably similarly less damaging also? Thus, if women get something like 1/300 or 0.33% as much punishment as men do for sexual offenses, that would seem fair. Currently women get way more than that, so the injustice is actually in the opposite direction, as I have argued: The female sex-offender charade punishes women unfairly for sex crimes they are not truly culpable for. And many of these crimes are not even real crimes when men commit them! I can't think of a worse way to deal with this situation than pushing for more severe punishments for women. It is insane.

If you have a problem with male sexuality being so worthless compared to female sexuality, then your beef is with evolution, not the justice system. Sex being a female resource is just the way it is, and it's futile to be mad about it and unfair to punish women for bogus sex crimes just to enforce a pretense of equality.

Anonymous said...

Value is not what justice is about. If you think that, you might as well punish a jew or a black harder than a white, or whatever. Everybody should in principle be punished equally for the same crime in the same country, if we set apart obvious grounds like age and so on.

Only when the stupidious laws are inflicted on both sexes, will people wake up and challenge the justice system of today. For people have more empathy with women. It is much harder to punish a single mother with rabbit eyes, than a man. It is exactly like in protection of animal rights. People go bananas when they see a cute rabbit being slaughtered, but care less of the viper facing the same destiny.

Evolution is not extenuating circumstances

Eivind Berge said...

Justice should be about value. The punishment should fit the crime. Your racial analogy does not make sense. The damage isn't greater if a black man robs you, so race is irrelevant here. But most men are far less traumatized by female sexual coercion than the reverse, so the sex of the offender is highly relevant to sex crimes.

The typical victim of a female sex crime feels lucky, or at worst slightly inconvenienced, and it would be egregiously unjust for the law not to take this into account.

Anonymous said...

The notion about women being traumatized is a construction. Granted there are genuine sex-crimes, and in that respect one has every right to feel traumatized. But a lot of it is pure bullshit. I feel no empathy with a woman claiming to be traumatized because a man touched her or looked at her intensely. In that regard, a woman should be punished just as hard for doing the same thing against a man. Or the laws themselves should be revoked. The latter seems rather unlikely as long as only men are being pressed charges at.

When it comes to real rape, unwanted penetration of the female genitals, there are gender differences. But I can never accept that a young vulnerable boy can be equally traumatized by and old hags penetration of his arse, as that of the raped woman.

All human beings have the same value. Despite the fact that women or some men might be more popular among the other sex, or whatever. Despite the fact that some are drug addicts or some have mental issues. Justice should not be about value, but about rational facts.

My racial analogy makes sense, because the notion about female traumatization is merely a feminist construction. You seem brainwashed by the feminists yourself, using rethoric like this. The so called sexual female "victims" will for the most part get no empathy from me. It's just a way of gaining power and positions in society. It is all a charade.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, much of what feminists call "abuse" is a construction. Age of consent, for instance, is a legal fiction, and of course evolution did not make females either who are traumatized by sex up to some arbitrary age. Only a gullible fool can buy into such nonsense.

But it is still not right to ask for more of the same injustice. Two wrongs do not make a right. Supporting the female sex-offender charade is wrong on so many levels. It is dishonest, misguided, and evil not to call bullshit on female sex offenders. It is dishonest because we know the boys are lucky rather than victims. It is misguided because it won't prevent these hateful laws from being enforced; instead it will perpetuate them. And it is evil because it means sending innocent, nice women to prison as phony sex offenders.

Emma said...

"The notion about women being traumatized is a construction. Granted there are genuine sex-crimes, and in that respect one has every right to feel traumatized. But a lot of it is pure bullshit. I feel no empathy with a woman claiming to be traumatized because a man touched her or looked at her intensely. In that regard, a woman should be punished just as hard for doing the same thing against a man. Or the laws themselves should be revoked. "

Actually, if you look closely, Eivind doesn't take all that stuff seriously either (intense staring, touching). He's not saying a man who is touching or staring should be punished harder.

You and him are talking about one thing only - how to punish it when a person forces another person to have sex with them.

"When it comes to real rape, unwanted penetration of the female genitals, there are gender differences."

Glad you also see this. Forget all that other stuff (touching/staring), it's not relevant here.

" But I can never accept that a young vulnerable boy can be equally traumatized by and old hags penetration of his arse, as that of the raped woman. "

Here's the thing.. It's annoying when someone comes on this site, hears Eivind say "women can't rape men" and assumes Eivind thinks sticking a cactus up a man's butt should be legal. He is only talking about this scenario: woman forces a man into sex and fucks his penis with her vagina.

A woman penetrating a man with something is torturing him, not raping him. Which might actually be a worse crime, requiring more jail time.

I remember it was in the news, some kids were poking an unconscious girl in the vagina with a shark spick and hurt her. I think it was used by feminists to deduce that rape must be about power. Except what these kids were doing was the equivalent of poking a stranded jellyfish, or, treating a human being as nothing but a jellyfish. It's not a goddammn rape. But it's a bad crime.

Human-Stupidity.com said...

Hi Eivind

great you are actively writing again.

Did AVM really disown Angry Harry? Please quote a link where this happened.

But I note that Angry Harry is not on their banner any more

I hope I did not provoke this. I wrote some provocative articles


Balkanized Men’s Rights Movement vehemently supports feminist sex hysteria. MRA easily defeated by feminist unity (#5)    MRA against men! Most MRA (men’s rights activist) actively support draconian prison sentences for men #4    Tea Abuse: How a traumatic event impacts children depends on how the adults cope with it. (MRA Angry Harry)

Human-Stupidity.com said...


How is it possible to pretend female rapists is a huge problem while ignoring that paternity fraud isn't even recognized as a crime and false rape accusations are rarely prosecuted? And how can a man advocate a legal concept of rape that is 10000 times more likely to be used against him than to be useful for him? It makes no sense, and calls into question either the intelligence or motives of those who claim that type of activism is good for men.


Amen. Great how you summarize such things so clearly and easily.

By the way, I was booted out of AVM too.

I actually think AVM is doing some great work regarding men's rights EXCEPT that they actively support imprisonment of men for all kinds of so called sex crimes, like possession of photos of 17 year olds.

Eivind Berge said...

Not sure if they explicitly disowned him, but he sure doesn't fit in there anymore judging from this thread:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/the-rape-victims-they-refuse-to-see/

It was bound to happen, not your fault. The worship of the abuse industry going on at AVfM is really irreconcilably different from any true MRA.

Cicero said...

What do we think about this stuff? Ho many among us would never be able to check off on at least two or three of these points.. ? (Given the right circumstances, for instance being trapped in a situation, like a school or a small town, having little money - could be because some gold digger took most of it, or divorce, or any other reason.)

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/profile.html

I'll agree there are types who one might definitely check off most of the point on, but those types are not in circulation freely for very long - they are patently anti-social and tend to get locked up for long stretches of time...

So, what is the relevance of this point-by-point list? Does it have any merit, or will it nurture more positive than negative outcomes (for instance fostering a climate of fear, or adding to the one fostered by US feminists and US tv-series sentiments a lot already).. ?

Anonymous said...

I'm going to be ignoring AlanVaughn as he thinks he can tell other men what their sexuality should be like, and is a pretty obnoxious person on top of that.

First, Elvind:
I'm going to agree with you that sex, BY ITSELF (assuming the sex is safe and disease free) cannot hurt anyone. We agree on that.

I will even agree with you that many "sex crimes" should only be prosecuted for violence, coercion, and other things that have nothing to do with the sex, per-se.

And guess what? We even agree the abuse industry is out of control and has absolutely no sense of proportion.

So why are we arguing? Because male "NO's" need to be respected in the same way that female NO's are, and not every male has sex on the brain all the time. I suppose we also disagree with what places like A Voice for Men can realistically do in the current political climate, esp. when male abuse survivors (both sexual, meaning forced or unconscious sex and physical meaning just straight up physical abuse) can't get any help from organizations at all. Clearly there is an "abuse against men" problem that needs to be solved, the problem is that the current solutions often - heck, MOSTLY do more harm than good as they usually involve criminalizing sex more and more.

It would be interesting to see your ideas for solutions. Pretending men never get abused isn't an answer, but neither is continually expanding mostly feminist/puritanist inspired sex laws.

Clarence

Anonymous said...

Emma:

"A woman threatening a boy with beatings to get sex from him is abusive, but not a rapist."

With the sole exception of that paragraph, I am in agreement with everything you said. And I suspect that is you , paraphrasing Elvind.

However, physically coerced sex is coerced sex and physically coerced sex is rape.

As for where Elvind gets his ideas , I've been reading his blog for several years now. I'm well aware he bases his view of the relative values of male and female sexuality on evolutionary psychology; however I feel he gives that science just a bit too much credit, as there is a lot we don't know and have to guess at.

Thank you and Elvind for your repectful, rational responses.

As for A Voice for Men and all this stuff, I feel that eventually they WILL have to deal with it, but ironically, right now, they can't. Working on an equal rights amendment and working to reform family court laws and procedures are big enough things to try and handle what with all the entrenched political and social interests attached to those things. At worst, I think AVFM might inadvertently push the sexual laws along a bit farther in the draconian direction they are heading anyway, I don't see AVFM or groups affiliated with them having the power to directly oppose it anytime soon. So I'm going to back them in their activism (except for certain things involving sex) and back any actions men affiliated with you or Angry Harry may take as well, even though right now I don't think there's a chance in hell of getting more sane laws involving sexuality, at least until the MRM has more institutional power.

I hope no one will hate me for supporting AVFM in some types of activism (and not in others), but it doesn't really matter to me. I see they have their use.

Clarence

Eivind Berge said...

You still insist you need the police state to help enforce a man's "no" to a woman, and that is a fundamental disagreement. You know what men used to rely on for that? Physical strength, and if that's not sufficient, then the woman will have committed some other form of violence which could be prosecuted nonsexually. Except if the man is unconscious and intoxicated, but then I suggest not getting drunk and getting into bed with women like James Landrith did, if you are so scared of sex. Not under any circumstances do we need to pretend women can rape men, because that will only feed the monstrous abuse industry we have now. You sound just like a feminist wanting to be reckless and safe at the same time -- basically having a policeman in every bedroom to make sure there is absolutely no moment without enthusiastic consent and full alertness -- but it's just not possible to have it both ways, because any time you start policing people's intimate relations in such excruciating detail, you hand over power to an abuse industry that quickly gets out of control.

Rape isn't just lack of consent or mild sexual coercion or exploiting unconsciousness. Rape is sex obtained by serious violence, and we need to turn back the legal definition to match that. I don't know the solution to everything, but turning back feminist rape law reform would be a good start and should be the number one priority for men, in my view.

Besides, we already have an abuse industry eager to accommodate male victims. Nothing is more politically correct than accusing a woman of rape. But so far less than one man comes forward to accuse a woman of rape per decade in Norway, despite all the massive propaganda about rape being everywhere and gender-neutral. And now your poster boy James Landrith is exposed as a liar. So maybe men don't need your stupid rape law? Or maybe you want to force them somehow to accuse more women?

Or maybe reasonable men don't want to wallow in "rape" or "abuse" by women. And it sure doesn't seem like a worthy goal to aspire to.

Eivind Berge said...

And the one and only accused female-on-male "rape" in Norwegian history is this one, btw, which wasn't even sex, just fellatio. The courts proved their feminist mettle by taking it every bit as seriously as a female accuser, if not more so. Conviction rate when a man accuses a woman: 100%.

http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/woman-convicted-of-rape/

"BERGEN - A 23-year-old woman has been sentenced to nine months in a Norwegian prison for the rape of a 31-year-old man upon whom she had performed fellatio. The man, who was asleep on a friend's couch reportedly woke to find the woman having oral sex with him."

That was back in 2004. What are all the other male "victims" of female "rape" waiting for, if this is indeed a problem? Do we need to pour millions more into feminist propaganda to make them come forward, or what, Clarence?

Human-Stupidity.com said...

Eivind, I think we pretty much agree that a man who is totally intoxicated and passed ought to have a reasonable expectation not to get fucked by a girl he had no prior relationship with.

The idea of getting a kid with her genes, having to deal with her as the mother and having to pay her is pretty traumatic, but due to man-made laws.

Or the idea of getting a disease from a repugnant woman (bad enough to get a disease from a hot chick)


But yes, the sex act itself might be unpleasant but not worse then being dunked into a toilet, or much better then getting a serious beating.

A friend of mine from the Philippines told me that some gender mixed fraternities/sororities have hazing rituals that involve serious spankings. Girls can opt to engage in sex instead of getting floggings and regularly do so even if they are virgins.

I wrote a irreverant article What's so terrible about rape? Rape is not as bad as it used to be!

Rape has no serious consequences for Western women.

For medieval women, without birth control, abortion, DNA testing etc things were different So they are for Muslim women

Human-Stupidity.com said...

Have you noticed this guy at avm? ttp://www.avoiceformen.com/author/vilo13/

I am surprised he is being tolerated there, his views are more sex positive then the normal AVM line.

Human-Stupidity.com said...

sorry


http://www.avoiceformen.com/author/vilo13/


Lucian Vâlsan

alanvaughn said...

"I'm going to be ignoring AlanVaughn as he thinks he can tell other men what their sexuality should be like, and is a pretty obnoxious person on top of that."

Is that a promise? I hope so.

You are a treacherous little mangina along with all your feminist, brainwashed friends over at a A Voice for manginas.
If you want to live your life as a sappy, feminist abuse-industry victim, while supporting their Draconian laws that demonize and criminalize millions of men for the heinous crime of being sexually NORMAL; be their guest.

If you're so concerned about men being 'raped', why aren't you and your cronies concerned about the REAL, ANAL rape that men who are wrongfully imprisoned (under FEMINIST man-hate laws, for being sexually normal - i.e. possessing "child-porn"), have to suffer, often on a daily basis from self-righteous thugs such as 'granny murderers' in prisons?
They are also violently assaulted, sometimes fatally. Why aren't you concerned about those TRUE male rape victims?

When you, Paul Elam and the rest of your mangina colleagues change your tune and recognize that they are the REAL male rape victims (disregarding their WRONGFUL imprisonment in the first place - which is another issue that needs to be addressed), and that feminist male sexuality laws are the number 1 men's rights issue: then I might listen to you!

Supporting feminist abuse-industry's victimhood nonsense for men or women is only validating their hateful laws and will only make it much easier for them to introduce even more Draconian and more oppressive laws.

Eric said...

Clarence:
"I'm going to be ignoring Alan Vaughn &c."

Then why not just ignore him and keep quiet about it?

I see this tactic used by feminist trolls on US blogs all the time. Rob Fedders, a Canadian MRA, exposed the technique and illustrated how it's done: single out one commenter as a scapegoat and try to steer a group that way. Just do a Google search for 'Delphi Technique' and 'Diamond Technique' and you'll see exactly what Rob was describing.

Eric said...

Alan:
'Women can get sex. Generally speaking, they don't have to rape or force themselves on men.'

True---but you would be surprised at how many mRAs, and especially the 'femRAs', will deny this obvious fact. Almost every 'pro-MRA' female I've ever encountered will swear thouroughly that getting sex is just as difficult for women. That's patently untrue, just like when they say that women chase thugs because 'they are invisible to good men.'

And white knights will fall for both untruths. But point this out to them, and you feel lucky not to have been burned at the stake afterwards, which they'd likely do if they could!

alanvaughn said...

@Eric
"I see this tactic used by feminist trolls on US blogs all the time. Rob Fedders, a Canadian MRA, exposed the technique and illustrated how it's done: single out one commenter as a scapegoat and try to steer a group that way."

LOL...
Well he'd be wasting his time here! I already told him (using many words, except the word 'troll' itself), how I think he's a feminist troll, but you said it anyway.

I don't even know for sure that Clarence is a man. For all I know, he could well be typhonblue, using another alias. When reading his ridiculous, feminist inspired 'male rape victim' arguments, one could certainly be forgiven for thinking he could in fact be 'she' - a feminist troll..

alanvaughn said...

@Eric,
Just out of curiosity I googled 'Delphi Technique' and opened one of the millions of links that were returned...
Yes I see your point, very clearly. [LOL]...
Here's just one paragraph from quite a large essay on the technique, that was under the only link I randomly clicked, from the google search results:

"This technique is a very unethical method of achieving consensus on a controversial topic in group settings. It requires well-trained professionals who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against the other, so as to make one viewpoint appear ridiculous so the other becomes "sensible" whether such is warranted or not"...

Say no more...

alanvaughn said...

Eivind,
You asked your friendly feminist troll:

"That was back in 2004. What are all the other male "victims" of female "rape" waiting for, if this is indeed a problem? Do we need to pour millions more into feminist propaganda to make them come forward, or what, Clarence?"

Maybe yes. It certainly proved successful when the paedohysterical British public decided to persecute a DECEASED ex-BBC personality:
The lure of 'victims compensation' (funded by the total wealth of his deceased estate and no doubt by taxes, at least in part), certainly brought the late Sir Jimmy Savile's 'abuse victim' accusers out of the woodwork, many DECADES after the 'sexual abuses' allegedly occurred.

The EU witch-hunt of sexual abusers is now so hysterical, 'bat-shit crazy' and illogical, that they are no longer satisfied with persecuting and scapegoating living 'perverts', they now have to add DEAD 'paedos' to their growing list of scapegoats.

The paedohysterical western society is more ignorant and superstitious in 2012/13, than were our pitch-fork wielding, inbred, medieval inquisitorial ancestors, hunting witches and heretics to be burned at the stake during the 15th / 16th centuries.
Read here:
http://theantifeminist.com/steve-moxon-jimmy-savile-report/

John Tyson said...

I've left some comments years ago, before your trial, and I just caught up to those events.

I admit I thought you were overdoing it, but now I think I was wrong. You were just courageous.

As to the content of this post, I agree. In fact at the heart of feminism is "victim-worship", which comes from the female "nurturing values" becoming the dominant and only values of society. Every masculine values such as assertiveness are then demonized, even in cases where it is a woman that displays them.

Those who like this fundamental tenet of feminism might want to see women (especially attractive women) to fall prey to feminist laws themselves. Those are still feminists.

Thank you for raising your (now) rather prominent voice against this crap.

Cicero said...

Ingen kommenterte rape prevention-linken min over.. Synes man at den listen over karakteristikker er grei? Jeg synes slikt er skummelt.

Uansett, sjekk denne artikkelen her, inkludert kommentarfeltet, og bli kvalm: http://universitas.no/nyhet/57917/jenteinvasjon-moter-mottiltak#kommentarar

Anonymous said...

Eric:
Alan Vaughn has nothing but insult and dares to tell me how I should think and how I should act.
He can go fuck himself, and you can go fuck yourself too, if you think it is ok to treat mild disagreement with such stupidity, condescension, and vitrol.

By the way, I post on Emma's blog, but I can't use the same plugin here. I've been all over the manosphere, and been involved with MRA BEFORE there was a "manosphere" maybe if you weren't a feminist pretender (see , I can be stupid and insulting t0o) you'd know who I am.

Anyway, that's enough time wasted on this sideshow. Back to Elvind and, you know, actual substantive arguments.

Clarence

Anonymous said...

"You still insist you need the police state to help enforce a man's "no" to a woman, and that is a fundamental disagreement. You know what men used to rely on for that? Physical strength, and if that's not sufficient, then the woman will have committed some other form of violence which could be prosecuted nonsexually. Except if the man is unconscious and intoxicated, but then I suggest not getting drunk and getting into bed with women like James Landrith did, if you are so scared of sex..."

I think Human Stupidity gave you my answer concerning men being taken advantage of while they are unconscious, so I'll refer you to his post concerning that.

"You sound just like a feminist wanting to be reckless and safe at the same time -- basically having a policeman in every bedroom to make sure there is absolutely no moment without enthusiastic consent and full alertness -- but it's just not possible to have it both ways, because any time you start policing people's intimate relations in such excruciating detail, you hand over power to an abuse industry that quickly gets out of control..."

Elvind, since the PTB have made your life hell for the past year or so, I will forgive you for not knowing that I have repeatedly expressed my fear and disagreement with putting "enthusiastic consent" into law at the following places:
The Spearhead
Clarisse Thornes blog (Except for the "Yes Means Yes" blog where it originated almost "Ground Zero" for enthusiastic consent)
Feminist Critics
Community of the Wrongly Accused

...and probably a few other places I don't remember. Maybe Dalrocks marriage blog which often discusses feminism and sex laws and such things.

I have also argued with Typhonblue about the incidence of female/male rape (I don't believe it's anywhere near the same in prevalence if we are talking force), female on male domestic violence, evolutionary psychology and whether men are more monogamous then women(she believes the differences between the sexes are far less than I do), and at least a few other things. These fights can be found on the Feminist Critics and Genderratic blogs. I do not hold most of the opinions you assume I have.

"
Besides, we already have an abuse industry eager to accommodate male victims. Nothing is more politically correct than accusing a woman of rape. But so far less than one man comes forward to accuse a woman of rape per decade in Norway, despite all the massive propaganda about rape being everywhere and gender-neutral. And now your poster boy James Landrith is exposed as a liar. So maybe men don't need your stupid rape law? Or maybe you want to force them somehow to accuse more women?"

This has nothing to do with anything I've ever said, though I do think surveys which actually took male victims into account would find more male victims. Quite a few surveys, at least in the US deliberately ignore men. The goal is to demonize MALE SEXUALITY by pretending women can't do horrid things with theirs.
It's been pretty damn successful.


"Or maybe reasonable men don't want to wallow in "rape" or "abuse" by women. And it sure doesn't seem like a worthy goal to aspire to."

Who wants to wallow in anything? I simply don't want to ignore legitimate male victims of forced or unconscious sex. It's Typhonblue and a few others that seem prepared to push it further than that.

By the way, something you should know about Typhonblue: She was repeatedly forcibly raped as a child by a female relative. The feminist movement did NOT help her. And I think that's why she sometimes is harder on women (she seems to consider females the less "moral" sex (more inclined to cheat, flighty, etc, as if sexes had morality )than on men.

Clarence

alanvaughn said...

"Eric:
Alan Vaughn has nothing but insult and dares to tell me how I should think and how I should act..."


It's you and your feminist bullshit that you're trying to plug and use to tell the entire human race how to "think and act" actually, you pathetic little feminist crawling DRIP!

You don't even qualify as a mangina: trying to promote their abuse industry and force men to be PATHETIC little girly victims (so your loony feminist 'therapists' can force them to accept they are "victims" of WOMEN and little girls, makes you more like a feminist TROLL, such as your mentors - typhonblue, or even better - Dean Excrement Esmay...

I had to laugh when you thanked Eivind for his "repectful, rational responses", yet on another antifeminist blog, only a few hours earlier, you demonstrated a totally different opinion or perception of Eivind...

You are a typical feminist, a two faced RAT and a slippery one at that.
I can't understand why Eivind even lets you leave comments here.
You and all your femRAs and mRAs plugging this FEMINIST 'men-CAN-be-RAPE-victims-to-WOMEN' mantra ARE NOT MRAs, you're ALL a pack of feminist SCUM.

And if you think I'm 'obnoxious', I'm not even angry yet..

Besides, didn't you say this?

"I'm going to be ignoring AlanVaughn as he thinks he can tell other men what their sexuality should be like, and is a pretty obnoxious person on top of that."

Well what you just said to Eric isn't IGNORING me... LOL!

Watch out some HOT 38 year old 'Cougar' doesn't "RAPE" you, you poor pathetic little troll.

Anonymous said...

Justisministeren på banen med uttalelser om lovendringer som er spesialdesignet for å ta rotta på alle norske menn:
http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10119731

Street Life said...

Where else than from intensely feministically brain-washed Bergen, Norway, could a band consisting of males, but with a very effeminate singer (male voice), come up with the brooding, self-examining and consciousness driven lyrics line:

"Is she old enough for me?"

http://youtu.be/7z3oKSiMKKU

Anonymous said...

Mann blir idømt erstatning for et "overgrep" han er frifunnet for... i samme dom. Høyesterett(ankeutvalget) behandler anken vedrørende erstatningen og konstaterer at uskyldspresumsjonen er brutt av lagmannsretten da de i premissene likevel utrykker seg som om vedkommende er skyldig, til tross for frifinnelsen. Imidlertid finner høyesterett på at det er tilstrekkelig at HR konstaterer brudd på uskyldspresumsjonen, slik at vedkommende anke over erstatningsspørsmålet likevel ikke blir tatt til følge(anken tillates ikke fremmet).
Bare i en feministisk rettsvesen, styrt av direkte mannshat kan dette være mulig.

http://lovdata.no/hr/hr-2013-00083-u.html

jack said...

- "Women can get sex. Generally speaking, they don't have to rape or force themselves on men."

- True---but you would be surprised at how many mRAs, and especially the 'femRAs', will deny this obvious fact.


Could it be that those male rapees want to delude themselves and their public that they're sooo attractive women can't resist forcing themselves upon them? Looks is a raw nerve with some men. So it is that many a smart-ass will deny ever patronizing prostitutes in order to generate the impression - one easily dispelled by a cursory look at his physique - that he is well able to attract girls without bribing them.

Anonymous said...

Hey, Elvind, thanks to Emma I now understand your position on rape has been cleared up, and I now consider you a real MRA.

I just wanted to state that here, for the record and to you in person.

Anonymous said...

That previous comment was left by me, Clarence.
Forgot to sign.

Anonymous said...

Woman can not sexually abuse boys - generally agreed, with the following exceptions:

1. The boy is homosexual - then it would be traumatic

2. The boy is prepubescent and grossed-out by a smelly, hairy woman

As for a normal 13-year old boy having sex with an adult woman: Good for him!

Eivind Berge said...

@ Clarence and Human Stupidity

"Eivind, I think we pretty much agree that a man who is totally intoxicated and passed ought to have a reasonable expectation not to get fucked by a girl he had no prior relationship with."

Yes, I agree men ought to be able to have that expectation, but I still don't agree that it should be ever be recognized as rape or sexual assault, because female sexuality does not have the power to be an aggravating factor just because there is something sexual going on. The sexual aspect should be considered irrelevant for all legal purposes, in my opinion. Indeed, most men would consider it mitigating if the woman has a sexual motive, so why should we pretend it necessarily makes it worse? If a man insists on pressing charges against a woman for sex while he was unconscious and had a reasonable expectation to be left alone, then the appropriate law to use is the one covering simple assault. In Norway that would be this one, with a far more reasonable level of punishment of up to one year:

§ 228. Den, som øver Vold mod en andens Person eller paa anden Maade fornærmer ham paa Legeme, eller som medvirker hertil, straffes for Legemsfornærmelse med Bøder eller med Fengsel indtil 1 Aar.

And this, incidentally, would also be the law to use in the case where a Norwegian man was recently convicted as a "rapist" for changing a tampon on a woman in her sleep. Even the appellate court has now absurdly found this to be "rape," though they decreased the punishment considerably:

http://www.ba.no/nyheter/krim/article6430173.ece

Eivind Berge said...

Justisministeren på banen med uttalelser om lovendringer som er spesialdesignet for å ta rotta på alle norske menn:
http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10119731


I was expecting this. Norway is behind the times in still having a statute of limitations on rape and sexual abuse. Expect the statutes of limitations to be abolished on all sex crimes, and this applied retroactively, so that we can put old men on trial for abuse allegations dating back many decades on the word alone of some accuser, just like they do in the ongoing Savile hysteria in the UK.

alanvaughn said...

"Woman can not sexually abuse boys - generally agreed, with the following exceptions:

1. The boy is homosexual - then it would be traumatic"


What a typical (ridiculous) 'gender-equal' feminist view!

I can assure you that if the PERPETRATOR is homosexual (and the 'victim' is normal), it is a lot MORE traumatic for the victim, but STILL, NOT traumatic enough to be ruined as such by the feminist operated sex-abuse industry.

Once anyone allows themselves to be 'treated' by those feminist loonies and charlatans, or worse: is forced (by the new laws you and your kind are advocating), to accept their treatment; he or she really will be traumatized for life, not to mention how it helps them further perpetuate their wicked agenda onto society, in the longer term.

There are NO EXCEPTIONS to this.

alanvaughn said...

@Jack
"Could it be that those male rapees want to delude themselves and their public that they're sooo attractive women can't resist forcing themselves upon them? Looks is a raw nerve with some men."

Yes, possibly so however, as far as this discussion is concerned, it probably isn't important:
I think the essence of this argument which seems to be something that our friend Clarence either refuses to accept, or simply does not understand is how we as MRAs MUST refuse to endorse or validate the feminist's essential and highly lucrative ABUSE INDUSTRY.

The proponents of the 'female rapist, that rapes men and boys proposal', offer many arguments (some of which may even be quite valid), however they appear to have forgotten their purpose in life, which was until recently: OPPOSING feminism.

Now, they seem to be accepting feminism's wicked ideologies and subscribing to them, BY ACCEPTING their abuse industry, by desiring to willingly volunteer themselves as MEN 'victims' of 'female sexual-abusers'!

They just don't seem to understand the important role that the abuse industry plays in feminism, overall.

Eivind has been busy trying to explain this, and even agreeing that men can indeed be victims of women, however, what we don't need and what society doesn't need is to help feminists further perpetuate their wicked agenda, by patronizing and FUNDING their essential abuse industry.

If we could somehow destroy their abuse industry we would probably have at least a very good chance at ending feminism itself!

The goal of destroying feminism will NEVER be achievable by VALIDATING and FUNDING the core industry that provides their hateful organization with the funding it needs to enforce and propagate its societal wide, destructive agenda, ideologies and mantras.

Eivind also reminded us that men who feel they are victims of any kind of abuse, can already utilize existing legislation to prosecute against such abuses or acts of violence, perpetrated by anyone - male or female.
They DO NOT NEED to validate the destructive feminist abuse industry by giving it many MORE of the essential victims it needs to operate and PROFIT from, while at the same time increase hatred between adults and young people and all the other spin-offs (i.e. paedohysteria) from their hateful propaganda, that MEN would be supporting and VALIDATING by co-opting with them, that way..

It is feminism and its abuse industry that we must try to stop...
Volunteering as 'abuse' victims (of women) will hardly accomplish that!

Eric said...

Clarence:
"On thing you should know about Typhonblue: she was repeatedly raped by a female relative and the feminists did nothing to help her."

So, what, exactly, is the MRM supposed to 'do' to help her? I understand that Paul Elam is a psychiatrist: maybe he should take her on as a client, but not have her polluting the MRM with her own 'issues.'

I'd go back to dating American women again if I wanted to hear about 'female issues.'

"stupidity, condescension and vitriol"

Like Dean Esmay calling anyone who disbelieves James Landrith 'an asshole'?

Just sayin' said...

Alan Vaughn, why do you emphasize so many words all the time?

It makes you come across as intense, exasperating and a bit of a big mouth..

alanvaughn said...

"Alan Vaughn, why do you emphasize so many words all the time?"

Just to piss you off and even perhaps make you cry like the little girl you are Clarence. Now go and cry to Emma (on her blog), that the big bad Vaughn YELLED AT YOU!!! You big SISSY.
See its much worse when the perpetrator's a MAN!

Anonymous said...

Eric:
I have my disagreements with Dean Esmay and would not hestitate to tell him to his face that as Landriths story has changed, I've started to doubt it more than I believe it. And if he wants to call me an "asshole" for that, then he is the asshole. Landrith's story used to be simple enough and I could believe it esp as he got nothing but hell from feminists for years and years before anyone in the manosphere took up his cause. Why lie about something that brings you nothing but grief? But now that the story has changed some because of "recovered memory", I'm far less sure of any of it, particularly as he now has incentives to propagate it.

Clarence

Anonymous said...

I'm sure Elvind could see from time stamps and IP addresses that I'm not 'Just sayin', but it is amusing to watch alanvaughn melt down as he looks for the "Clarence"'s under his bed. Thanks for the laugh, alan. I guess you might be good for something after all.

Clarence

Just sayin' said...

Alan Vaugh is now upgraded to creep and deviant.

This in addition to his very intense and demanding (narcissistic-temperament disordered) character traits displayed amply already.

I am not a blogger and I have no idea who Cassanders is.

I don't see a type as hot-headed as Alan Vaughn as contributing in any positive way to Eivind's blog, and possibly also not to the so-called MRA-movement. Eivind, although claiming to seeth and boil with rage and anger at times, when thinking about feminists and injustices, still manages to remain perfectly calm and reasonable in his writings.

One wonders with what rage Alan Vaughn punishes his key-board, and what needs to go from his daily nutritional regimen. (Less coffee? Cut down on steaks and excessive use of salt? Less carbs?) *Something* has to be done..

Eric said...

Just Sayin/Clarence:

I'm sure Eivind really values your input on whom he should or shouldn't let comment on HIS blog.

Maybe if you two characters started your own blog instead of trying to start schisms on everyone else's, then people wouldn't suspect you both of being trolls, don't you think? LOL

Just sayin' said...

I don't know any of the named people, but I know Eivind's blog very well.

I never see Eivind comment on any of the debaters.

I have acute powers of observation and am a good judge of character. I can easily see that a guy such as Alan Vaughn is a malcontent and far and away a hothead. Such people never contribute to any causes.

It's that personality type that causes schisms. Have you even read the things he writes here, and his intense, aggressive and exasperating tone? He'd attack Eivind the same way some other point down the line - these kinds of personality disordered hot heads always do.

So perhaps Eric - and I don't know anything about you either, I just know Eivind, and see what can be seen here in the blog - you should consider that I may have a point, here.. ?

I certainly am not trying to create a schism - I can assure you about that. It may be all in the eye of the beholder, though, i.e. subjective. There will always be paranoid types in a movement that is generally considered radical (by the establishment and/or by the masses).

I fully, truly support the movement, though, and want it to carry weight.

Anonymous said...

Just sayin:
Alan vaughn may be a total asshat and a hothead but I strongly feel he should have the option to post anywhere he wants.
His posts speak for themselves, and he does not worry me. And buried amidst all his rage and paranoia and insults there is a hard core of truth in most of them, I think you'd agree. So please drop this. I've said my piece he's said his, Eric the Awful (http://www.lyricsmania.com/erik_the_awful_lyrics_ray_stevens.html) has said his, it should be over.

Clarence

Anonymous said...

Selv når en mann får klare forsikringer og blir løyet for om at jenta er langt over den seksuelle lavalder, så skal mannen fengsles i hele 6 måneder! Rettsvesenet fører direkte krig mot menn. En krig som drives av statsfinansiert, nøye planlagt og systematisert hat mot menn.

http://www.ba.no/nyheter/krim/article6487416.ece

Columnist said...

Other sources say 100% of all violent rapes in Oslo are committed by immigrants. It is obvious there is a double standard. Reverse this double standard, just like Pakistan should reverse the double standard of Saudi-Arabia; reverse the present kafa'a, or sexual pecking order.

Eric said...

Clarence/Just sayin:
Keep talking, grrrlz. I'm putting together a research document on trolling techniques, and you two are furnishing lots of first-hand material!

Just for advice: you should probably stick to American blogs, where the readership is less educated than these European ones. I don't think you're fooling anybody in Britain or Norway.

Just sayin' said...

Who is this immature "Eric"-individual?

It's always funny when people who are obviously bone-headed, try to say something smart about what nationalities are better educated - when they are really only fooling themselves with silly generalisations.

Have fun in your one-man (or is that two; you and Vaughan - in two separate bodies or in one?) echo chamber, laddie.

Eric said...

Just Sayin:
Your school-mate Clarence just told you who I was: the immature "Erik the Awful" in a tacky novelity song.

And Alan's the immature guy who 'sees Clarence under his bed at night.' So he's not me.

You two dopey boys ought to spend more time paying attention in school before you start taking on grown-ups.

Just sayin' said...

Alright then, Eric.

Cicero said...

Les denne galskapen:

http://tjomlid.com/2011/05/03/nar-voksne-kvinner-blir-barn/

Eivind Berge said...

Ja, mannshatet stikker så dypt i Norge at loven og rettssystemet i klartekst driter i om det er voksne kvinner som er avbildet. Det holder at de "fremstår som under 18 år." Og det holder med fremstillinger hvor de er "seksualisert" på en eller annen måte, så de kan godt være fullt påkledd. Og det trenger slett ikke være bilder av ekte mennesker. Tegninger fra fantasien er nok. Skildringer i ord også. Barnepornoloven er hatefull og urimelig på alle måter. Hvorfor aksepterer vi for eksempel at "barn" defineres ved 18 år i denne sammenhengen, mens den seksuelle lavalderen er 16? Her sier loven at straff kan bortfalle kun for personer i denne alderen selv, mens for eldre menn er det like straffbart å ha bilder av 16-17-åringer: "Straffen kan falle bort for den som tar og besitter et bilde av en person mellom 16 og 18 år, dersom denne har gitt sitt samtykke og de to er omtrent jevnbyrdige i alder og utvikling."

Og hva er det som får menn til å gå med på sensur i det hele tatt? Hvorfor kjøper de at personer under 18 liksom er aseksuelle? Hvorfor i huleste skal vi late som de ikke har noen seksualitet inntil feministene bestemmer at de har det?

Jeg har alltid vært prinsipiell motstander av alle former for sensur. Ja, det er tankekriminalitet. For hva er symboler og representasjoner om ikke en forlengelse av tankene våre? Begge består av informasjon. Informasjon i seg selv er ikke straffverdig, uansett hva den fremstiller.

Den logiske konsekvensen av hysteriet vil for det første være å forby alle bilder av barn. Alle skildringer av barn er "barneporno" hvis det settes inn i en seksuell kontekst, noe som er gjort i en håndvending. Rettspraksis tilsier at det er nok å endre tittelen på en bildefil for å omdefinere det til barneporno. Og siden kvinner godt kan være "barn" også på bilder, og de heller ikke takler at bildene deres kommer på avveie ifølge hysteriet, må vi nesten forby bilder av alle kvinner også. Eller kanskje best å holde alle kvinner og barn godt skjult bak en burka, og forby alle bilder og skildringer av dem?

Men det vil ikke skje, for poenget er bare å ha enda et våpen mot menn, og til det er barnepornoloven godt egnet. Bare strafferammen henger etter.

Cicero said...

Mer her, fra samme klarsynte blogger (med betydelig fartstid utenfor Norge - han har visst bodd i Afrika en del, f.eks.)

http://tjomlid.com/2010/04/10/hapl%C3%B8st-eu-utspill-om-seksuelt-misbruk-av-barn/

Nordmenn flest er hjernevaskede femier (manginas). Tragisk hvor apatiske vi er, ganske utrolig. Også juristene - kanskje særlig de; alt er bare "pensum pensum pensum, pugge pugge pugge". Svært få tenker selvstendige tanker - hjernevasken fra myndighetene går rett inn og fester seg.

Vi har "interessante" tider foran oss, ja.....

Eivind Berge said...

Ja, det virker som jusstudiet stort sett går ut på å avlære selvstendig tenkning og erstatte den med jussen. Etterhvert som forbud blir mer og mer omfattende, er det svært lite forsvarsadvokater skulle ha sagt hvis de bare internaliserer pensum uten videre. Når loven blir så absurd at absolutt alt blir voldtekt og misbruk eller barneporno, så skulle man tro at advokater heller ville appellere til lekdommerne og juryen om at det er loven det er noe galt med. Min første advokat, Wigum, ble opphisset da jeg sa jeg ville basere mitt forsvar på jurynullifikasjon (før jeg visste at politiet ikke hadde noen sak uansett). Selve konseptet med å utfordre loven var fornærmende for ham, og han sa juryen er instruert i at de ikke har lov til å gå mot loven. Men slik jeg ser det, så skal juryen dømme loven like mye som mannen. Hvis juryen ikke har lov til å frifinne basert på egen vurdering, så er jo hele juryordningen en vits. Jurynullifikasjon er eneste måten borgerne kan forsvare seg mot urimelige lover, og det er tyranni å fjerne denne utveien.

Street Life said...

Vi har fått en ny spennende eskortestemme i offentligheten, til å supplere Frk X - denne gang er det ei fra Bergen:

https://twitter.com/frk_emma/status/299302718764363776

Frøken Emma..

Street Life said...

Resultatet av feministenes faenskap og hjernevask, og av de utrolig mange mannlige tøfler og manginaers bidrag (lik krabber i krabbeteinen):

http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/ostlandssendingen/1.8287222

"Oslo-kvinner syntes mennene er blitt for myke og feminine, viser en undersøkelse gjort av InFact for VG."

- Men alt dette visste vi jo allerede, vi som leser i bloggen her (som sammen med Tjomlids, Emmas og noen få andres, er blant landets beste kilder til reell opplysning).

(Men fint om vi kan få mindre av slike hersens "flame wars" som forstyrret helhetsbildet.. ?)

Anonymous said...

http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.10907612

Eivind Berge said...

Ja, det kommer. Amnesty og FN får viljen sin og voldtektsbegrepet blir utvidet enda en gang. Det blir bare verre og verre, som ventet.

Sex oppnådd ved tvang og sex uten samtykke er to helt forskjellige fenomen, som nå liksom skal likestilles. Tvangen er dessuten allerede utvannet til det absurde slik at det nesten ikke spiller noen rolle i praksis, men konseptuelt er dette en enorm utvidelse. Det betyr at kvinnen overhodet ikke behøver å bry seg med å gjøre motstand eller komme seg vekk selv om hun har alle muligheter til det og er ved full bevissthet. Hun trenger heller ikke føle seg det minste redd eller truet. Nå skal det holde at kvinnen indikerer at hun ikke samtykker selv om hun ikke bryr seg nok til å la være å ha sex, om hun så bare hadde trengt å løfte en finger. Hvordan kan folk gå med på at dette er det samme som voldtekt og like straffverdig? Stikker virkelig mannshatet så dypt i det norske folk, hvis de skjønner hva denne definisjonen faktisk går ut på? Da er det jo ikke håp.

Noen som vet hva disse andre lovutvidelsene går ut på? Skal virkelig "stalking" og andre "overgrep" utvides også nå? Og blir foreldelsesfristen opphevd retroaktivt? Isåfall er absolutt ingen menn trygge.

Endring av straffebestemmelsene om personforfølgelse ("stalking")
Endring av definisjonen av voldtekt og andre seksuelle overgrep
Formidling av prostitusjonsannonser
Forberedelser av tvangsekteskap
Oppheving av foreldelsesfristen for saker om overgrep og drap på barn

Eivind Berge said...

Jeg fant høringsnotatet her:

http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/jd/dok/hoeringer/hoeringsdok/2013/horing--endringer-i-straffeloven-1902-og/horingsnotat.html?id=714314

http://www.regjeringen.no/pages/38226240/Hoeringsnotat.pdf

Vanvittig. De skal blant annet omdefinere onani til seksuell omgang for å kunne straffe hardere...

Og all seksuell omgang (inkludert utvidelsen til onani) med personer under 14 år skal betegnes som voldtekt. En overlagt løgn for å demonisere menn enda mer.

Og alder skal gjøres til et objektivt straffbarhetsvilkår, slik at mannen ikke kan forsvare seg med at han trodde jenten var over 16, selv om han ikke var uaktsom.

Og mye mer. Mannshatet eskalerer nå i forbløffende rekordfart.

Eivind Berge said...

Faktisk skal seksuell omgang med seg selv nå defineres som samleie. Det er vel for at minstestraffen på 3 år for voldtekt skal komme til anvendelse hvis man overtaler jenter til å onanere over telefon, antar jeg. For feministene er ord noe de bare kan definere slik det passer dem. Det spiller ingen rolle om det ikke finnes ett menneske som faktisk bruker begrepene på den måten. Hensikten med å sette flere menn i fengsel i lengre tid trumfer alt.

"I straffeloven 2005 er det å få en person til å utføre handlinger med seg selv som svarer til seksuell omgang, likestilt med at gjerningspersonen har seksuell omgang med fornærmede. Departementet foreslår tilsvarende endringer i straffeloven 1902 og foreslår også å presisere at slike handlinger kan omfattes av definisjonen av samleie.
I tillegg foreslår departementet å endre definisjonen av samleie i straffeloven 1902 § 206 slik at det for definisjonen av vaginalt samleie er tilstrekkelig at penis er ført inn i skjedeåpningen.
"

Eivind Berge said...

Harald Stabell har levert en strålende søknad til å bli årets mangina...

http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.10908727

"Advokat Harald Stabell mener det ikke er et argument at loven blir vanskelig å håndheve.

– En lov som rammer manglende samtykke vil nok kunne bli vanskelig å håndheve ut fra det strenge beviskrav som gjelder i straffesaker, men det gjelder også mange andre bestemmelser i straffeloven. Det bør derfor ikke være noe avgjørende argument mot en lovendring, sier Stabell.

Han mener det er naturlig at Norge følger internasjonal rett.

– Det er viktig at norske myndigheter lytter til faglige råd og forslag fra tunge aktører som Amnesty International og FNs Kvinnekomite. Særlig gjelder det påpekningen av at vår straffelov ikke er i samsvar med internasjonal rett, sier Stabell.

– Dersom det i tillegg kan argumenteres godt for at en slik ny bestemmelse kan hindre seksuelle overgrep, har jeg vanskelig for å argumentere mot et slikt forslag, uttaler Stabell.
"

Og denne mannen skal liksom være forsvarsadvokat?

Eivind Berge said...

Og som vanlig trenger jenter hjelp fra feministene til å vite at de har blitt voldtatt etter loven. De har ikke rukket å bli hjernevasket med dagens definisjon (som kom i 2000) engang før den skal utvides.

http://nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.10903486

"Undersøkelser viser at unge har manglende kunnskap om hva en voldtekt er, og at de har strenge kriterier for hva de vurderer som en voldtekt. Det kan gjøre at de som utsettes, ikke gjenkjenner faktiske overgrep, eller at de som utsetter, ikke vet at det de gjør er straffbart."

Kanskje det ikke er folk det er noe galt med, men loven?

Anonymous said...

Det er KLART at man må lytte til Amnesty og FNs kvinnekomite. Arbeiderpartiet er jo praktisk talt i lomma på disse organisasjonene. Det er en utvekst som ikke lar seg opere bort.

Det blir interessant å merke seg sakene i kjølvannet av disse lovendringene. Om en kvinne angrer et seksuelt samkvem vil hun nå ha rett til å politianmelde det som voldtekt. Man skal jo oppheve foreldelsesfristen også, så hun har god tid til å bestemme seg kan man si. Merkelig hvordan voldsaspektet kan elminieres fra voldtekt. Hvordan kan man voldta uten å bruke vold? Vil man i fremtiden kunne dømme menn for voldtekt selv om de aldri har hatt sex også? Høres kanskje rart ut nå, om noen år vil det kanskje bli en selvfølgelighet.

Er det slik å forstå at man skal heve straffelovens paragraf 390a også til 4 år? 390a er jo forresten en meget bekvemmelig feministparagraf, som ofte blir glemt i den store sammenheng. Bare tanken på 4 års strafferamme for forseelser er absurd. Men den grensen ble allerede brutt da man gikk fra 6 mnd til 2 år i 2005. Det blir svært interessant å se hva politiet velger å putte inn i den kategorien. Husk at forsøk på forseelse er ikke ulovlig. Hvordan vil man definiere overtredelse av paragrafen i fremtiden?

Guy Faux-wkes said...

Feministene vil importere det gale, fryktpregede, paranoide regimet vi kjenner fra USA. Amerikanere er blant verdens mest overflatiske og fremmedfiendtlige pga dette, og når vi sier at noen er amerikaniserte (som store deler av Norge og nordmenn for lengst er, ikke minst hele det urbane vestlandet) så innebærer det at de har blitt indoktrinert med samme fremmedfrykten og opphengtheten i "stalkers" (et oppkonstruert tullekonsept og -begrep) og av "stranger danger".

Det en kan si om alle lovendringene som foreslås, er at de handler om ett enkelt fellestrekk: Å gi damer (og for så vidt menn, inkludert homser) makten til å definére andre, uverdige personer som søppel, som staten må håndtere og putte i fengsel, straffe og stemple for livet. Dette er ledd i den økende klasse- eller laginndelingen av det norske samfunnet - som selvsagt også er del av amerikaniseringen.

Poenget er at er du på samme nivå som eller bedre enn anmelder, så blir det ikke sak - og om noen i ustabilt stemningsleie eller livssituasjon likevel anmelder en slik person, så blir saken fort henlagt. Er du derimot av lavere byrd og rang enn anmelder, så er du uverdig søppel, og i politiets øyne (borgerskapets vektere) så må du tas tak i for din frekkhet. Er du altså en arbeidsledig tølper, en evighetsstudent, en naver, en smussete utlending eller kassearbeider på Rimi, og tror du kan sjanse på, sende sms eller kjærlighetsbrev til ei Frogner-snuppe eller ei pappajente fra Fana eller Paradis, eventuelt Starefossen, Sejersbjerget eller Kalfaret, i Bergen, så skal ordensmakten lære deg bedre.

Vi er tilbake til Amalie Skram-tilstander snart, hvor den uverdige strilen kan og bør rammes av veldig anger og samvittighetskvaler over å så mye som ha våget å snakke til ei overklassedame fra fine bystrøk og med stor hage tilhørende familiehjemmet. Ei av de fornemme. De uverdige skal tuktes hardt. I tillegg til gruppene jeg nevnte, så vil alle "ensomme ulver" være lett bytte for politiet - dvs de som er så dumme å tro at Norge er et land for frie sjeler, hvor man kan være så selvstendig som man vil. Nei det man slett ikke - i Norge er nettverking og det at man hører til et sterkt sosialt lag, en klikk, et parti, en prestisjefylt organisasjon, er i jobb i akseptabel stilling osv, alfa og omega for sosial overlevelse.

Politiet og ordensmakt ellers i Norge diskriminerer, anvender "trynefaktor" og forskjellsbehandler så til de grader. Prinsippet om "likebehandling", som et av de fem bærende forvaltningsrettslige prinsipper i Norge, burde fjernes fra forvaltningsretten (som politiet, men ikke helt rettspleien, også sorterer under), ettersom det lyger overfor alle som er så naive at de tror de kan lese seg til forståelse av sine reelle rettigheter i Norge. Prinsippet fører troskyldige sjeler bak lyset, narrer dem og legger opp til stor skuffelse, for de fleste av lavere sosial rang som prøver å vinne gjennom med en juridisk sak overfor det offentlige Norge (samt i straffesaker, saker om barnevern og andre tvangsmidler etc etc).

(forts.)

Guy Faux-wkes said...



Jeg trodde for så vidt "stalker"-dillen hadde lagt seg i Norge nå, for øvrig, og anses som nærmest passé (damer sier jo mer og mer i klare ordelag nå at de ønsker "frekkhet" fra menn), men straffeloven ble utformet av politisk korrekte og konservative, dogmatiske styringsfeminister (og andre moralister), og det for flere år siden - tilbake da man fremdeles snakket om "stalkers" som et fryktsomt fenomen og ikke fleipete og i overført betydning, slik det gjøres i dag. Den nye straffeloven er altså allerede utdatert, selv før den har rukket å tre i kraft - men slikt betyr sjelden eller aldri noe i jussens verden. Jussens vesen og laugsmentalitet er svært konservative størrelser og fenomener.

Forresten, Eivind, hvorfor skulle det at Stabell er forsvarsadvokat forhindre ham fra å si det sprøytet han sier? For det første så ER han jo (lik din Wigum) Rødt-velger (altså det politiske partiet Rødt) og for det andre så er det likt for forsvarsadvokater og for politiet at de ønsker seg flere muligheter til å straffe folk - det trygger arbeidsplassene deres og sikrer dem klekkelig inntekt og mer enn nok å gjøre på i årene framover. Alle yrkesgrupper og laug ønsker stadig å ekspandere sin gyldighet, relevans og sitt virkeområde, kontra å redusere det (noe som skaper angst og kaos, og det ønsker ikke individene, stort sett, med mindre de er særdeles godt filosofisk og ideologisk skolerte/oppleste).

Folk er svake.

Her kan man legge til klassisk sitat, om man vil, om at de som ønsker å ofre frihet for trygghet, ikke fortjener noen av delene. Der er vi i dag, også i Norge. Kanskje særlig i Norge.

Guy Faux-wkes said...

I klartekst: I Norge, lik USA, blir man dømt og bedømt ut i fra sosial status.

Man blir dømt for å være en fattiglus, stygg eller kortvokst, kort sagt en "taper", ikke for hvilke handlinger man har foretatt seg.

Det er de som oppfattes som heslige, vemmelige eller uverdige ellers, som skal inn i fengslene, og som skal sørge for at politiets saksmengder vil øke (etaten kan ekspandere, overordnede får flere underordnede, man kan søke om stadig mer statlige midler, ens imperie internt i samfunnet øker), forsvarsadvokatene vil få mer enn nok saker på bordet, og feministene og juristene kan juble, for de får enda mer saksmateriale og områder å regulere og kommentere.

Nesten INGEN er bevisst at vi beveger oss sikkert og snarlig inn i en ny moralistisk mørkealder, og at vi gir opp frihet etter frihet, i et forsøk på å oppnå trygghet. De svakeste og mest tragiske må betale prisen - de blir syndebukkene i samfunnet, og veldig mange av dem skjønner ikke hva de egentlig utsettes for, eller hvorfor de skal plages og utsettes for forskjellsbehandling (nær justismord) på den måten. Mange av dem vil tro at de faktisk er dårlige mennesker og fortjener å straffes og å få sine liv ødelagt, og mange av dem vil begå selvmord.

Med mindre vi få som faktisk er ideologisk, filosofisk og politisk bevisste, hjelper dem ut av sine villfarelser.

Det blir mye tungt arbeid framover.. Sjelesørging. Tungvint og nær fånyttes politisk påvirkningsarbeid - for nesten ingen i dagens samfunn liker "champions of lost causes" (da blir man sett på som festbremsm kverulant, "opposisjonell", treig, kjip og generelt upop - alle kule bare går med strømmen og gjør og sier de riktige tingene og de som ikke evner dette kan egentlig bare ha det så godt, og med fordel kverke seg selv).

Anonymous said...

Merk at Patricia Kaatee også er i denne artikkelen, som noen klistret inn over: http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.10907612

Hun er overalt hvor feministisk lovgivning skapes - og har vært nevnt her i bloggen en rekke ganger før..

Fidelbogen said...

You should not assume that people are "manginas" or "feminists" or some such, merely because they have not conceptually mastered certain fine technical points of legal/ideological thinking, as you have done, e.g. with regard to "abuse" and the like.

In fact, such people are guilty of nothing worse than being unsophisticated. In most cases, all they are really attempting is a rhetorical tit-for-tat war against feminism, by making the battle more evenly balanced on the male side of the issue.

Street Life said...

*Jan* Bøhler er gal. GAL. (Politi-Bøhler, aka "han andre", er sikkert noenlunde gal han også, men figurerer ikke i artikkelen her.)

http://www.dagbladet.no/2013/02/13/nyheter/jan_bohler/menneskehandel/innenriks/prostitusjon/25713242/

"Han retter også en klar oppfordring til teleselskapene som formidler nettstedene der sexannonser legges ut.

- Telenor, Nextgentel og Eidsvia, eksempelvis, bør selv nekte å formidle halliknettsteder, oppfordrer Bøhler."

Åh? Internettsensur slik som de bedriver i land som Nord-Korea, Kina, Burma og Iran, altså.. ??

Anonymous said...

Det Guy Faux-wkes skriver til sist her, burde vært printet ut og limt opp på veggen til enhver mannsaktivist. Jeg er så enig at man skulle trodd han hadde smugtittet i mine egne skriverier.

I Norge har vi en skjult klasseforskjell. Mye av den politiske ståa i Norge har definert seg som representanter for de svake. Noe som igjen fører til økt fordekthet av de reelle klasseforskjellene. Jeg er forøvrig usikker på hvor bevisste mannsaktivistene er på dette fenomenet.

Anonymous said...

Forøvrig og sannsynligvis nok et offer for statsfeminismen:

http://www.klartale.no/norge/mann-truet-med-a-sprenge-stortinget/.zrm

Anonymous said...

Politi/påtalemyndighet unnlater bevisst å oversende anker fra varetektsfengslede før utløpet av fengslingsperioden. Åpenbart kriminelt. http://www.riksadvokaten.no/filestore/Dokumenter/2012/DOC.PDF

Eivind Berge said...

@ Fidelbogen

It doesn't take much sophistication to know that women cannot perpetrate rape or sexual abuse. Normal human beings know this instinctively. A caveman or even Neanderthal used to be sophisticated enough to know that a 17-year-old boy is not a "rape victim" if he fucks an older woman, so why do the manginas at A Voice for Men buy into this feminist charade? And to a lot of them this obviously isn't a rhetorical figure (which would be horribly misguided anyway) -- they really seem to be that dense, at least as far as I can determine with my reading comprehension. If all their cheering for the female sex-offender charade is intended as satire, then please point out how you can tell.

Anonymous said...

Arrogante faens feministfitter:

http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/Jommen-sa-vi-Progressiv-7117865.html

alanvaughn said...

@Eivind
You know, I know, every normal person knows and Fidelbogen knows that the discussions of "Equal INjustice for ALL" (men & women) that 'AVfM' is notorious for, are NOT mere rhetoric. All those partaking in that particular discourse, SERIOUSLY believe that women are sexual predators and pose a threat to men and boys.
If they do not believe that, why would they write almost endless commentary advocating such a narrative?

The compromising of the MRM (and the welfare of men and boys AND women & children) that will undoubtedly result by effectively 'co-opting' with feminists, by supporting their essential (sex) abuse industry with this total rubbish of 'women are rapists', or 'sexual abusers', may or may not be intentional, but it will surely not make life any better for anyone, when they (feminists and their abuse industry), have even more people to turn in to 'victims' (of child sexual abuse) which can only perpetuate even more societal-wide HATE, as the new 'female abusers' join the men as despised 'paedos' or 'perverts' to be lynched by the already paedohysterical public.

As you pointed out to Fidelbogen, they are that dense!

It can't possibly help ANYONE, however it will ramp the current paedohysteria up to a level that will make life dangerous for everyone, because NOBODY will be above suspicion (of being a 'paedophile' - the 21st century's witch or heretic).
History has a habit of repeating itself.

While AVfM commentators are advocating this 'female abuser' idea or narrative, there is only one simple reason why you, me and every other true MRA refers to them as 'manginas' or feminists: They ARE!

Anonymous said...

Prostitusjon er vold mot kvinner, påstår disse ideologiske sjefsfeministene (Jette Christensen og den mye eldre og politisk avsatte Marit Nybakk):

http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/Hvem-skal-vare-til-salgs-7120611.html

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, Alan, I don't think my reading comprehension is that poor. The AVfM crowd really mean it when they support equal injustice for all.

Now Norwegian politicians are at work reforming the sex laws once again, expanding the definitions of every sexual crime from child porn to rape. A brand new category of "abuse" is also introduced consisting of sex with 16 and 17-year-olds who are in a "vulnerable life situation," effectively raising the age of consent to 18. And they also plan to abolish the statute of limitations so we can have our own Savile-type hysteria here with prosecutions of old men for ancient "abuse."

At which point will it occur to the manginas that supporting all this is not the way to go?

Zippedeedoodah said...

Ole Martin Moen, Frk X et al svarer de ideologisk indoktrinerende feministene - nok en gang et glitrende utspill fra "vår" trio:

http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/Jommen-sa-vi-feminisme-7120265.html

Anonymous said...

Det er ganske mye bra i kommentarfeltene til denne debattføljetongen hos Aftenposten, f.eks.:

"Sus_Scrofa thomasr • for 3 dager siden −
«"kvinner at de skal kunne gå trygt gjennom Oslo uten at slibrige, eldre menn byr på dem." Betyr det at det er greit hvis unge menn byr på dem? Hvordan er det dere ser på og omtaler eldre menn?»

Jeg synes faktisk utsagnet passer enda dårligere sammen med at forfatterne prøver å holde fri sex-fanen høyt og visstnok synes det er bra at to personer “bestemmer seg for at de er kåte og har lyst på hverandre.” Hvis dette virkelig er opp til de to det gjelder, så må jeg få lov til å knulle en slibrig eldre herre dersom han har lyst på meg og jeg har lyst på ham. (Utvid gjerne resonnementet til å omfatte hans enda mer slibrige kone og bridgeklubben deres.)

Nå henfaller forfatterne til å være veldig for fri sex mellom to personer unntatt dem man synes det er ekkelt at har hormoner, og det er selvsagt foreldregenerasjonen. Det finnes jo ikke noe mer frastøtende enn tanken på at Mamma og Pappa ... y'know ... ewww!
45 •Svar•Del ›

DoktorS Sus_Scrofa • for 3 dager siden
Jeg synes menneskesynet som kommer fram i leserinlegget fra relativt ukjente SV- og SU-representantene viser en forakt for mennesker. I dette tilfellet eldre menn.
44 •Svar•Del ›

Tom Gregorius Lauten DoktorS • for 3 dager siden
De viser jo også en forakt for de prostituerte;

"Vi vet bedre! Ingen oppegående kvinner ønsker å være "horer" for gamle mannfolk. Det er bare ekkelt!"
31 •Svar•Del ›

Data Geek Tom Gregorius Lauten • for 3 dager siden
Forakt er nå en ting. Det kan tilgis og settes på konto for uvitenhet om for dem det opplagt ukjente.

Ganske meget verre er det i intellektuell forstand at de snakker på vegne av en gruppe de slett ikke har spurt. Til alt overmål regner de seg selv som oppegående, men presterer å gjøre så mange uintelligente bomerter i artikkelen.
28 •Svar•Del ›"

Anonymous said...

Enda mer bra, her:

"

Tom Gregorius Lauten • for 3 dager siden −
Disse tre kvinnene burde skamme seg. Vi vet jo så inderlig godt at forbudet ikke er til for å beskytte kvinner (og menn(?), men heller for å støtte opp om en ideologi hvor ekstremfeminisme-, jantelov og overmoral er rådende.

"Det er et spørsmål Sterri, Moen og X godt kunne ha stilt seg."

"X" er en prostituert. Hvem tror dere at dere er? Makan til arroganse. Har dere vært ute og stilt de prostituerte spørsmål? Det er vel strengt tatt de som vet best?

Hva med luksusprostituerte forresten? De er vel hovedsaklig norske, og er ikke de man vanligvis ser trekke på gata. Det er de som blir oppringt av deres mannlige (og kvinnelige) kollegaer, av næringslivslederne, og av aksjemeglerne. Tror dere disse kvinnene prostituerer seg fordi de må? Neppe.

Dere spør hvem som skal drive bordellene dersom prostitusjon hadde blitt legalisert. Hva med de prostituerte selv? Skal ikke de få drive lovlig fra egnede lokaler dersom de ønsker dette? Skal ikke de få lov til å betale skatt? Skal ikke de få lov til å opptjene pensjonspoeng? Skal ikke de få lov til å føle seg som en del av samfunnet med tryggheten som følger med? Arbeidskontrakt? Feriepenger? Er de ikke gode nok mennesker for å få lov til å ta del i disse godene?

Hvem er det egentlig dere ønsker å beskytte? Hallikene eller deres overmoral? Det er iallefall ikke de prostituerte!
26 •Svar•Del ›

richard_hode Tom Gregorius Lauten • for 2 dager siden
Flott, steinhard kommentar!
4 •Svar•Del ›

Roar Sørensen • for 3 dager siden
Ordet "mange" er brukt seks ganger gjennom artikkelen, og bare det gjør den helt useriøs. Hva med konkrete tall basert på seriøs forskning?

Sannheten er jo at nesten ingen kvinner i Norge er utsatt for "menneskehandel"; dvs, tvangsprostitusjon. Antall dommer bekrefter dette. Svært få både på innemarkedet og utemarkedet har et rusproblem.

Kom med forskning og tall som viser noe annet!

Nesten ingen sexarbeidere selger sex pga. ekstrem nød, tvang eller rusproblemer, verken i Norge eller andre steder. Dette er stort sett myter skapt av NGO-er og feminister.

De fleste sexarbeidere sier dessuten at kundene deres bare er snille og respektfulle. Enn videre sier de at det bare er sexkjøploven og holdninger som disse stortingsrepresentantene gir uttrykk for, som skaper problemer for dem.

Med andre ord: Alt som skrives i denne kronikken, er bare tøv.

Nesten utrolig at det fremdeles finnes politikere som målbærer slike holdninger, som i beste fall er basert på uvitenhet, i verste fall basert på kynisme og forakt overfor både sexarbeiderne og kundene deres.
41 2 •Svar•Del ›"

De tre kvinnelige, ideologiske feministene som står som forfattere av debattreplikken det kommenteres under, er totale drittsekker og rævhøl. Merk dere navnene deres, og merk dem godt:

Mari Lund Arnem stortingsrepresentant Sv , Rannveig Kvifte Andresen stortingsrepresentant Sv , Ida Karlsen feministisk leder i Su
Publisert: 11.feb. 2013 11:17 Oppdatert: 11.feb. 2013 13:18

MARI Lund Arnem

RANNVEIG Kvifte Andresen

IDA Karlsen

Anonymous said...

http://www.tv2.no/gmn/norske-kvinner-kjoeper-sex-paa-charterturer-3902753.html

Angående dette i linken her, skaff dere nyeste Natt & Dag (gratisavisen, står på stativ i "storbyene"). Der er det mye mer og lange artikler/features om nettopp dette - norske og andre hvite europeiske damers omfattende sexturisme i Gambia.

Eivind Berge said...

Sexturisme er det nok, men det kan diskuteres om det er sammenlignbart med prostitusjon. Det virker ikke som mennene får noe mer ut av det enn selve opplevelsen og kanskje noen små gaver. Kan de tjene til alt de trenger og legge seg opp penger slik som horer enkelt kan? Det tviler jeg på. 50 års aldersforskjell er nok til at kvinnen må spandere og betale utgiftene, men ikke nok til at mannen eksplisitt kan selge sex på noen lønnsom måte.

Anonymous said...

Det fins absolutt menn som lever av å selge sex til damer, og aldersforskjellen trenger ikke være mer enn noen få år - men er oftest litt mer (nærmest aldri 50 års forskjell, vel).

Man må nesten bare skaffe seg det nyeste nummeret av Natt & Dag selv og lese. Det er er ganske store summer det er snakk om, og gutta lever dels av dette - samt brødfør egen kone og barn om de har, på den måten. Se også filmen som artikkelen over fra TV2 viser til; "Paradis: Kjærlighet".

Også i vesten finnes mannlige gigoloer og de tar relativt store summer. Måten de selger på er ofte litt annerledes enn når damer selger til menn. Damer vier gjerne 30 minutter til 1 time til kunden, og den mannlige kunden er kjempehappy. Karene som selger til damer, derimot, tar gjerne max et oppdrag i døgnet, for damene som kjøper forventer ordentlig behandling. Et oppdrag tar gjerne 12 timer og strekker seg fra tidlig kveld til neste formiddag. Damen vil masseres, drikke vin, kose, ha forspill og så pleies seksuelt i timesvis. Dette pga at damers tenningsmønster jo er annerledes enn menns - de er ikke den penetrerende og evig tilbydende parten, men den selekterende, som må overbevises, forføres og betrygges osv. Nå generaliserer jeg litt, men i hovedtrekkene så er det sånn.

Utover dette så er det selvsagt fremdeles ingen tvil om at de fleste kunder er menn. (Og disse mennene igjen fordeler seg i to grupper, stort sett, hvor den ene kjøper av damer, og den andre gruppen kjøper av menn/gutter.)

Damer som kjøper seg av menn, eller av par, eller av en eller flere andre damer (lesber) er en klart mindre gruppe enn de mannlige kundene. Dette er jo selvsagt fordi, som du ofte har påpekt, kvinners seksuelle kapital er mye større enn menns, slik at de langt sjeldnere trenger å betale. (Likevel klarer de tanketomme feministene å vri dette til at det er MENN som har overtaket og at damer blir utnyttet. De er hjernevaskede og forblindede, eller rent manipulative, onde og med vilje til makt, disse feministene (inkl. ikke rent få mannlige feminister) som sprer disse vrangforestillingene. Men sånn er samfunnet vårt, og slikt er menneskers hykleri - det er jo derfor denne bloggen her trengs, og har sin nisje, som motvekt til virkelighetsvridningene og den dogmatiske hjernevasken fra feministene.)

Street Life said...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15522279

"The majority of interviewed migrant workers in the sex industry in London are not forced nor trafficked, says a report.

The International Union of Sex Workers (IUSW) welcomed the new research by a team led by Dr Nick Mai."

Anonymous said...

http://tv.nrk.no/serie/dagsrevyen/nnfa19020713/07-02-2013#t=31m11s

Eivind Berge said...

Sjekk VG Helg i morgen for intervju med meg som en liten motvekt til feministisk voldtektspropaganda.

Eric said...

Fidelbogen:
I don't think it comes down to a lack of sophistication or a rhetorical chess-game at all. Paul Elam outlined his agenda very clearly in the 'MRM Blueprint for Bridge-Building' article. He bluntly told us there that he had accepted feminism's goals. To that end, he's pushed aside men like Angry Harry and Bernard Chapin in favor of outright feminists like Erin Prizzey.

Anonymous said...

Helvete Berge! Har du fått meg til å bruke penger på VG helg til ingen nytte eller? Jeg kan ikke finne noe... Bare meg som ikke leter godt nok blant alt fjaset eller hur?

Eivind Berge said...

Hmm, jeg ble hvertfall intervjuet. Kanskje det kommer neste helg, da.

ScareCrow said...

@Eivind Berg - Well, I maintain the list of female pedophiles - not because I am sex-negative - but simply to point out, the misconception that only adult males have sex with people who are "not of legal age".

However; if you consider this to be "sex negative", please shoot me an E-mail, and I'll pull the list and stop maintaining it.

Also, a QUESTION (not a criticism), but an actual QUESTION.

Some of the people the women on that list have had sexual relations with are "special needs" students, and were sodomized with sexual tools. Some of the teachers on that list use drugs and alcohol to coerce their students - is this not rape?

Also, in defense of the list, there were many cases I came across, where a teacher had sex with a student (which there are laws against) - and I did not put them on the list - because all parties were "of the age of consent" (18 here in America)

Yes, there are "teacher-student" laws - something about "a person of trust" not being allowed to "take advantage" of people under their authority - I do not list those. And of course, in Nevada, the age of consent was 16 - I find adding incidents who are 16 and older to be "iffy"...

Anyway - I will trust your judgement on this. If you think the female pedophile list I maintain is "sex negative" - send me an E-mail, and I will pull it - PERMANENTLY.

Of course, I do not consider myself to be an MRA.

However; I'd hate to think that I am being "sex negative".

My intention of the list was to point out that not all people having sex with people "under the age of consent" are men - that is, I was trying to counter-attack a negative stereo type of men.

Anyway, good article, and it does deserve clapping.

AVFM is now a joke - it has too many sexually traumatized women contributing to it...

And I agree with you - much of the MRM is "sex negative".

That is why I abandoned it quite a while ago.

Eivind Berge said...

@ ScareCrow

Your female pedophile list is indeed sex-negative and feminist as it stands. However, I appreciate all the work gone into compiling it, and this need not be wasted if you simply reframe the list as a catalog of feminist stupidity instead. The list demonstrates that feminism hurts women too in equally hateful ways as men. If you reframe it thusly, it would serve as an excellent inventory of the female sex-offender charade, which is what I like to call it. Just be sure to point out that you do not condone these laws as applied women nor men. You might even want to include teacher "abuse" above the age of consent as well and all the other bizarre ways women are criminalized for their harmless sexuality. And please get rid of the "pedophile" label except in the few cases where the boys are actually prepubescent.

Is it rape to be sodomized with sexual tools or objects? The short answer is no. Not because such assaults cannot be truly heinous crimes, but calling it rape is missing the point. Rape is forced copulation, and one cannot copulate with objects. Women are indeed capable of violently abusing children up to and including killing them, and are equally culpable as men when they do so. If you are painfully sodomized by objects, is your concern going to be that the person is having "sex" with you then? Is sex really the essential element in such a crime? Is it even relevant? Does it matter what the perpetrator's motivation is, male or female? To me, such acts do not resemble sex and I believe other laws covering assault/battery/torture should apply instead. It can be as bad or worse than rape, of course, but it just isn't a sexual crime and calling it rape is a category error. It is ridiculous to include surrogate objects in the definition of rape, and doing so means catering to the ever-expanding feminist rape law reform. In Norway it has gone so far that you don't even have to touch the "victim" or be anywhere near her to be convicted of rape. It is enough to talk women remotely into masturbating, and law reform being proposed at the moment is set to define such masturbation as intercourse in order to increase sentencing and demonization. We really don't want to contribute to this hateful and illogical trend as MRAs.

Eivind Berge said...

As to women accused of using alcohol/drugs to obtain sex: Firstly I am highly skeptical of all claims that boys were coerced into sex with women by means of alcohol or drugs. Boys do not generally need much persuasion to have sex, but they may well enjoy getting drunk or high too, so how do you know the boys were "coerced" into sex just because there were drugs or alcohol involved? The scumbag feminist prosecutors will surely present it as a case of using drugs and alcohol to "rape" boys every time these things are involved so as to exacerbate their case, but I wouldn't trust anybody who believes all sex is rape anyway regardless of how willing and eager the "victim" is. It is indeed problematic to provide drugs or alcohol to children, but the "rape" aspect is extremely suspect. So none of these convictions can be taken at face value. How do you disentangle what is real abuse when the system is so corrupt it defines all sex itself as a heinous crime? In a sane justice system, boys would be protected against real abuse including being drugged and forced to do things they really resist, but when sex overshadows everything else, these claims cannot be taken seriously either. I say, let us oppose the sexual element in all these cases, and regard all the women as innocent unless they are only charged with actual abuse or providing alcohol/drugs to children -- which of course will never happen as long as prosecutors treat the slightest sexually charged text message as worse than the most violent physical abuse. The way to resist such an insane system is to undermine its sex-hostility by not taking it seriously, and ridiculing it vigorously. A list of all the ways women are persecuted for blatantly harmless and positive sexuality is a good way to protest, so I appreciate your work as long as you reframe it as a list of feminist insanity rather than just another piece of feminist propaganda. That's how I have been reading it all along anyway, but now that the clowns at AVfM are taking up the feminist cause and attacking female sex offenders with a straight face, the satire needs to be spelled out.

ScareCrow said...

Your points are well taken.

When all somebody does is focus on the "bad sex" happening in the world - or label sex as bad because it fits a certain "demographic" - one is acting in a feminist manner.

Feminists only focused on "negative sex" - rape, pedophilia, date rape drugs - all of which are rare, and as you point out, usually have nothing to do with sex - but just violence.

If all one does is focus on the very small number of cases of - hmm - "awkward" or "unusual" sex - and villify them - they are behaving like feminists.

I'll read your comments again, and when I get around to it, modify that section of my web-site.

There is no need to mimic the feminists and focus only on the negative aspects of sex, or criminalize sex itself.

ScareCrow said...

Just an aside - how come he feminists never mentioned the millions of people having sex and enjoying it?

Instead, they try it make it a crime - no matter what the case.

Again, excellent article.

Anonymous said...

To be honest Eivind, you really lost much of that individualistic, uncompromising and independent image (an image I suspect you consciously created) when you got together with that girl. Really, isn't it sort of pathetic to simply accept the first woman you encounter? It makes me think you would have accepted anyone almost regardless of personality, appearance etc.,

Emma said...

Anon,

First of all, I know who you might be ( http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/the-whispers/ ). If you're jealous and miserable, you're not allowed to drag other people down, ok?

Second, if you've been around between 2011 and 2013 at all, you'll know Eivind lost no personality. He got even more famous since we met, although it wasn't due to me. In the past, most comment threads were full of trolls and a few positive commenters. Now it's the opposite. He's becoming taken more and more seriously; not as a "crazy" guy, but as a voice of reason.

Eivind accepted me because I had good qualities (it's not arrogance to speak the truth). He wouldn't date a feminist. It was the same with me - I accepted Eivind because he's a great guy. Things worked from the first try - you can say it's luck.

Anonymous said...

http://www.nrk.no/fordypning/her-arresteres-psts-agent-1.10916137

"Han har jobbet ti år som infiltratør for PST – praktisk talt uten betaling."

Da må du faen meg være dum. Hvem gidder å jobbe gratis for noen? Aller minst PST. Man kan begynne å lure på hvor mange infiltatrører det finnes i venstreekstreme miljøer. De er jo plutselig blitt veldig lojale mot purken kan man få inntrykk av. Før var purken og venstrekstreme som katt og mus, nå virker de som deres fremste allierte.

Anonymous said...

Det patetiske er at PST faktisk bruker "infiltratør" på troskyldige grupper som Blitz og NDL. Det disse gruppene bedriver er jo kun protester og demostrasjoner. Guttestreker, intet annet. Og der sitter tøvete PST folk, uten et eneste kompetent gen i kroppen og følger med, som om de innbiller seg å være siste skandse før et forestående armageddon.
Latterlig samfunn.

Anonymous said...

http://www.nrk.no/ytring/kvinnen-er-den-nye-mannen-1.10917706

"SV-mann og femiklatt
All denne norske feminismen og likestillingen forløper ikke uten motstand.

Kvinnen blir mer mandig, mener noen. Hun forlater sin omsorgsfulle rolle som «mater familias». Hun er ikke lenger den følsomme og beskyttende. Hun er tøff i trynet, slik menn har vært. Hun går til angrep. Hun bruker albuer og hever stemmen. Hun tar makt.

Kristian Meisingset, medredaktør i Minerva
Mannen feminiseres, mener andre. Han blir følsom. Han koser med barna sine. Han vil ha fri for å være hjemme med familien sin. Han ruller avgårde med barnevognen (på Grünerløkka, i hvert fall) og foretrekker kaffe med økologisk lettmelk.

Han er SV-mannen! Vi himler med øynene og smiler og ler. For en femiklatt."

Street Life said...

Sjekk debatten her, og gå gjerne inn og kommentér mot feministene, moralistene og sosialistene: http://universitas.no/nyhet/58011/studentene-som-selger-sex

Anonymous said...

http://www.bt.no/nyheter/innenriks/Mer-enn-tidoblet-straff-Afor-voldtekt-av-sovende-2849185.html

Eivind Berge said...

Ja, eskaleringen av mannshatet har vært enorm. 4 år normalstraff for en "voldtekt" hvis eneste kriterium er at kvinnen hevder hun sov eller var for beruset til å gjøre motstand. Over 1000% strengere straff nå for noe som ikke engang var definert som voldtekt før 2000. Før det hadde man en egen §193 om sex med bevisstløse med en strafferamme på maks 5 år. Så ble slike "sovevoldtekter/festvoldtekter" som slett ikke er noen voldtekter tatt med i voldtektsparagrafen (§192) samtidig som de andre kriteriene om vold eller trusler også ble utvannet til det absurde. Og nå er vi altså i gang med en ny runde med utvidelse av definisjonen hvor voldsaspektet skal fjernes helt, slik at kvinnen i praksis skal anses som om hun var bevisstløs til alle tider og ikke trenger gjøre noen form for motstand selv om hun er fullt ut i stand til det. Etter det kommer nok en ny runde med eskalerende straffenivå, skal jeg vedde på, samtidig som juryen sikkert fjernes også.

Dette viser også hvor stor makt ord har. Jeg tror neppe de hadde klart å heve straffenivået fra 4 måneder til 4 år uten å omdefinere fenomenet med seksuell utnyttelse av bevisstløse til "voldtekt." Dette er et bevisst uærlig språklig grep for å demonisere menn mer og få til strengere straffer.

Anonymous said...

Eivind, I think most MRAs only support applying the laws equally to women in regards to equal punishment as a way to sort of show how ridiculous they are. It seems that many problems are completely ignored until they start affecting women. That the people who've lobbied to put these laws into place never imagine that the laws will ever apply to them and theirs.

Rape hysteria is of course out there and there's no denying that the definition has been stretched paper-thin in most western "democratic" nations, but it seems that the only effective way to fight this is to push to have the same punitive measures applied to all citizens so that they are eventually removed.

This seems to apply to a lot of areas in our legal system as well. Not just sexual offenses.

Eivind Berge said...

That is hare-brained and stupid on so many levels.

It is dishonest to support disingenuous definitions and the female victims of this charade don't deserve it even if men are hurt by the same laws. And it doesn't work either because men almost never care to accuse rape. There are thousands of men accused for every woman accused of rape in Norway, so how do you expect this to impact women anywhere near equally? Even if ALL sex was defined as rape today for men and women alike, men still wouldn't take an interest in accusing rape, so the law would still almost exclusively hurt men. Pushing for equal injustice does not and will never work because men and women are different -- sex laws inevitably have disparate impact on the sexes because their sexual motivations and behavior are different, and MRAs of all people ought to be able to acknowledge this...

Now politicians are at work expanding rape law even more. Should we support this reform too as long as it is applied equally to women? I don't have words for how stupid this approach is!

Anonymous said...

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/norsk-politikk/artikkel.php?artid=10100964

Et eksempel på hvor i utakt politikerne er med meningene på denne siden.

De mener for fullt alvor at seksuelle overgrep ikke taes på alvor. André Okthay Dahl er faktisk av den oppfatning at: "Jeg synes det er en skam at norske myndigheter har kommet så kort på dette området, og man kan stille spørsmål ved om det ville gått så sakte dersom det i hovedsak var menn som ble utsatt for voldtekt."

Her ser du litt hva holdninger du kjemper mot Berge. Som jeg tidligere har nevnt for deg er det fullstendig feil fokus å gjøre seksuelle relasjoner mellom barn og voksne til mennsaktivistenes kjernesak.

Hvordan kan det politisk stående være av den oppfatning at seksuelle overgrep ikke blir tatt på alvor fordi det er kvinner som i hovedsak er offer? Det er jo å snu virkeligheten på hodet. For det første er det intet som taes mer alvorlig, det har jo man bevist på denne siden gang på gang. For det andre har man jo langt mer sympati for kvinner i samfunnet enn menn?! Jeg fatter ikke virkelighetsorienteringen til norske politikere. Og dette kommer fra høyre, ikke fra ekstremvenstre.

Eivind Berge said...

Ja, de blir aldri fornøyd. Her tas altså overgrep mot kvinner så alvorlig at bytte av en tampong dømmes som "voldtekt," og straffenivået har blitt tidoblet på ti år, men propagandaen er nøyaktig den samme. Det er den i USA også hvor straffene gjerne er 10 ganger det igjen. Feminister blir ALDRI fornøyde, og manginaer vil alltid støtte dem. Vi trenger sårt en mannsbevegelse som kan stå opp og si at nok er nok.

Begge deler er viktig. Både voldtektshysteriet rundt voksne kvinner og løgnen om at mindreårige utsettes for "overgrep" og snart (når loven nå blir endret) "voldtekt" hver gang de har sex. Vi må sette foten ned mot denne delen av hysteriet også. Vil du for eksempel ha slike tilstander her?:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/world/16194243/mother-hired-strippers-for-sons-birthday/

Min neste bloggpost handler imidlertid om de foreslåtte lovendringene og kommer i morgen.

Anonymous said...

Are you seriously trying to tell me that you believe that an adult woman forcing a young child, aged 4, who has no idea and no real comprehension of sex, to perform sexual acts with her is not damaging? This child doesn't understand what is happening but is frightened and scared by it, especially when the woman scares the child into secrecy by threatening their life and family? How is this not abusive?! Especially since female sex offenders typically use objects to sexually abuse the child.

Eivind Berge said...

Once again, using objects is not sex. The scenario you describe is certainly abusive, but not because it is sex, and it sure isn't "typical" either. Frankly I can't remember a single case out of the hundreds I have heard of where the female sex offender used objects or threatened the child's life or family (indeed they appear very naive, thinking society cannot possibly be so hateful about it as is now the reality thanks to feminism). The vast majority of female sex offenders have loving relationships with their "victims," and it is the demonization of sex itself I object to. Sex per se is not damaging unless it is coerced or you go out of your way (or society does) to brainwash the child into thinking he or she has been "abused." See "The Missing Mechanism of Harm" by Dave Riegel:

Abstract

For decades there have been claims that all sexual interactions between children and older persons “. . . cause harm, [that] this harm is pervasive, . . . [is] likely to be intense, . . . [and] is an equivalent experience for boys and girls . . .” (Rind, Bauserman, and Tromovitch 1998, p. 22). [1] There is, however, no mechanism (anon, 2013) offered as to how these sexual interactions actually cause harm, and, as noted by Bailey, “a surprising . . . lack of scientific evidence” (2011, p. 3) for these claims. Clancy (2009) took the position that at least initial trauma is a “myth,” and as far back as 1981, Constantine described the effects of interference based on this assumed/assigned harmfulness as “psychonoxious” (p. 241). This paper reviews a sampling of the literature in this area, takes issue with these unsupported claims, and argues that, instead, much real damage is done by assuming the existence of intrinsic harm when the only harm that occurs apparently is extrinsic.

ScareCrow said...

@Eivind (5:27)

You nailed it bro. Trying to make an equal number of men and women in jail for "sex offenses" is silly.

Yet, it seems that there are some out there who want just that.

It also occurred to me, that there are people who want to perpetuate a mistrust between men and women as well...

Anonymous said...

Norsk strafferett i praksis:

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10107605

Eivind Berge said...

Ja, juryordningen er jo bare en illusjon når fagdommerne ikke respekterer frifinnelser. Arrogante drittsekker.

Anonymous said...

http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/troms_og_finnmark/1.10923917

Eivind Berge said...

Statsadvokat Lars Fause er en drittsekk som ikke aksepterer at folket skal ha noe vi skulle ha sagt. Vi skal fullstendig være prisgitt maktmenneskene i staten.

Den unnskyldningen om at frikjennelsen ikke kan aksepteres fordi det "ikke gis noen begrunnelse" er bare tull. Det er ikke det det handler om, og det er slett ikke ønskelig at juryen kommer med en begrunnelse. Det er ikke deres jobb og ikke noe de skal forventes å være kvalifisert til -- juryen skal være uttrykk for rettsfølelsen i folket; hele poenget er nettopp at avgjørelsen IKKE baseres på juridiske spissfindigheter som du må være utdannet jurist for å greie ut om.

Human-Stupidity.com said...

What is your take on this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=dGgTTR25Imc


http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1bdik0/8th_graders_assault_and_strip_5th_grader_post/

You probably say it is less traumatizing to be disrobed by a couple of girls then to have your head dunked into a toilet.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, that is rather mean bullying but I think it would be slightly less traumatizing because he did get attention from girls, after all. I would certainly take that over having my head dunked into a toilet, but neither is acceptable behavior. I think this incident was handled reasonably for a change. Misdemeanor battery charge possible but they didn't bother pursuing it, and no hysteria about "sexual assault," which is ridiculous but predictably what the manginas at Reddit call for along with child porn charges.

Emma said...

Human Stupidity,

You know, something very similar happened to me when I was 7 years old. I was in the summer camp and one night kids all woke up and started having a party. It took adults a few hours to notice. During that time, two boys repeatedly tried to rip my underwear off using force. They were the same age though, and only two. I just wished they'd stop coming back and let me sleep. It was annoying and angering at the time, but didn't leave any lasting marks. I'm not sure how the boy in the video felt, I hope he's ok. But I think the toilet thing is more disgusting to a kid.

Watchful said...

Eivind,

This is a great blog. Some months ago (before I found your site here) I posted a few times on AVfM challenging their view on female sex offenders, saying that if we adopt the same discredited victimology of boys-as-victims then we are being just as bad as the feminists themselves.

People on AVfM wanted statistics to back up my claims that most of this "abuse" is consensual (I provided info on meta analyses of 70 studies), so I posted that, but quickly got labelled all kinds of bad things, and had all my postings deleted by the moderator.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, it's astonishing how obtuse and dimwitted they can be. The AVfM crowd have drunk the feminist sex-hostility Kool-Aid completely and cannot bear to face reality because it would create dissonance with their simpleminded brainwashing. Questioning the prevailing sexual abuse definitions would mean thinking unclean thoughts, and that is forbidded for the faithful. I was reading the Unabomber manifesto the other day and it occurred to me what is going on with these manginas. They are what he would call oversocialized. Oversocialization explains a lot of bizarre behavior in leftists and also how otherwise intelligent people can seem so dense. They have internalized society's most politically correct norms to an astonishing degree and then they ludicrously think they are rebelling against society for not living up to those same norms... But in truth they are the epitome of political correctness. AVfM is more feminist than the feminists themselves. They take the most extreme feminist dogmas at face value and then apply them even more literally and further removed from human nature while accusing the feminists of not being sex-hostile enough because not enough women are prosecuted as sex-offenders according to these hateful feminist norms. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic and destructive.

Watchful said...

My prediction is that non-feminist women will drive social change on the sex issue first. People such as the women involved in organisations like b4u-act have set an example. More people will see that actually most men have forbidden feelings, and when that becomes clear, women will have to change their tone.

Feminism is better off perpetuating the myth that only a few deviant men have forbidden feelings, rather than the vast majority of men. If the public had to acknowledge how common it is, then feminism would not be able to make most men cower in a state of unarticulated and uncomfortable guilt.

There are other factors at play also, I think. Many early feminists experienced father-daughter incest, so they particularly like to over-generalize about their own experiences. At the same time, women can appreciate the idea of intimacy with youth, but they feel some jealousy over men because it is not in line with women's relationship goals. Women go for handsome men not because they are "handsomer" than boys, but because boys cannot do very much for women (a feminist once said to me "what can a teenaged boy do for me that my rich boyfriend can't?"). Hence when women discarded certain aspects of their old gender roles and declared men useless to them, people like Germaine Greer felt they could now openly appreciate boys erotically.

At the same time, the same women want to believe that the concept of "sex drive" is equivalent between the genders. On that point, ironically, a far right web site in the US has a tract saying that it is indeed very different - on the basis of the gland in the male pelvis which compels the brain to empty it daily (more than daily, for youth), a process for which there is no female counterpart. Women can choose to like sex (though many don't know how), or perhaps on a monthly cycle might feel compelled to find a mate, but nothing compels them physiologically to achieve orgasm on a daily basis the way the male body does.

Anonymous said...

Moralism isn't in the realm of rationality, but obeying your basest sexual lusts is.

Good one, moron.

Grow up, son. I don't think you were abused sexually, I think you are just a spoiled rotten kid whose parents didn't spank him - I guess they wouldn't since it is illegal in Norway, which explains all the open narcissism and feelings of entitlement ... even, oddly, to sex.

Eivind Berge said...

This post was about the immorality of punishing people for victimless sex crimes. This has nothing to do with being "spoiled rotten" or narcissistic or feeling entitled. It does, however, mean I am not brainwashed by hateful feminist sex laws which construct false victims and most bizarrely of all, pretend boys are victims of older women when it is plain to all that they are lucky. You have evidently internalized these insane norms, being a product of your sex-hostile society. Judging from your irrational hostility you are probably an American, since that is where the most ridiculously high ages of consent and other bizarre sex crimes are institutionalized and brainwashed into the populace.

Anonymous said...

Another victimless sex-crime - who the fuck cares???

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/dog-porn-north-carolina_n_3940844.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Eivind Berge said...

The scumbags in law enforcement don't care if a crime is victimless. They only care about exerting the tyrannical malice of the government any way they can. Notice the long list of meaningless crimes they have available to charge you with in the hope that something will stick.

"They faced charges of bestiality, conspiracy and disseminating obscene materials, with Amber Fox facing an additional charge of soliciting a crime against nature."