Thanks to the hateful campaign to demonize Brock Turner as a rapist, I think I better understand how sexual hysterias work. Firstly, it needs to be pointed out that Brock Turner is not actually a rapist, even by the legal definition in California:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/stanford-rape-case-brock-turner-victims-statement-a7074246.html
He is guilty of digital penetration, and not even a violent one at that; just taking advantage of the woman's intoxicated state. So why are people so absurdly hysterical about this minor sexual assault? Why do they demand to punish it as if it were rape? I disagree that it should be criminal at all, since the woman got drunk willingly and went along with it, but even if you agree with the law, it was far removed from rape.
I think people react to the metaphor rather than reality. Feminist propaganda has been so successful that "sexual assault" is now synonymous with "rape" in the mind of the mob, and so rape is all they can see in their imagination. It was recently shown that the meaning of words are stored in the same place in the brain across individuals:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v532/n7600/abs/nature17637.html
Feminists have managed to hijack the semantic mapping of "rape" and meld it with "sexual assault," so now all it takes to create mass hysteria is to accuse sexual assault. This is also how statutory rape works, and how feminists have even managed the absurd feat of creating the concept of female rapists and female sex offenders. These are all about metaphors, and metaphors are all you need to create lynch mobs and criminal convictions alike, after legal reforms which are also based on metaphors rather than reality.
Because the meanings of words have so extreme consequences when they are enshrined in criminal law, and even when they aren't, it is important not to let the metaphors get out of hand. One thing we need to make absolutely clear is that rape can only be performed with a penis. A real penis. Brock Turner didn't use his penis -- just his fingers -- and women by definition don't have penises so they can't be rapists. If you don't see this, then you are in thrall of metaphors rather than reality and need to break the spell. And we need to turn back the feminist legal reforms which have already so unreasonably expanded the definition of rape in many jurisdictions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
42 comments:
another "privileged white heterosexual male" that got caught being "straight" and there is now a cry to send him to a place where he will have homosexuality forced on him.
I tell ya - I just don't get the mentality these days.
You're right about metaphores. Though I actually don't think it sends most people into hysteria, they just think "oh well its rape so he probably deserved it" without realising that feminists are lying and changed the definition. Sometimes feminists will also pick up a few political useful idiots who get sucked into their expanding definition of rape who otherwise might not have gone along with it. Others may just find it a good chance to bash someone and gain political power by "being tough" (men are particularly guilty of this).
Of course then what happens once convictions have been obtained using a carefully expanded definition of rape is that those who are smart enough to realise feminists convicted a harmless man under an expanded definition then become afraid to speak up - how can the whole world be supporting locking up a man who is obviously innocent they ask? Eventually some others may notice that the definition has been expanded but by then it is too late, it is "normal" to arrest men under the expanded definition. Over time it becomes completely "normalised", people are born and grow up in a society with the expanded definition and don't question it. Behaviours start to change, people act differently, reality becomes warped which adds further justification to the expanded definition. For example, it used to be that loads of blokes would bang 15 year olds, but now it's non-existent, so people think the feminist laws are scientifically correct - normal men don't have sex with 15yos. In reality it's just because of the violence inflicted by the law over decades.
I'd be a little careful about saying that rape can only be done with a penis though as that just feeds into the feminist anti-male idea. I'd rather point out that rape is only sex that is both forceful intercourse and without consent. That said these technicalities of definition are often too boring for a lot of people and don't make a headline, which makes me wonder if a better approach is to call for all rape to be legalised, get attention, then point out that rape is only sex that is both without consent and forceful intercourse. That seems to have been Roosh's tactic and so far he has both got attention and avoided prison, though unfortunately he now seems to be claiming that underage sex is all rape so he's perhaps not the MRA frontrunner we'd all like.
I disagree with defining rape as "sex that is both forceful intercourse and without consent" if by that you mean to include the possibility that women can rape men, and also if you mean to include the penetration of other objects beside a penis.
And the reason I believe that, is because rape is so much more than a forceful act that you don't want to submit to. It also needs to be a more profound violation, if we are going to keep the category of rape as a particularly heinous crime worse than comparable nonsexual violence (and given that all cultures have had this idea, I don't think it is realistic to dispense with it).
Let's take a look at the justification for treating rape as a distinct category of serious crime. To do so, we need to take a scientific view of what rape is. The best science that I am aware of is summarized here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiological_theories_of_rape
Consider this section especially and my highlights:
"Women’s defenses
Women may have developed several defenses against and strategies to avoid rape. One is a partner preference for men that are effective bodyguards against other men such as physically and socially dominant men (although there may also be other evolutionary reasons for such a preference). Another is great psychological pain which according to some research is greatest during the childbearing years. Other research[who?] have argued that the emotional pain may cause the women to focus on the social circumstances that enabled the rape with the aim to prevent future rapes."
If this is true, then isn't this kind of adaptive traumatization the real reason why nearly all humans agree that rape is a serious crime? The adaptations which entail so much traumatization subconsciously underlie our revulsion to rape. And that also means you can't mess around with the definition too much without removing the justification for treating rape as a serious crime. I submit that only a real penis can reliably cause the kind traumatization mentioned above. If you want to argue that women can rape males, then you need to demonstrate that men possess similar adaptations which tend to kick in when women "rape" men. That position is both theoretically implausible and inconsistent with the evidence of how males actually react to female sexual coercion.
And if you want expand the definition of rape to other objects and digital penetration, then witness how women don't tend to describe themselves as raped in such cases, but rather "nearly raped" (as Brock Turner's victim herself says in her victim statement!) or a victim of some lesser sexual assault. The conclusion must be that a penis is needed in all cases of true rape.
Well yes it might be fair to define sex as "rape that is forceful intercourse with a penis and without consent", though from a political standpoint I might prefer to leave the "with a penis" as something silently implied :)
On the otherhand to go deeper into the philosophy of rape...
- One point I'd make is that with the advent of "morning after pills" the consequences of rape maybe less than they once were. Yet ironically the sentences are becoming more draconian.
- Another more important point is you suggest nearly all humans view rape as a serious crime and have a "revulsion to rape". However, historically rape was very different to what it is now, and I mean even if you go back 40 years to a "liberal" 1970 definition of rape the definition of rape then was very different to what it had been hundreds of years ago. One need look no further than the bible for an example of a historical definition:
if a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives
(see here: http://www.equip.org/bible_answers/how-could-the-bible-command-a-rape-victim-to-marry-her-rapist/)
So I think this "revulsion about rape" is not "instinctive" but a way of organising society. Today the view is that if a man rapes he is evil and must be beaten to death, historically they would let him go as long as serves his wife for as long as he lives showing that people didn't automatically want to kill rapists. Even in the 1970s sentences for rape were not all that long. I think a prison sentence of under half a decade would not be unusual for stranger rape, showing that people saw it as a lesser crime than murder. However, Susan Brownmiller's work - which unscientifically stated that "rape is about power" changed all that.
I'd also add that if I just look at myself I've never had a revulsion about rape - I really couldn't care less to be perfectly honest and I do think there are more serious crimes (such as murder or feminism). I'm also not aware of animals having a concept of "rape" and punishing "rapists". Probably the closest animals get is the historical human definition where adultery is seen as the more serious issue (the alpha male might kill a beta male who tries to have sex with his mate).
In the end society and its morals are all about the combination of the petty self interests of all its inhabitants and what most of them - or the most powerful group of them - collectively perceive as the way forward. So the question to ask is perhaps less what is the "correct" definition of rape but what kind of society would you like to see and how can you get everyone else to have the same vision?
The link you provided about rape in biblical times actually indicates that it was quite a big deal:
"First, the Mosaic Law is hardly about letting a rapist off easy. The consequence for raping a woman engaged to be married was stoning (Deuteronomy 22:25). If the woman was not engaged, the rapist was spared for the sake of the woman’s security. Having lost her virginity, she would have been deemed undesirable for marriage—and in the culture of the day, a woman without a father or husband to provide for her would be subject to a life of abject poverty, destitution, and social ostracism. As such, the rapist was compelled to provide for the rape victim for as long as he lived. Thus, far from barbaric, the law was a cultural means of protection and provision."
It is true that the punishment for rape has escalated tremendously in recent years, while the definition has been perversely expanded at the same time. However, escalating punishment is also true for other crimes, so you need to take the general level of penalties into account. Here in Norway, I remember that in the 1980s and as late as the 1990s, a real rape would typically be punished by no more than 3 years or so in prison. But if you beat someone within an inch of their life and even made them a brain-damaged invalid, you would get less than that, a few months or maybe up to a couple of years. Horrific violence is still punished much less severely than rape, but the punishment for both has increased. Even so, the punishment for sexual crimes has increased disproportionately, which of course is a big reason to be a men's rights activist. At present the standard punishment starts at four and a half years for drunken regret-rape (which used to be called sexual exploitation rather than rape and punished by a few months if at all) and goes up to potentially indefinite preventative detention when there is violence and even sometimes when there isn't. The present state is pure madness.
I don't think we are going to get around seeing rape as a serious crime, somewhere between the worst violence you can think of and murder. But we do need to define it sensibly and punish it appropriately, neither of which is done today. I personally don't agree that rape is worse than torture and grievous bodily harm, but that's where all cultures seem to put it, so I have given up fighting that assessment. I think the most fruitful thing we can do is to fight for a reasonable definition, and of course repudiate the concept of statutory rape and all that metaphorical nonsense which makes it out to be rape when it isn't.
"The link you provided about rape in biblical times actually indicates that it was quite a big deal:"
But it more centered around the idea of adultery being a big deal than lack of consent. Also, stoning was common in those times - heck it used to be in Britain that if a man stole a horse then he would get the death penalty. My point is not that the world used to be a wonderful libertarian place but that perceptions have completely changed. They had a totally different idea of what exactly rape was, what it meant and what should be done about it. So some things (such as raping a virgin) that are considered heinous now were considered manageable back then.
"Here in Norway, I remember that in the 1980s and as late as the 1990s, a real rape would typically be punished by no more than 3 years or so in prison. But if you beat someone within an inch of their life and even made them a brain-damaged invalid, you would get less than that, a few months or maybe up to a couple of years."
Well in Britain if you raped then 4 years wouldn't be far off the mark, but if you murdered it would have been life (that is the mandatory minimum - though you will probably be released on license eventually). So at least they made a clear distinction there!
"I don't think we are going to get around seeing rape as a serious crime, somewhere between the worst violence you can think of and murder. But we do need to define it sensibly and punish it appropriately, neither of which is done today. I personally don't agree that rape is worse than torture and grievous bodily harm, but that's where all cultures seem to put it, so I have given up fighting that assessment. I think the most fruitful thing we can do is to fight for a reasonable definition, and of course repudiate the concept of statutory rape and all that metaphorical nonsense which makes it out to be rape when it isn't."
Well I think it's all part of the same thing. They are lying about what exactly rape is and what it means in the same way they lie about statutory rape and what that means. Nonsense like "rape is a crime worse than murder" and "rape is the patriarchy seeking power over women" etc are all statements that seek to make rape out to be a worse crime than it really is. When/if power shifts and the feminazis influence weakens or is overpowered by a more motivated men's rights movement then I think we should see the hysteria on rape fall and people can take a more rational view as to its seriousness.
And in any case - as far as I know - I don't think anyone has seriously (as in high profile) tried to argue that rape is a crime of only moderate severity in all of history! So how do we know whether people will accept the idea or not!?
I guess I just feel that arguing that rape is not so serious is a big part of the MRA struggle - even if you just want to restrict the breadth of definition. Afterall, if you take the current feminist definitions of rape then I think it's reasonable to say that rape is a victimless crime. So one can start there and get all the feminazis furious and outraged!
I think there is probably a good reason for why nobody has seriously argued that rape is a crime of only moderate severity in all of history. On the contrary, we have a rich legal and literary tradition portraying rape as a very serious crime. Take for example Shakespeare's poem "The Rape of Lucrece." In that story, which goes all the way back to 510 BC, rape is so bad that it leads to suicide. I certainly agree that most of what feminists and the law now call rape is victimless, but I don't see how we can go against our entire cultural tradition and expect to be taken seriously. What we need to do is to roll back all the feminist reforms that have expanded and perverted the concept, all the way back to first-wave feminism's efforts to raise the age of consent. What remains after all these reforms have been quashed seems to me like a reasonable definition of rape which needs no further resistance. If we claim that ALL rape is victimless or argue that the entire concept should be trivialized, then I don't think anybody will take us seriously. But the need to fight these feminist legal reforms is something I can't emphasize enough -- it is the raison d'être of the Men's Rights Movement.
Well Roosh tried to trivialise it by saying that rape on private property should be legal which seemed to get attention and got the message across :-) Feminists refuse to have rational debate and have shown they won't take us seriously anyway so we might as well say what we like. They just need to know we exist and we aren't going away! People didn't used to take paedohysteria seriously - they used to claim it was just a tabloid thing - but because feminists kept going on about it we ended up where we are... So we can do the same back!
Anyway, we are starting to pick nits now, all a matter of tactics :) You do your thing, I'll do mine and we'll see what happens!
Somewhat unpoetically said, the Pussy was created to receive that tool, while noses have not been created to be broken by a fist, lungs do not exist to be perforated by a knife, and the purpose of kidneys is not to be smashed by a gang of thugs with iron bars. Therefore, when violent criminals are treated much softer than so-called rapists, the reason for this can only be a moralistic one.
Yes, unless the rape-avoidance adaptations mentioned above really produce so much psychological pain that rape is comparable to grievous bodily harm. And sometimes there might be maladaptive reactions such as self-harm and even suicide, which clearly qualifies, but I don't know how common that is. I would like to see more honest research on this, which isn't very easy to come by because the subject is so tainted by ideology.
Ironically, feminists deny that those adaptations exist, as they deny evolutionary psychology altogether and claim that rape is a crime of violence rather than sex. So certainly within the feminist world-view, there is no justification for treating rape as a more serious crime than the actual violence involved.
In my view, the evidence from biology and culture indicates that there is likely a kernel of truth to the claim that rape is a particularly heinous crime almost comparable to murder, provided that it is properly defined. Vaginas are certainly designed for sex, but we also know that women are designed by evolution to be incredibly picky. So when their choosiness is interfered with, it is not surprising that there would be serious consequences.
And the proper definition of rape is "human copulation resisted by the victim to the best of her ability unless she or someone she commonly protects would otherwise likely be killed or seriously injured." Nothing less is acceptable.
And in addition, criminal intent (mens rea) must be required in order to convict a rapist, which excludes all the drunken regret-rape cases and situations where women merely feel threatened without a deliberate, credible threat at the level of death or serious injury.
I realize that one might gain attention by making ridiculous statements such as "rape should be legal on private property" -- and I have done something similar myself when I argued that rape is equality -- but at the end of the day, unless we promote a sound theory of rape which includes sensible laws, I don't think we deserve to be taken seriously. Roosh is merely a clown who even appears to accept the feminist gibberish about female sex offenders and statutory rape.
nooooooooow
Am I an evillle vyctym blamer if I would refuse to "go drinking" with "men" of the manuresphere such as Jack Donovan, Roosh V or Aaron Clarey?
Or am I just a hom-0-phobe (tm) ???
would you please care to comment?
https://www.nrk.no/ytring/nar-norske-kvinner-kjoper-sex-1.13032211
That's a feminist propaganda piece by Lene Wikander which laments that female sexuality isn't demonized as much as male sexuality. Pure, unadulterated sex-hostility. And in addition, this bitch denies sex differences and tries to portray black men who have sex with older, wealthier white women as "victims." It is political correctness taken to its most extreme and disgusting. This hateful drivel is so predictable that you would think it is a parody, but the bitch actually seems to be sincere.
It is a lie that those older women aren't sex objects at home as well. Of course they are; just not as much as young women. And female sex tourism is such a marginal phenomenon that it hardly matters anyway.
I left this comment:
Et godt eksempel på det jeg har sagt lenge, nemlig at feminismen bare er en ren hatbevegelse mot seksualitet. Her sies det rett ut at problemet er at kvinnelig seksualitet ikke er så demonisert og straffeforfulgt som mannlig. Det er hatet i seg selv som er målet, mot både mannlig og kvinnelig seksualitet. I tillegg til å oppkonstruere falske "ofre," selvfølgelig. Og å benekte kjønnsforskjeller. Det er løgn at disse eldre damene ikke er sexobjekter hjemme også; de er bare litt mindre etterspurt enn yngre kvinner, men sammenlignet med menn er de like fullt sexobjekter, og det finnes massevis av horer i den alderen som selger sex til menn i Norge, inkludert unge menn.
Se der ja! Noen som har gjort det samme som deg, men i USA:
http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/nordmann-pagrepet-for-drapstrusler-mot-amerikansk-politi/60358486
Nå vil du kanskje hevde at du ikke kom med trusler, men du skrev ihvertfall om å stikke ned en politibetjent med kniv, så.. tja saken kan minne om din. Men dette er i USA blir spennende å se om de er så meget mere tolerante enn i Norge.
Det er ikke bare noe jeg "hevder" at jeg ikke kom med trusler. Ikke engang politiet oppfattet det som trusler, og jeg var aldri siktet for trusler. Lær deg forskjellen på oppvigling og trusler!
Jeg skrev at jeg på et tidspunkt i fortiden hadde bestemt meg for å stikke en politimann med kniv i protest mot sedelighetslovene, men så slått fra meg de planene over ett år før jeg skrev om dem. Det jeg var anklaget for, var å oppfordre andre til å drepe politi. Denne saken i USA er overhodet ikke sammenlignbar med min, da det virker som den fyren var dum nok til å faktisk fremsette trusler. USA har høy toleranse for oppvigling, men trusler er noe helt annet.
This case with Brock Turner and his female alleged victim. What if the roles had been reversed? What would happen to her?
Hei!
Du virker veldig systematisk i ditt syn på livet, stemmer det?
Har et par spørsmål til deg:
- tror du på en eksistens etter døden?
- hvorfor er tyveri galt?
- er du en moralist?
- hva er bevissthet?
- kan vitenskapen forklare opprinnelse? Kan noe kommer fra ingenting?
Håper du vil ta deg tid å svare.
Mvh,
Inge
Jeg har ikke noen systematisk filosofi som jeg bekjenner meg til, men kanskje jeg burde utarbeide en...
Jeg tror at bevisstheten skapes av hjernen vår, så jeg kan ikke se hvordan den kan fortsette etter døden når hjernen er borte. Uten å være skråsikker så er det i hvert fall livet før døden jeg forholder meg til, da noe annet blir altfor spekulativt.
Tyveri er galt fordi det skader andre, og fordi jeg kan bli utsatt for det selv og helst vil leve i et samfunn hvor det ikke er akseptabelt.
Er jeg moralist? Det kommer an på hva du mener med «moralist». Jeg synes ikke jeg er noen moralist i den tradisjonelle betydningen, men jeg er lidenskapelig opptatt av å kjempe mot de feministiske sedelighetslovene og vårt samfunns irrasjonelle og hatefulle seksualmoral, fordi jeg mener den er dypt umoralsk, og det plager meg veldig. Det er umoralsk å straffe for offerløs kriminalitet, altså, og intellektuelt uærlig å definere overgrep på bakgrunn av svada som lavalder og barneporno og de fleste andre definisjonene i sedelighetslovene. Men nå er det jo slik at tidligere tiders moralisme også var ekstremt seksualfiendtlig og gjerne ville straffe akkurat de samme tingene; forskjellen var bare at man begrunnet det med «synd» i stedet for «overgrep». Jeg har tatt et oppgjør med begge deler og står for en helt annen, mye mer rasjonell og godhjertet moral, men du kan godt si at jeg er like moralistisk på min egen måte. Jeg ekstremt mye mer opptatt av å agitere for min moral enn folk flest, som bare går med strømmen, i den grad at jeg til og med har vært fengslet for det.
Det virker som undertrykking av seksualiteten sitter dypt i menneskeheten, eller i hvert fall i vår kultur, så det tok ikke lang tid før fraværet av en moralisme basert på synd mot Gud ble erstattet med overgrepshysteri, som nå på mange måter har blitt enda verre. Det finnes overhodet ingen grenser for hva folk flest vil akseptere som «misbruk» og «overgrep» og derfor la folk bli straffet for, så mannskampen er nærmest fullstendig håpløs. Men min moralske overbevisning om å kjempe mot falske definisjoner av overgrep driver meg til å fortsette likevel. OK, jeg er vel en utpreget moralist, da.
Vi vet lite om hva bevissthet egentlig er, annet enn at det på enn eller annen måte oppstår i hjernen, som er et resultat av biologisk evolusjon, som kommer av at det tilfeldigvis var gode forhold for liv på jorden. Så snart du har slike forhold, er det enkelt å forstå livet som den mest effektive måten å utjevne energiforskjeller på, og vår industrielle sivilisasjon som en eksplosjon av fossil energi som formelig ventet på å bli antent. Vi er her for å produsere entropi. Men det er en forklaring som forutsetter at universet begynte langt fra termisk likevekt, og hvorfor det gjorde det, kan jeg ikke svare på.
Nei, jeg kan ikke skjønne at noe kan komme fra ingenting. Den forklaringen er vel ikke noe bedre enn å si at vi ikke kan forklare hvordan universet har oppstått. Så jeg vet ikke svaret.
Hei! Takk for gode svar.
Mange vil si at du er naiv og hjernevasket av moralisme-ideer som kjemper for "det rette" i stedet for å bli konge og ta makten og dermed gjøre hva du vil. Hva sier du til det perspektivet?
Inge
Jeg tror at i den grad jeg har håp om å utøve noen innflytelse, så må det være ved å overbevise andre om at mitt syn er moralsk riktig.
Å bli konge har jeg særdeles dårlige forutsetninger for, men hvis jeg hadde det, så skulle jeg vurdert om det var en bedre strategi :)
Hvorfor er det viktig for deg å kjempe for "det moralsk rette" nå som du har funnet kjærligheten og ikke søker sex? Du er jo ikke religiøs.
Jeg visste ikke at man trengte å være religiøs for å kjempe for rettferdighet og mot urett. Det finnes mange aktivister som hverken er religiøst eller egoistisk motiverte. Dyrevernsaktivister, for eksempel. Jeg er litt mer egoistisk enn dem siden jeg her mann selv og kjemper for menns rettigheter, men det er ganske sammenlignbart.
Kanskje empati er et mer dekkende ord enn moralisme. Det er jo ikke moralske regler i seg selv jeg er opptatt av, men å kjempe mot konsekvensene av umoralske lover, og man trenger i hvert fall ikke være religiøs for å ha empati. Sedelighetslovene gjør skade absolutt hele tiden. Jeg føler personlig med alle som blir anklaget, alle som blir forfulgt av politiet, og alle som sitter i fengsel på umoralsk og ondskapsfullt grunnlag. Derfor eitrer jeg av hat mot feministstaten uavhengig av min personlige situasjon.
Tror du ikke et samfunn med mye større seksuell frihet vil gjøre samfunnet mer ustabilt? Mye sjalusi i familiene, mer frykt for at barn skal ledes på gale stier, flere virile menn som aldri blir fornøyd?
Nei, for jeg kan ikke se at dagens sexlover har noen betydelig innvirkning på seksuell atferd. For eksempel, forhindrer sexkjøpsloven noen menn fra å kjøpe sex? Nei, den er bare et verktøy som purkejævelen bruker til å forfølge menn når de føler for det.
Samme med lavalder, barneporno, det utflytende voldtektsbegrepet osv. Ingenting av dette påvirker vår seksuelle atferd i nevneverdig grad, men det gjør at purken får boltret seg i å forfølge menn så langt de har ressurser til det. Sedelighetslovgivning og håndhevelsen av disse lovene er nesten utelukkende et spørsmål om hvor store ressurser vi skal bruke på å undertrykke en seksualitet som alltid vil være der. Effekten på atferd tror jeg ikke du klarer å måle engang. Tror du folk oppfører seg annerledes nå som menn risikerer å bli dømt for «voldtekt» når kvinner angrer seg etter sex i beruset tilstand, kontra hva de gjorde før år 2000 da dette ikke var definert som voldtekt og straffen bare var en tiendedel om det ble straffet i det hele tatt? Jeg kan ikke se at oppførselen vår har endret seg etter alle feministreformene, men den institusjonaliserte volden mot menn har eskalert noe vanvittig, og det er det som er mitt anliggende. Og fremdeles er ikke feministene fornøyd. En ny runde med utvidelse av voldtektsbegrepet er under behandling, og sannsynligvis fjerning av juryordningen, men det vil heller ikke påvirke oppførselen i praksis, kun fylle fengslene opp med flere menn.
Hvorfor studerte du ikke psykologi? Ville ikke det vært det ultimate for deg?
Det er mye man skulle studert. Jeg tok faktisk et innføringskurs i psykologi da jeg gikk på college, men var mer interessert i å studere andre ting i dybden. Jeg visste allerede da at jeg i hvert fall ikke ville bli klinisk psykolog på grunn av mannshatet som følger med den stillingen. En leveregel jeg har er å ikke ta stillinger som er underlagt hatefulle seksuelle tabuer. Nå går de hatske tabuene som feministene har trumfet igjennom riktignok veldig mye lenger enn å være forbundet med visse stillinger, men en trenger ikke hjelpe feministene ved å stille seg så lagelig til. Det utelukker å være terapeut, lege, lærer og lignende som gjør deg til et latterlig lettvint offer for sedelighetslovene. Hvis menn systematisk hadde boikottet slike stillinger i protest mot feminismen, så tror jeg mye hadde vært gjort for å dempe sexhatet. Så jeg går foran som et godt eksempel med håp om å inspirere hat tilbake mot myndighetene fra menn på denne måten også.
war on drugs:
https://tv.nrk.no/serie/folkeopplysningen/KMTE50009615/sesong-3/episode-3
Brock Turner having to register as a sex offender for life. Was that judge Aaron Persky's decision or was that totally out of the judge's control? The judge did say "I think he will not be a danger to others.”
Well, the sex offender registry is basically meaningless anyway, as it includes trivial victimless offenses like urinating in public, so it's not surprising that he was put on it. Only a gullible fool would take sex offender registration seriously in any context.
Judge Aaron Perskey also said "A prison sentence would have a severe impact on him." You know what will have a severe impact on him? Brock being on the sex offender registry for life. Brock Turner was sentenced to 6 months in jail, got out in 3 months. Feminists accuse the judge of going way too easy on Brock. Feminists want to see Aaron Persky impeached.
In cases like Brock Turner's, does the judge get to decide whether or not the alleged offender has to register as a sex offender AND for how long? Or is all that totally out of the judge's control? Does anyone here know the answer?
I don't know the answer to that, but I know the sex offender registry is bullshit. It is the sort of thing that can only mess up your life if people obsequiously take it seriously, which I don't. I don't think less of anybody simply for being labeled a sex offender, because I know most sex crimes are victimless or unfairly defined. Changing people's attitudes would go a long way towards invalidating this tool of oppression which only relies on people's prejudices and willingness to be brainwashed by feminist sex-hostility. Men's rights activism is all about influencing these attitudes (and laws, but the attitudes are the easy part). And the best way to do that is to admit that we are all sex offenders by feminist definitions, and be proud of it. They can't shame us for something we proudly display.
Eivind, when's your next article coming up?
I haven't given up on blogging; in fact I am working on several draft articles. But it's going slowly because of the profound hatred evoked by these issues. For one thing, I am writing a commentary on all the Norwegian sex laws. This will be a sort of manifesto for men's rights, raising awareness about hateful sex laws and putting forth how they really should be, which encapsulates nearly everything we stand for as far as I'm concerned. Because of the seething hatred that the current sex laws breed in me against the authorities, this is a challenging task. It needs to be written, but I can only take this level of toxicity in small doses. Perhaps I should write some blog posts on pleasant or neutral topics sometimes to preserve my sanity.
I am very different than most people in that I react to odious laws with a deserved measure of hatred. I have been vehemently against the drug war since my early youth, for example, but there is something extra intimate about sex laws which engenders a hate like no other. I roil and tremble with the profoundest hatred against the government for criminalizing my sexuality and can't comprehend how most people manage to be so complacent about it. That's just the way I am; I internalized moral outrage against hateful feminist sex laws instead of the anti-sex hysteria prescribed by these laws. Though I didn't even break the law, the fact that I have been imprisoned for expressing my moral convictions, which rarely happens to anyone else in Norway, correctly signifies the depth of my hatred in contrast to the meek hordes who are swayed by the normative power of laws.
By the way, after many delays, my compensation trial for wrongful imprisonment is now finally coming up in the court of appeals on October 13th (Gulating lagmannsrett), and I will be sure to blog about how that goes.
Eivind, har du aldrig overvejet at stille op til valget til Stortinget?
Komiker dømt for trusler.
Kristian Valen er dømt til 21 dagers fengsel for trusler mot politiet. På sitt facebook-nettsted skrev han det som av retten blir omtalt som alvorlige trusler da politiet kom og hentet den skadede samboeren hans mot hennes vilje:«10 000 kr. til de som kjenner og vet hvor disse politifolkene bor» og «Neste gang tror eg de vil angre». Dommen inkluderer også en episode hvor Valen ble tatt med lekevåpen på offentlig sted.
Skal det liksom være alvorlige trusler??? De ytringene hans fremstår riktignok som trusler, men de er så lite konkrete og fremsatt i en så tafatt kontekst at jeg ikke kan forstå at de er egnet til å fremkalle alvorlig frykt. At terskelen er lav for trusler er ingen nyhet, og spesielt mot politiet, men denne dommen trekker det vel langt og virker urimelig. Det er jo ironisk at det er så lett å bli dømt for vagt truende, useriøse uttalelser sagt i affekt mens de ekstremt mye mer hatske og grundig gjennomtenkte meningene som jeg står for er lovlige. Det er farligere å være klovn enn seriøst opprørsk politisk aktivist, merkelig nok, men sånn er det tydeligvis. Det har jeg vært klar over hele tiden, og alltid passet på å unngå å si noe som kan oppfattes som trusler, uansett hvor uskyldig det måtte høres ut. Det skal heldigvis veldig mye til for å bli dømt for generelle politiske meningsytringer (med mindre man mener noe som går under rasismeparagrafen), men så snart det er enkeltpersoner inne i bildet, eller man snakker om fremtidige planer, så er det best å holde kjeft.
Til tross for lovligheten ble jeg også fengslet like lenge som Valen, så hvis jeg ikke får erstatning, så spiller det jo liten rolle hva man faktisk kan bli dømt for. Derfor er det ekstremt viktig ikke bare for meg, men for ytringsfriheten at jeg får erstatning.
Om jeg har vurdert å stille til valg? Ja, men det er ingen partier jeg passer inn i. Alle partiene på Stortinget konkurrerer om å lage de mest hatefulle sexlovene. Før trodde jeg at høyresiden var hakket mindre ondskapsfull, men det ble grundig avkreftet av den sittende regjeringen, som har avskaffet foreldelsesfristen for en rekke sedelighetslover og nå vil utvide voldtektsbegrepet enda mer og fjerne juryen, bare for å nevne noe.
Valens problem er at han har vært enormt naiv. Han har ikke forstått at politiet er en institusjon som liker å bruke makt for å forfølge de man ikke liker. Valen har tidligere vært i klammeri med purken. Det kan faktisk og være at den norske misunnelsen slår til igjen, akkurat som i tilfellet med Nerdrum. Man takler rett og slett ikke aktører med kommersiell suksess, om da disse ikke er et produkt av den politisk korrekte åndselite. Jeg kan vanskelig se at uttalelsene kan ansees som trusler. Men for å sette det hele i perspektiv så ble følgende sak henlagt:
https://www.nrk.no/norge/holdt-nede-av-vekter-med-halsgrep_-_-trodde-jeg-skulle-do-1.13000512
Tilstanden i Norge anno 2016 er slik at man kan komme unna med drapsforsøk på den ene siden, men bli fengslet for bagateller på den andre. Det er ganske skremmende at rettsstaten har spilt slik fallitt.
Det er helt tydelig at politiet har en personlig agenda mot Kristian Valen, ja. De kaller ham idiot på Facebook og sender til og med spesialstyrker mot en lekepistol, som er helt absurd da de vet han ikke har hatt våpen siden 2007.
http://www.nettavisen.no/nyheter/innenriks/politibetjent-kalte-kristian-valen-idiot-og-forkastelig-pa-sin-facebook-profil/3423267630.html
Valen blir trakassert av politiet ved den minste unnskyldning og fortjener vår sympati, men jeg må si jeg er skuffet over hans utsagn om at han har respekt for lover og regler og «er av den sterke mening at alle må innrette seg etter landets lover og regler.» Jeg ville heller sagt at det er tilrådelig å innrette seg etter lovene av pragmatiske grunner, men at jeg slett ikke har noen moralsk respekt for mange av Norges lover. Tvert imot nærer jeg et ekstremt hat mot dem, spesielt sedelighetslovene, men også narkotikalovene og en rekke andre, og jeg går så langt som å forherlige enkelte forbrytelser offentlig. I det minste sier han at han ikke er enig med alle lovene, men dette blir for tamt, altfor apolitisk. Han har ikke noe å tape på å håne loven, eller forherlige lovbrudd for den del, da alt dette er fullt lovlig, så jeg skjønner ikke hvorfor han prøver å fremstå som et politisk underkastet dydsmønster.
Post a Comment