Saturday, October 01, 2016

The Men's Movement has lost

The world has changed beyond my most dystopian nightmares. False rape has now been fully institutionalized. Ever since I started blogging, feminist corruption of rape law has been the most important issue, and now it has reached a level where women are literally handed a blank check to accuse rape for any sex that they have any bad feelings about whatsoever. The new panacea for accusing rape is called "emotional control," which of course is an element of all relationships. Men in feminist countries should be very afraid of relationships, because they all by definition involve some degree of emotional control. The fact that Norwegian law has reached this point is spectacularly evinced by the case against Julio Kopseng, who got convicted and sentenced to 21 years of preventative detention -- which means up to life in prison and is the maximum punishment under Norwegian law -- based on relationships redefined as rape. One woman claims he "raped" her hundreds of times, but she didn't bother to leave him. Yes, women are now fully empowered to regret entire relationships and redefine them as rape. A recent example from the UK also makes this clear. When this is now rape, not just in feminist theory but in practice, it has gone so far that my imagination fails me beyond this point: A woman "said she submitted to his unwanted sexual advances after he threatened to leave her if she did not have sex with him," and for that Ryan Kennedy is convicted as a rapist.

When the justice system goes along with these kinds of charades and presents them as rape with a straight face, and there is hardly anyone who even questions the underlying legal definitions, then it is time to declare complete defeat for the Men's Movement. We have lost completely and are left only with the rage in our hearts -- the few of us who still care, that is. Feminists have been granted everything they asked for and more, or shortly will be, to the tune of cheering manginas crowding out any real opposition from MRAs.

Ryan Kennedy and Julio Kopseng may well be assholes and narcissists, but these women CHOSE to be in relationships with them. They CHOSE to submit again and again, by their own admission, because they valued the relationships above not having sex. And for this they are now legally entitled to have a man convicted as a rapist because they feel bad about THEIR OWN decisions. When women find it worthwhile to stay with jerks for whatever reason, that is their CHOICE. It is not the men's fault that women are attracted to them, unless you believe women are like small children who are incapable of making their own decisions. Which is how the law now defines them. A man is such a worthless piece of shit under feminist justice that he goes to jail for women's choices. If you think this is justice, then you are a scumbag and a mangina and I hate your guts.

The feminist police state ensures that women can have their cake and eat it. Then can enjoy whatever it is that attracts them to bad boys and have state-enforced revenge for any emotional discomfort, too, even if it didn't rise to the level of making them want to get out of the relationship. This is so unspeakably unjust that I don't have words strong enough for the hatred in my heart against feminist rape law reform and all the manginas who enable and enforce it. If men don't revolt against this kind of "justice" system, they never will. The institutionalized hatred against men is now perpetrated all the way out in the open without any attempt to make up a remotely plausible rape story, because none is needed -- we simply get an explicit admission that women can submit to sex for their own selfish reasons and regret it later and have it redefined as rape with the full cooperation of the legal system. Feminists have won completely and the Men's Rights Movement is utterly and completely irrelevant. We are just a handful of men still speaking the voice of reason while the world has gone insane. I keep the flame of antifeminist hatred burning in my heart in the hope that I one day might inspire other men to feel the same way and fight back, but I realize that the chance of that happening is practically zero. The feminists and manginas have already inherited the earth.

Further evidence of how feckless we are is the degeneration of many former men's sites into white supremacism and other nonsense -- the so-called alt-right. For example, the blogger formerly known as Roissy in DC, now called Chateau Heartiste, when he isn't busy pushing racism or fat shaming women, promotes the feminist definition of rape. He has literally internalized feminist slogans about sex without consent as his normative definition of rape. Men like Ryan Kennedy and Julio Kopseng would be convicted under that definition, and we could all be, but he doesn't care. I left the following modest comment, but nobody paid attention to it:
This is a disappointing post which basically confuses feminist slogans with the law and doesn’t even question whether they should be the law.

Simply saying no to sex, no matter how sincerely, does not make it rape by any reasonable definition, and indeed not even legally so except in the most extreme feminist jurisdictions (such as the UK since the Sexual Offenses Act of 2003, but not most of the US or Scandinavia, for example). Contrary to feminist slogans, most jurisdictions still require an element of coercion or unconsciousness. Verbal resistance is not enough to make it rape, because rape isn’t defined in relation to consent at all, but as sex accomplished by coercion. After all the feminist reforms to rape law, that coercion can be very trivial indeed, such as threatening to break up a relationship, but sex against a woman’s will does still not constitute rape in itself. Rape is sex *accomplished* by force, not just sex without consent. This conceptual distinction is very important, at least in theory. Rape law has been corrupted, but it hasn’t been corrupted to the extent indicated by CH in most countries including his own. Instead of embracing a definition of rape more extreme than feminists have yet managed to receive, men should be fighting for the restoration of the traditional definition which necessitated force or threats at the level of serious violence to make it rape.
I must conclude that even in the former manosphere, most men are not seriously opposed to feminism anymore. What Roissy is doing is the equivalent of letting feminists win by walkover, and that sums up the current sorry state of the Men's Movement.

50 comments:

holocaust21 said...

The problem is the general public haven't heard your message. They only hear the feminist message so they believe feminism. Even people who end up taking a more MRA stance are brought up and indoctrinated under feminism so they will take a lot of feminist dogmas as being facts when they are infact lies.

You need to get your message out there to all of Norway (and the world, for that matter)! Make yourself into a brand like Milo Yiannopoulis (but less of a twat). What I'm trying to figure out is how the fuck he does it. I get the impression he has some inherited wealth and "hangs around a lot of really rich people". I'm not sure how he pulls off the latter part though. I think he also earns a lot through ad revenue on Breitbart. But in any case how does he attract so much attention?

True2God said...

And those men Eivind mentioned, if convicted, then have to register as sex offenders. Is that right?

There was a question I asked before:

"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?"

Eivind deosn't know the answer. Does anyone else know the answer?

caamib said...

I wrote about something akin to this just yesterday

https://caamib.wordpress.com/2016/10/01/various-definitionstypes-of-rape/

You must be aware that the same liberals who promote these definitions rarely apply them to their protected groups. Thus all the justification of rapes made by refugees, for example.

holocaust21 said...

@True2God:

"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?"

This is likely to vary a bit by jurisdiction. I believe under UK law sex offender registration periods are based on prison sentence length. So judges have flexibility in so far as they have flexibility on the length of the prison sentence but they don't directly control the registration period. Prison sentences are themselves to some extent dictated to judges by sentencing guidelines. A judge has some flexibility within these guidelines but if he strays too far then he may find an appeal court will overturn the sentence. Of course in practice it tends to be that appeal courts will allow lengthy unreasonable sentences for anyone male convicted of a sex crime but will also allow short sentences for anyone female convicted of a sex crime (fair, eh?).

As for US law which Brock was sentenced under it's a bit different and rather more complex due to the different laws in different states. I *think* sex offender registration periods tend to be like the UK not directly controlled by the judge but unlike the UK it is the category of crime that usually dictates the registration period, not the actual prison sentence handed out by the judge. That's why Brock Turner has to register for life as a sex offender even though he only received 6 months in prison. The category of crime dictated his registration period, not his sentence length. I guess this means in effect in the US the judge has no control over his registration period at all as it is the jury who decide on guilt. Although, of course, the judge guides the jury so in theory a moral judge should be able to encourage them to return a not guilty verdict.

Anonymous said...

Can't win when women are able to vote. Maybe if men were required to pre-register with the police to have sex like that case in England or to have sex only under supervision of government officials women would at least feel some minor inconvenience of their policies...but more likely they'd drift into the state-supported lesbian lifestyle

? said...

I notice on CoAlphaAntiModernistIncelBlogger, you have to type in your e-mail address to post a comment. Have you ever considered removing that requirement?

Tal Hartsfeld said...

I think it's tragic, this "Hatfield's vs. the McCoy's syndrome" aspect of male-female relationships and interactions .

It's like instead of men and women simply being the two genders of the same species they're metaphorically "two separate species".

What's even more tragic is the natural inclination of one gender to crave intimacy with someone of the other gender---but that the cultural dogmas and the paranoia people have of "strangers" create too many impenetrable barriers for such to ever be possible to achieve.

One problem with western civilization: Zero "trust factor". There are, simply, too many subversive types corrupting the overall social climate, thus people are always so suspicious of anyone who either hasn't had time to "prove themselves" or who appears to be too "way out there" for them to want to "take a chance with".
Couple all that with the usual social prejudices and stereotypes as well.

ScareCrow said...

I would say that "The Men's Right Movement" never happened to begin with - and - a long winded philosophy of mine would be "A Men's Right's Movement was Never Necessary", and an even longer winded philosophy - which you touched on here - "The Men's Right's Movement is Feminism" - you pointed out that much of it down-graded into feministing rape and white supremacy and whatnot (feminists were originally white supremacists too).

Anyway, I'll save the long-winded philosophies for my own blog, and urge you to watch "30 for 30: Fantastic Lies".

Specifically, pay attention to the AFTERMATH of the Duke Lacrosse Scandal - a HUGE number of students filed lawsuits against Duke University (and won), a corrupt cop committed suicide, and of course - falsely accused students were found NOT GUILTY.

I know it gave me some glimmer of hope - it might do the same for you.

Eivind Berge said...

It felt like the MRM was happening back in Angry Harry's heyday. But perhaps it was an illusion created by one highly talented writer who made it seem like we had an entire movement going when it was just his own flamboyant rhetorics. Then he died and all the remaining MRAs are either relatively obscure (like myself and my commenters here) or have actually embraced feminism (like Roissy and AVfM).

I agree that the Duke lacrosse case was beautifully resolved (the recent Rolling Stone false rape hoax is another uplifting example), but we have done nothing to turn the tide of feminist legislation. Outright lies about rape can still be redressed, but that doesn't help much when the definition of rape is so insanely corrupted that women can regret entire relationships and have them redefined as rape in the eyes of the law, or otherwise have their almighty "consent" invalidated due to intoxication or the most trivial coercion imaginable, or even entirely imaginary coercion in the case of "negligent rape" which is instituted in Norway. The Duke lacrosse liar made the mistake of accusing men whom she had not had sex with, and thus missed the sole remaining objective criterion for a successful rape accusation: that some sort of sexual contact actually happened. While it always feels good to see a false rape accuser exposed, the big picture gives us no cause for celebration.

caamib said...

"I notice on CoAlphaAntiModernistIncelBlogger, you have to type in your e-mail address to post a comment. Have you ever considered removing that requirement?"

I would have no problem with removing the e-mail thing but the problem is that name and e-mail are under the same option. So I'd need to remove nicknames as well, which would often make it really confusing, especially were I to get an influx of new posts. Also, my blog doesn't have the kind of no-moderation policy Eivind's does and I occasionally did use e-mails given out to track the sockpuppets of banned idiots.

As for the e-mail thing it's not really a problem as you can write basically any e-mail. There's no really any way for the system or myself to check if the e-mail even exists. I've had very creative e-mails thought up by haters commenting there. :D If somebody had privacy corcerns over commenting they'd rather have to worry about me tracking IPs, which I cannot deactivate at all.

Anonymous said...

Mannsbevegelsen er sin egen verste fiende. Det er synd, all den tid man kunne trengt en motvekt mot mainstream media, et annet perspektiv, og motsigelser av kvinnegruppers vedtatte sannheter, at ethvert tilløp til mannsgrupperinger så til de grader klarer å male seg inn i et hjørne, eller skyte seg i foten. Mannsgruppen Ottar er et bevis på hvor etterlengtet slike grupperinger er, med tanke på den høye søkermassen. Men hva skjer? De kaster mannssaken ut med badevannet, med sine groviser og annet tullete mumbo jumbo. I stedet for å ha et seriøst fokus med legitim kritikk av det bestående, gjør grupperingen det meget verre for enhver mannssak, i det motstandere enkelt kan tegne et bilde av dem som ekstremister. Man tuller med barn, voldtekt, sexifisering av kvinner osv. og går dermed rett i fella. Kvinnesakskvinner får dem akkurat der de vil ha dem. Og er det ikke slik raljering, så har du meningsytrere som Eivind Berge som ønsker seg svært lav takhøyde for hva MRAere skal få lov til å mene. Om det ikke er 100 prosent match mellom egne meninger og grupperingene, så forkastes alt, i stedet for å kunne ha en mer pragmatisk innstilling, og se hvordan man skrittvis kunne etablert en motvekt og sett dette som positivt, uansett. Dessverre så er det eneste man sitter igjen med når det gjelder Berge og hans like en betegnelse, ekstremisme. Man når ikke igjennom når den betegnelsen festes ved deg, man setter seg selv utenfor. Man kunne hatt en lang debatt om feminismens ekstreme natur, men de har hatt en langt smartere fremgangsmåte. De har ikke, ihvertfall ikke mer enn unntaksvis, kommet med radikale endringer over natten. De har gradvis jobbet frem postulat på postulat, forført og manipulert seg frem holdningsendringer i stadig nye lag av befolkningen. Skal man få til en snuoperasjon må botemiddelet være av samme natur, gradvis etablering av kritiske holdninger. Meningsmotstand og motvekt. Mannsbevegelsen tror ikke på dette. De vil heller sitte på sidelinjen og være radikal, og bent frem fremstå som nyttige idioter for de kunnige feministiske manipulatorene. Gjøre vondt verre, dessverre!

Eivind Berge said...

I disagree with that assessment (in the comment in Norwegian above), where I am accused of intolerance towards other MRAs who refuse to be as "extreme" as I am. In fact, I appreciate all efforts to resist feminism. What I can't tolerate is self-described MRAs who take some aspect of feminism and amplify it, most notably the dimwits who want to punish more women for sex crimes. Their position is that the feminist regime hasn't gone far enough in its abuse hysteria and sex-hostility, which puts them at the extreme end of feminism, so obviously they share no common ground with true MRAs.

I agree that political change can usually only happen incrementally, but at least we need to push in the right direction, which many pseudo-MRAs aren't doing at all. I also feel that I do in fact argue for incremental change most of the time, for example when I simply resist the latest escalation of a sex law, or argue against another planned reform. Yet I am still often accused of extremism when I argue in favor of a position that used to be the law of the land a few short years ago (such as the definition of rape in Norway prior to the year 2000), or hasn't even been reformed yet but soon will be (such as the idea that rape isn't simply sex without consent with no element of coercion needed). So if that's your criteria for extremism, then I don't see a way around it, because anything less extreme would be indistinguishable from feminism or worse.

At least we seem to agree that the men's groups and trolls who spend their time verbally harassing women aren't going about it the right way. The true enemy of men is the odious feminist sex laws and the scumbags who enforce them, and that is what I always focus on. Calling women names on the Internet (or in real life, for that matter) is a complete waste of time. And it makes them look doubly bad when Mannegruppen Ottar is now cowering in fear of the police and scrambling to censor their own tasteless rhetorics because a woman got offended. If you are going to be offensive, at least stand for it like I do, and don't say things you aren't prepared to defend anywhere.

Anonymous said...

Re Roissy/Chateau Heartiste, I'm guessing (as have a number of others) that the current blogger is not the original Roissy who started it back in 2007. Hence the focus on white survival (although he's right about that) and the anti-Semitism (painful to me as a member of The Tribe myself). The original Roissy often spoke highly of Israel, so that's a giveaway too, and the current style is rabid, in contrast to the original Roissy, who was much more thoughtful and witty.

I do agree, however, that the Men's Movement is lost. In the future in the US under what CH calls "thecunt", watch for ever more militant manifestations of the Junior Anti-Sex League mentality woven into public policy. In reaction, I pray for the day when a man who loses everything in his life to a frivolous accusation will simply cut the bitch open. That ought to be an interesting trial, and one in which at least an objective crime will have been committed, rather than in inquisition resulting from someone's pwecious widdle feewings being hur.

Eivind Berge said...

I was under the impression that Cheateu Heartiste is now a group effort, with the original Roissy probably still on the team, but I am not sure about that. The seduction material is still pretty insightful, but the political content is often too racially rabid to be taken seriously and strangely even anti-Semitic, though I have to agree it is also interspersed with some kernels of truth.

I also keep hoping for a backlash from some other direction than MRAs, and that trial scenario would be delightful. There will be unintended consequences from the expanded rape definitions, and in fact we are already seeing them in all the lawsuits brought by falsely accused college men. The Rolling Stone hoax was a real gem with wide-ranging repercussions for feminist credibility and the entire concept of rape culture.

Orwell was highly prescient about the Junior Anti-Sex League, which is now a reality in all but the name. Lately I have been pondering how it is possible for a culture to be so extremely sex-hostile while refusing to admit it at the same time, which is a strange paradox of our times. But perhaps it is not so surprising that antisexualism manifests as abuse hysteria in secular cultures, since they can't rationalize it as sin. The Feminist Anti-Sex League don't think of themselves as anti-sex, but rather anti-abuse. Any situation where sex can realistically occur is defined as abusive in some way, which enables them to retain an idealistic image of sex-positivity in their heads, consisting of androgynous entities with completely equal socioeconomic status and no professional relationships who always remain sober and constantly keep asking for consent, while real life is all rape and abuse.

Tal Hartsfeld said...

Like the Dickensian line from OLIVER TWIST: "If that be the law then the law is an ass".

Societies have always, essentially, been run by what can best be described as "modern-day Pharisees". Overseers who are convinced they have what it takes to be "the ambassadors of the moral sensibilities of their culture". Upper-middle-class bred elitists who are comfortable in their own little sheltered microcosmic world who haven't the slightest idea of how most others in their societies live and have now been granted the authority to judge the behaviors of others and to determine and control their fates.

Of course to do so involves being consciously oblivious to their own common human frailties and foibles. Which makes any "reminders of" their flaws appear "threatening" to them.
Thus, whenever someone comes along who doesn't have the same priorities of "maintaining their inhibitions" they do, someone who ignores propriety and exhibits their inner desires openly, that individual becomes "fair game" to these modern-day Pharisees as convenient red-herring "fall guys" who wind up "taking the rap for" the iniquities of their culture, of the "system", of their fellow humans, and of what is actually the world's sins.

The authorities, thus, in attempting to hide their incompetence and the fact that written laws and social standards alone can't supersede human nature, try to feign both "moral superiority" and "being in charge" by taking advantage of select "cherry-picked" individuals by holding them up as "examples of" the "evils of society", with the notion that "if we're able to either eliminate or remove these 'types' from the mainstream we'll also be solving the bulk of our problems". This fosters the illusion that those-in-charge are here to "take care of us" and to "serve our needs and interests" when, actually, it's little more than pandering to the popular prejudices of the majority and obsequiously reassuring that majority their perceptions and ideals are the "right ones".

It's, essentially, a show of favoritism toward the overprivileged and the "socially correct", who also engage in unscrupulous behaviors of their own but are more unlikely to have to answer for such the same way as those considered the "social lepers".
It's all hypocritical and judgmental. And based on that eternal desire for "revenge on the world" for all the iniquities one has to tolerate from it during the course of one's lifetime. But since receiving restitution form the world (or from life itself) is an impossible expectation, concocting a target for revenge is "the next best thing" (never mind that those they target have probably suffered even more from the world than they ever will have). So these "social leper" scapegoats/fall guys become "the epitome of" whatever it is the authorities and the citizens they represent perceive to be the "threats", "travesties", and "degradation" of their precious "system", and, thus, become subject to all the wrath they wish to throw at them.
Not unlike being "sacrificed to the Gods".

Eivind Berge said...

Well said. It's a morality play they stage again and again, much like human sacrifice. Here is the latest sacrificial victim:

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/10/06/texas-attorney-general-arrests-backpage-com-ceo-largest-promoter-online-sex-trafficking/

The CEO of Backpage.com has been arrested and it looks like the site will be shut down on the "sex trafficking" pretext. The Texas police is the scum of the earth, acting out their hateful feminist morality play in utterly predictable fashion:

Attorney General Paxton called the website a “deep-seated evil” “in our backyard” that provides for the trafficking of children and adults.

Ferrer, 55, was taken into custody this afternoon after he arrived in Houston on a flight from Amsterdam. The Texas and California attorneys general worked together on a lengthy investigation and found evidence that adult and child sex trafficking victims were forced into prostitution. Backpage.com allegedly did so thorough escort ads on its website.

“Making money off the backs of innocent human beings by allowing them to be exploited for modern-day slavery is not acceptable in Texas,” Attorney General Paxton said. “I intend to use every resource my office has to make sure those who profit from the exploitation and trafficking of persons are held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.”

Anonymous said...

Når en mand bliver anklaget for "voldtægt" blot fordi en kvinde "fortryder" et seksuelt forhold med ham som hun gik med til, kan manden så ikke gøre det samme? Han kan nemlig hævde at han også har fortrudt det, og at han kun gik med til det seksuelle forhold fordi kvinden ønskede det. Hvis der er lighed for loven, må han da kunne bruge denne type forsvar.

Øyvind Holmstad said...

Reflekterer man litt over videoen du nettopp anbefalte ser det ut til at dystopiene enda har mye å ta av:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV2u-PivzU4

Uansett kan det synes som om kvinnene mener de har skapt et Frankensteins monster, som de nå angrer på. Ja, for det er jo kvinnene som har skapt oss, Terje Bongard er meget klar på dette i denne videoen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=820&v=RUlzdE5ZnQ0

Eivind Berge said...

Ja, det er tydelig hvor det bærer hen. Etter mønster fra kriminaliseringen av «overgrepsbilder» er det sannsynlig at kriminalisering og forfølgelse av «overgrepstanker» er nært forestående, om ikke kollapsen kommer først. Feministstaten er fullstendig troende til det, da det moralsk sett er akkurat det samme de driver med allerede. Den eneste forskjellen er at de får et nytt verktøy til å forfølge tankekriminalitet og identifisere utskuddene som flertallet av befolkningen allerede er villig til å straffe på verst tenkelige vis.

Bra video av Bongard! Han får frem veldig mange grunnleggende evolusjonsbiologiske poenger der. Jeg kan tenke meg at menn som støtter feminismen også har sammenheng med handikapprinsippet, som å si «Jeg er så raus og god at jeg kan legge alle disse hindringene i veien for kjønnet mitt inkludert meg selv, og fremdeles dra damer.» I vår kultur er denne strategien nå nærmest enerådende, men det er bare fordi forholdene ligger til rette for det. Etter kollapsen er det kanskje noe mer i retning strategien til Djengis Khan som blir fremherskende?

Bongard har også helt rett i at voldtekt er traumatisernede av dype evolusjonsbiologiske grunner -- mye mer enn feministene kan forklare med sitt ignorante verdensbilde -- men det gjelder altså ekte voldtekt, som går ut på at kvinnen bokstavelig talt blir fratatt valget om hvem hun har sex med. Det er ikke voldtekt når kvinner velger hensynsløse og mer eller mindre voldelige menn presist fordi de er mest attraktive (slik som Kopseng), og blir værende i lange forhold med dem av samme grunn. Dette er nettopp kvinnelig seksuell seleksjon i praksis, og resultatet er også, som Bongard helt riktig nevner, at menn dermed blir skapt sånn.

Øyvind Holmstad said...

Hyggelig du likte videoen av Bongard, det er så få som er villige til å ta innover seg at vi er et rått produkt av evolusjon, særlig seksuell seleksjon, og at alle valg vi gjør egentlig ikke er annet enn strategier, avhengig av situasjon, om vi er i ei inngruppe, i en utgruppe-setting, etc. Og ja, det å framstå som raus har alltid vært en av de gjeveste strategiene, fordi da får du anerkjennelse av inngruppa og damene ser det slik at du blir en generøs far til barna dine.

Samtidig er evolusjonen veldig urettferdig med det at de i den fruktbare perioden flokker seg rundt enkelte menn med svært maskuline trekk, som gjerne også er voldelige og utagerende. Det er disse de vil ha barn med, mens de gjerne ser at vi mer saktmodige blir falske fedre til barna deres.

"I salen satt tre kvinner som hevder de er blitt voldtatt av Clintons ektemann, ekspresident Bill Clinton.De var invitert av Trump - som eksperter mener måtte vinne debatten for å ha noen sjanse til å bli USAs neste president."

Sett i et atferdsbiologisk perspektiv skurrer det veldig at disse kvinnene ikke ønsket å ha sexuell omgang med verdens mektigste mann. Som Bongard sier det, husker ikke om det var i samme foredrag eller et annet sted, men når kvinner blir stilt ovenfor høye, flotte menn med status og innflytelse, er det noe som klikker for dem.

Mest sannsynlig har det klikket for disse kvinnene i møte med Bill, og de har blitt satt ut av disse atferdsøkologiske mekanismene og blitt drevet av reine instinkter, noe de sikkert har funnet ubehagelig i ettertid ifht. eget selvbilde. Derfor beskyldningen om voldtekt, istedenfor å innse at de er primitive dyr som ikke har noen mulighet til å motstå trangen til å underkaste seg flotte, mektige menn med status og innflytelse.

Trolig har disse kvinnene koblet ut bevisstheten i møte med Bill og blitt rene instinktdyr, noe de fortrenger grunnet kognitiv dissonans.

Det er jo disse mekanismene som gjør så det går galt med miljøet. Alle menn ønsker å tilegne seg samme mengde ressurser og status som Bill Clinton og Donald Trumph, fordi genene våre vet at oppnår vi dette vil alle verdens kvinner komme til oss, lik viljesløse marionetter.

Anonymous said...

Det er interessant å få servert denne nærmest positivistiske virkelighetsforståelsen, uten at representantene for den på denne siden er i stand eller villig til å se den enorme forenklingen synet representerer, når man skal beskrive virkeligheten. Jeg begynner å bli rimelig lei biologisters nærmest skjematiske oppramsing av hvordan kvinner og menn er eller vil respondere. Man kan ikke komme unna menneskers evne til forandring og tilpasning, irrasjonalitet og sentimentalitet. Det nærmest mekanistiske menneskesynet som outrerte biologister representerer kan aldri mer enn i beste fall gi halvsannheter. Kvinner har forskjellige preferanser når det gjelder valg av partner. At makt og status er noe som virker tiltrekkende kan man finne en rekke eksempler på. Samtidig finner man tilstrekkelig eksempler på det motsatte. Narkomane, deprimerte, fattige, engstelige menn som LIKEVEL har en partner. Har jeg forstått representantene på denne siden rett, så virker det som om siden man kan gi biologiske begrunnelser for noe, så er det dermed også moralsk eller rasjonelt sett korrekt. At Donald Trump kan score mye poeng blant det motsatte kjønn basert på lønnskontoen er nå så sin sak, men det forklarer likevel ikke de mange kvinner som ser på ham med avsky. Han har likevel sagt noe som er verdt å tenke på. "Du kan kysse dem eller gripe dem i fitta, og likevel komme unna med det, om du er rik og berømt." Og nettopp her har han påpekt et av vestens groveste problemer, nemlig klassejustis. En svart fattig mann ville aldri ha kunne tillate seg det samme fordi han er langt nede på rangstigen. Mulig at slike hierarkiske strukturer passer bra i et Darwinistisk scenario, men manglende likhet for loven er på ingen måter et rasjonelt argument for å bygge et optimalt samfunn. En av de viktigste prinsipper for USA har vært å nettopp komme seg vekk i fra føydalsamfunnet, å gi alle like rettigheter og muligheter og pursuit of happiness. Om man ikke uten videre kan gi biologiske forankringer for et slikt ideologisk ståsted, gjør ikke forankringen irrasjonell eller feil av den grunn. Hadde vi vært et samfunn som lar oss styre av biologi, ville Coca Cola aldri ha vunnet så store markedsandeler som de har. Den verden vi lever i er i høyeste grad konstruert, og da gjelder det å kjempe for at de narrativene som taler mest til gunst for eget ståsted vinner frem.

Eivind Berge said...

Det er absurd at Bill skal være voldtektsmann. Problemet er ideologien som sier at kvinner ikke er tilregnelige for sin tiltrekning for menn med høy status, så det er politisk korrekt å kalle det voldtekt når menn høster fruktene av status. Trump er dessverre også feminist når han snakker om Bill Clinton, selv om han sa sannheten i videoopptaket. Mektige og rike og berømte menn KAN tillate seg mer med damer, og det er ikke voldtekt og overgrep, bare helt naturlig. At det nå er en skandale å innrømme det, er helt surrealistisk. Feminismen er en virkelighetsfjern og hatefull ideologi. Nå som alle manginaene i det republikanske partiet har vist sitt sanne ansikt, håper jeg virkelig at Trump vinner slik at feminismen deres ikke lønner seg. Jeg tror egentlig ikke Trump taper noe særlig stemmer på å oppføre seg som en normal mann. Da får vi se at det ikke var så smart å være mannlig feminist likevel, og at deres tid er forbi.

Anonymous said...

Den ideologien som forsvarer at mektige og rike menn kan tillate seg å gjøre med kvinner det som andre menn måtte tåle å bli kalt voldtektsmann og overgriper for, er også hatefull. Den er dessuten farlig for den vanlige mann i gata. Menn flest er ikke rike og mektige.

Eivind Berge said...

Det er riktig at narkomane, deprimerte, fattige og engstelige menn kan ha en partner i mange tilfeller, men det motbeviser ikke evolusjonsbiologien så lenge forskjellene er så store. Det finnes også flere typer status enn det den offisielle rangstigen skulle tilsi, som gir enkelte menn stor tiltrekning på damer i bestemte nisjer, for eksempel i kriminelle miljøer. Oppførselen kan telle vel så mye som bankkontoen, noe som forklarer mange kvinners tiltrekning mot voldelige menn. Ingenting av dette strider mot biologien. Vårt gjennomregulerte velferdssamfunn er ingen normaltilstand, og kan fort erstattes av et lovløst et hvor de som nå er kriminelle havner øverst på rangstigen.

Det er feil at jeg innretter min moral etter det som er naturlig og aksepterer hva som helst. Jeg er åpen for mange slags forbedringer, men feministenes korrupte definisjoner på voldtekt og overgrep gjør bare verden verre. Dette hysteriet gagner ytterst få.

Og hvorfor skulle ikke Coca Cola fått store markedsandeler? Bongard var inne på det også, når han snakket om følelser. Smaken for sukker har en høyst naturlig forklaring. Markedsføring virker også.

Anonymous said...

Nettopp! markedsføring, eller narrativer for å bruke konstruktivistenes begreper. Faktum er at man kan manipulere frem det samfunnet man ønsker. Jeg registrerer nå at du ikke innretter din moral nødvendigvis etter det du hevder kan sies å være "naturlig" etter en biologisk forklaringsmodell. Da ser jeg heller ingen grunn til at du skal argumentere for at mektige og rike menn skal kunne tillate seg mer enn andre menn. Jeg ser heller ingen grunn til at man skal argumentere for et samfunn hvor kvinners preferanser mot de samme er hverken fornuftig eller ønskelig. Snarere tvert imot. Jo mer attraktiv en mann blir, jo større er sjansen for at han ikke bryr seg om å være hensynsfull overfor sin eventuelle partner. Og i jo større grad kvinners preferanser tilfaller enkelte typer menn, jo større er også sjansen for at menn flest faller utenfor. Altså må man skape en motvekt, og et samfunn som modifiserer det mannssynet som nå er rådende. I vårt vestlige samfunn proppes vi fulle av kvinnesyn og mannsjåvinisme, men det finnes knapt etablerte begreper i andre ende av skalaen. Hva kvinner synes om menn blir stående uimotsagt. De blir knappest konfrontert med de synet de selv bærer preg av, og da kan man heller ikke forandre det til gunst for de som blir stående utenfor!"

Øyvind Holmstad said...

Ja, det er først og fremst det å stikke seg ut som er viktig. Gjør man det kan man tiltrekke seg enkelte damer i nisjesektorer, ikke alle kan bli enere, man alle kan finne sin nisje. F.eks. var Karl Marx lutfattig og en outsider med svakelig helse i lange perioder, men han tiltrakk seg allikevel kvinner som så at han skilte seg ut, at han stod oppreist og ikke lot seg knekke tross massenes fordømmelse. Dette er attraktive egenskaper!

Eivind Berge fikk seg dame etter samme prinsipp som Karl Marx. Deres ideologi er forskjellig, men de har begge klart å vise at de ikke lar seg knekke, at de står oppreist gjennom stormen. Dette er en form for hjernepåfuglhale, kvinnene står rundt og observerer, og klarer man brasene får man sin belønning.

Dessverre er de fleste like forstokket som samfunnsviterne i denne konferansen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwkQ657HGBY

Jeg sier med Tor Martin Austad: "Herregud eg blir skremt av samfunnsviternes ignoranse. Fikk frysninger som bare religionsfanatikere har klart å gi meg hittil."

Anonymous said...

En av de mer interessante fenomener i så måte er hvordan enkelte menn klarer å gjøre seg attraktive for det motsatte kjønn basert på femininitet. Hva som til enhver tid er feminint og maskulint er jo i høy grad konstruert.(Mannlighet og kvinnelighet er til sammenligning derimot biologisk betinget Man kan eksempelvis bare tenke på den mannlige klesdrakten igjennom historien og sammenligne med maskulinitetsidealer i dag, for å skjønne hva jeg mener.)

Jeg tenker eksempelvis på hvordan homofile menn kan virke attraktive på en betydelig mengde kvinner. Ballettdansere kan ha draget, på tross av at dette blir regnet som et særdeles feminint anliggende i vesten. I Russland derimot, som er et av de mest homo.fiendtlige landene i "vår" del av verden, blir mannlig ballettdansere regnet for noe av det ypperste innen maskuline beskjeftigelser.

Igjen, dette viser bare noe av kompleksiteten i materien, og hvor forenklende man står i fare for å bli, om man tilstreber en gjennomgående biologistisk forklaringsmodell.

Eivind Berge said...

Effektiv markedsføring spiller på lag med evolusjonsbiologiske prinsipper. Det er ikke slik at folk lar seg overtale til hva som helst. Vi kan jo ta Bongards eksempel om et samfunn hvor unge kvinner kjøper sex av gamle menn. Ingen markedsføring kan få det til å bli virkelig, uansett.

Det er nytteløst å endre kvinners preferanser slik du vil. De er det de er. Det er også moralsk tvilsomt, siden du neppe vet bedre hva som er i deres interesse enn kvinnene selv. Og måten det gjøres på -- nemlig å definere menn som overgripere når de får suksess med damer -- er definitivt moralsk forkastelig. Jeg er enig i at vi bør prøve å hjelpe menn som faller utenfor, men dette er ikke måten å gjøre det på. En god måte kan være å bryte ned klasseforskjeller, for da blir flere menn attraktive på naturlig vis. Å si til kvinner at de ikke skal ha preferanser for rike og berømte menn, eller at slike menn er overgripere når kvinner faller for dem, er både urealistisk og ondskapsfullt.

Eivind Berge said...

"Hva som til enhver tid er feminint og maskulint er jo i høy grad konstruert."

Det er bare overfladiske ting som varierer, slik som for eksempel klær. Ingenting av det som virkelig teller, er realistisk å endre på. Det er kvinner som er det selektive kjønn i alle kulturer, og menn som konkurrerer om kvinnelig seksualitet.

Anonymous said...

Du hevder at utsagnene mine er tvilsomme og ondskapsfulle. Dette er jeg fullstendig uenig i, og kunne ha argumentert for det punkt for punkt, i den grad jeg gidder. Det får jeg se på, men du snakker jo direkte imot deg selv når du sier at en standard for overgrepsdefinisjon skal gjelde for rike og mektige menn, mens en annen skal gjelde for de som ikke er det. Samtidig snakker du om å bryte ned klasseforskjeller.

Det er JEG som snakker om å bryte ned klasseforskjeller ved å hevde likhet for loven, uansett. Vi snakker tross alt om en Trump som skryter av å gripe intetanende kvinner i fitta og komme unna med det fordi han er rik. Ikke bare vet han at dette er straffbart og moralsk tvilsomt ved å snakke på den måten han gjør, han forherliger også det faktum at om han ikke var i den posisjonen han var i, ville han IKKE komme unna med det.

(Evolusjonsbiologisk sett er sukker og det annen konserveringsdritt de propper i Cola overhodet ikke gunstig for menneskekroppen, men det stopper ikke mennesker fra å drikke det av den grunn. Det samme gjelder forøvrig sigaretter. Men man kan tydelig se at etter staten gikk inn og regulerte ble det en dramatisk nedgang i forbruk i Norge. Markedsføring etableres både på tross av, og på tvers av biologiske risikofaktorer)

Anonymous said...

Forøvrig er jeg enig i Holmestads betraktninger om at det å stikke seg ut er viktig i dagens samfunn. En av de største problemene er å faktisk bli sett i dagens informasjonssamfunn. Vi kan observere hvordan den ene døgenikten etter den andre kan score vagina-poeng ,rett og slett ved å eksponere sin egen idioti. Til forskjell fra før i tiden så er det ingen forutsetning å kunne noe for å oppnå anerkjennelse. Det holder å være med i et reality-show. Jeg tror rett og slett manglende evne til å kjenne skam er blitt et særdeles viktig "survival" prinsipp. Men det kalles noe annet, det kalles i beste eufemistiske tradisjon for "å være seg selv".

Eivind Berge said...

Jeg tror ikke Trump bokstavelig talt mente å gripe intetanende kvinner i fitta. Det var bare skryt og tull (helt vanlig snakk mellom menn, som det er rent mannshat å fordømme moralsk, siden det er noe vi alle gjør), med den kjernen av sannhet at han kommer unna med langt mer enn vanlige menn fordi kvinner faktisk liker ham bedre.

Du bryter ikke ned klasseforskjeller med feministisk overgrepshysteri. Det er bare å lage kvalme uten å endre noen ting.

Øyvind Holmstad said...

Kvinnenes selektive kjønn ser ut til å bli mer forvirret av p-pillehormoner enn hva man har trodd hittil.

- P-pillen kan lure deg til å velge feil mann:

https://www.nrk.no/viten/xl/p-pillen-kan-lure-deg-til-a-velge-feil-mann-1.13096724

Dette vil sannsynligvis resultere i at kvinner i mindre grad tiltrekkes av maskuline menn, og kan kanskje delvis forklare kvinners større hang til homofile menn i populærkulturen.

Et annet aspekt i velferdsstaten er at kvinner med staten som forsørger i mindre grad er avhengige av maskuline menn som beskyttere og forsørgere.

På den annen side kan dette gjøre kvinner mer utro, da det ikke er like risikabelt å miste forsørgeren sin. Dette kan gjøre dem mer tilbøyelige til sidesprang med høystatusmenn når sjansen byr seg.

Anonymous said...

Tja p-piller kan kanskje ha en viss innvirkning på preferanser, men jeg tviler sterkt på at dette er alt-avgjørende, all den tid dette er et nytt fenomen.

Berge hevder eksemplene mine bare henviser til overfladiske forskjeller mellom maskulinitets-idealer før og nå. Det problematiske knytter seg dog til at det er ikke etablert en definisjon for hva som er feminint eller maskulint i denne debatten.

Det kan neppe være gråt:
http://forskning.no/medisin-sex-psykologi-stub/2008/02/dengang-ekte-mannfolk-grat

Det kan heller ikke være svulstige og følsomme kjærlighetsdikt:

"Den lyriske kjærlighetsdikt i hieroglyfer i Egypt viser at de ulike temaene om kjærlighet har vært uendret gjennom historien. Egyptologer funnet kjærlighetsdikt på vaser og papyrus ruller. Disse kjærlighetsdikt ble skrevet 1300 år før Kristus."

http://hvisvokser.com/article/elsker-gjennom-historien

Aspekter som burde få enhver macho-fiksert, "strong silent type" til å krympe seg.

Ironisk nok hevder Berge at jeg er moralsk tvilsom: "siden du neppe vet bedre hva som er i deres interesse enn kvinnene selv." Da må man bare gi seg hen til Berges argumentasjon, siden han da selvsagt vet bedre hva som er i kvinners interesse, eller vent litt... var det ikke dette som skulle være så moralskt tvilsomt å hevde?

Eivind Berge said...

Mitt utgangspunkt er at kvinner handler i sin egen beste interesse, på samme måte som menn og andre dyr gjør det, siden våre følelser og handlinger er et sofistikert resultat av naturlig tilpasning. Så byrden er på deg for å vise at kvinners preferanser eventuelt er maladaptive. Og i noen ekstreme tilfeller, slik som med røyk og sukker, så er jeg med på at vi ikke kan stole instinktene våre til å fortelle oss hva som er gunstig i dagens samfunn. Men jeg har ikke hørt noen overbevisende argumenter for at seksuell tiltrekning bør overstyres av ideologi. Feministene har jo ikke kommet så langt som å forstå hvordan disse instinktene fungerer engang, så hvorfor skulle verdiene deres være gode normer?

Jeg kan godt definere kjernen i femininitet og maskulinitet. Det essensielle er at kvinnekroppen har verdi i seg selv -- kvinnen får poeng kun for å møte opp på kjønnsmarkedet, mens menn må bevise at de er verd noe på en eller annen måte gjennom handlinger. Som Bongard nevnte i videoen, trenger ikke kvinner sminke seg engang. Alt de gjør har bare en ørliten effekt utover selve kroppen.

Svulstige kjærlighetsdikt og mannlig gråt endrer ikke på saken; de er bare variasjoner over handikapprinsippet, som en påfuglhale med litt annen design.

Øyvind Holmstad said...

"Forøvrig er jeg enig i Holmestads betraktninger om at det å stikke seg ut er viktig i dagens samfunn. En av de største problemene er å faktisk bli sett i dagens informasjonssamfunn."

Det å stikke seg ut har alltid vært viktig for menn. Men som du påpeker er det ekstremt vanskelig å bli sett i dagens massesamfunn, derfor får vi ekstreme herostratiske handlinger som de til utøyamorderen.

Ellers er Berges definisjon av kjernen i femininitet og maskulinitet meget presis. Dette gjelder forøvrig alle kjønnede dyr, og har sitt utgangspunkt i egg og sædcelle. I bunn og grunn er vi forvokste egg- og sædceller, alt utenpå disse er egentlig bare lag av det samme prinsippet.

Samfunnsviterne vil selvsagt holde fast på sitt svada, som jo er påfuglhalene deres og gjør så de skinner.Derfor angriper de Bongard og atferdsøkologien, fordi denne tar fra dem statusen til profesjonene deres, og dermed attraktiviteten på kjønnsmarkedet.

Det er imidlertid kun atferdsøkologien som kan gi oss en helhetlig forståelse av menneskeatferd.

- Skal man forstå mennesket, må man forstå at mennesket er et produkt av evolusjon:

http://darwinist.no/skal-man-forsta-mennesket-ma-man-forsta-at-mennesket-er-et-produkt-av-evolusjon/

Svært mange mennesker nekter å innse dette. Derfor får man alskens merkelig ideologi, som den moderne feminismen, som hevder at gamle menn som selger sexuelle tjenester til unge kvinner i mørke bakgater, er helt plausibelt og mulig innen en gitt kultur.

De samme ideologene vil også hevde at det at menn dominerer innen alle profesjoner skyldes undertrykking og kultur. Den rå sannheten er imidlertid at menn sliter vettet av seg for å imponere ei eller annen kvinne innen en eller annen nisje. Det at menn har så mye større spenn i personligheter og personlighetsavvik enn kvinner, skyldes samme strategi. Mannlig personlighet blir lett dratt ut i det ekstreme fordi dette evolusjonært gir større mulighet for å finne en nisje på kjønnsmarkedet, hvor man kan stikke seg fram og bli synlig for ei potensiell kvinne.

Øyvind Holmstad said...

Et utdrag fra Ottesens innlegg:

"Jobbtilbud, stipender, gode karakterer og velvilje fra utdanningsinstitusjoner og veiledere har uteblitt. Selv hadde jeg en arbeidsgiver som nektet meg å fortsette forskningen jeg hadde jobbet med i tre år da det i 2010 ble kjent at jeg brukte det evolusjonspsykologiske perspektiv."

Bongard har opplevd mye av det samme, evolusjonsbiologene angripes og undergraves av samfunnsviterne fordi de føler sin profesjon, og dermed sin status truet, noe de har grunn til.

Personlig mener jeg atferdsøkologi bør inn som fag i barneskolen. Den dagen samfunnsviterne dør ut får vi et bedre samfunn!

Øyvind Holmstad said...

Jøje meg! Mens det var jøden Zahavi som lanserte handikapprinsippet som grunnlag for seksuell seleksjon, hvorpå vi kan forstå forskjellene mellom kjønnene, er det jammen en jøde som har funnet på at vi er kjønnsløse også.

"For å forstå tanken bak, må vi til den amerikansk-jødiske filosofen og sosiologen Judith Butler. I 1990 utga hun boken Gender Trouble, der hun argumenterte for at det ikke var biologisk betinget hvilket kjønn man følte seg som. Kjønn var først og fremst en kulturell og sosial konstruksjon.

Butlers oppfatninger fikk enorm oppmerksomhet, og ble toneangivende for diskusjonen i de ledende feministmiljøene.

Mens man tidligere hadde kjempet for kvinners likeverd og likestilling, satte de såkalte queerfeministene spørsmål ved selve kategorien mann og kvinne. Det ble det bråk av, ikke minst fordi det rokket ved selve strategien for kvinnekampen: Hvordan skal man bekjempe undertrykkelse av kvinner med treffsikre tiltak som kvotering, hvis kjønnene egentlig ikke eksisterer?

Den samme uenigheten har queerteorien skapt i de skeive miljøene. En homofil mann forklarte det slik til meg: – Jeg opplever meg selv som en mann som er tiltrukket av menn, og tror ikke det vil være annerledes i morgen. Derfor identifiserer jeg meg ikke med queerteorien."

- Slutt på gutt og jente?:

http://www.vl.no/meninger/kommentar/slutt-pa-gutt-og-jente-1.790132

Her blir det svært tydelig at forholder man seg ikke til atferdsøkologien blir alt bare rot og forvirring. Det er altså fra queerfeministene man holder fram eksemplet med gamle menn som selger sex til unge kvinner i mørke bakgater, som en plausibel mulighet hvis de kulturelle forutsetningene er til stede. For oss som ikke er forblindet av ideologi framstår dette naturligvis som irrasjonelt, mens disse queerfeministene tror fullt og fast på at dette er rasjonelt og mulig.

Kanskje feminismens grunnide i dag er at det ikke er noen forskjell mellom kjønnene, at dette er en kulturell konstruksjon, og at de derfor mener menn bør bli som kvinner?

Uansett er det merkelig hvordan disse jødene har en finger med i det meste, både på godt og vont. Mener det stod i boka til Bongard at askenasijødene er verdens mest intelligente folkegruppe, kanskje et resultat av det ekstreme presset de ble utsatt for av forfølgelse gjennom lang tid?

Eivind Berge said...

Jødene er utvilsomt et svært intelligent folkeslag, og står for veldig mye bra forskning. Men det henger litt sammen med høy intelligens at de også er mer tilbøyelige til å tro dumme ting på noen områder, så jeg er ikke overasket over at det var en jøde som fant på at kjønnene ikke finnes. Evolusjonsbiologen Satoshi Kanazawa forklarer hvorfor:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/if-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives-why-are

"Everyone has common sense. Intelligent people, however, have a tendency to overapply their analytical and logical reasoning abilities derived from their general intelligence incorrectly to such evolutionarily familiar domains and as a result get things wrong. In other words, liberals and other intelligent people lack common sense, because their general intelligence overrides it. They think in situations where they are supposed to feel. In evolutionarily familiar domains such as interpersonal relationships, feeling usually leads to correct solutions whereas thinking does not."

Øyvind Holmstad said...

"It is perhaps a projection of America’s ongoing rape hysteria that we think we’re special victims of this universal activity."

http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/the-odor-of-desperation/

Kanskje ikke så rart Kunstler ikke blir invitert som foreleser på universitetene lenger?

Forresten jøde han også.

True2God said...

There have been these women accusing Donald Trump of sexual assult. If Donald Trump is guilty and it was such a horrible experience, I would find it very bizzare that there were no consequences for Trump. No getting arrested, no being forced to make things right with his victims, nothing. Even though most people take the side of a women claiming to be sexually assulted.

Women lie about sexual assult a lot more than people think. Trump most likely did NOT sexually assult those women. He doesn't seem like the type. I'd be shocked if he did it and IF he did it, it wasn't as bad as people think. I won't say sexual assult is okay but it's not as bad as people think.

About one of those women, Trump said, "She would not be my first choice." I'm not saying these women were ugly but at the same time are these women the sexiest, most desirable women in the world? What do these women have that the women Trump has been with don't have?

Some people claim Trump admitted to sexual assult in 2005. No he didn't! He said "they let you do it". They let him do it! He didn't threaten them with a gun or in any other way. And again, look at the women Trump has been with. What he said in 2005 was rude but people are blowing it out of proportion.

Anonymous said...

Dette vil nok falle i smak for en som deg mr. Berge:

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/frp/frp-topp-atle-simonsen-vitset-om-voldtekt-av-menn/a/23827847/

A Norwegian politician jokes about men being raped by women. Must qualify as a local hero in this part of the MRA manosphere.

Eivind Berge said...

As I have pointed out many times, I regard the notion that women can "rape" men as completely absurd, and I totally oppose prosecuting women for rape because female sexual coercion simply doesn't fit in that category. Gender-neutral rape law is just feminist corruption of justice. For example, see this post and especially my latest comments there:

http://eivindberge.blogspot.no/2009/10/feminists-believe-women-can-rape-men.html

Believing that women can "rape" men and should be punished equally is astonishingly misogynistic, because men don't perceive female sexual coercion as a serious offense worthy of anywhere near the punishment mandated for rape. Female sexual coercion should at most be prosecuted as simple assault or whatever violence was involved when you disregard the sexual aspect, because the sexual aspect does not aggravate the crime as far as reasonable men are concerned. If anything, the sexual aspect is an extenuating circumstance in female-on-male assault. Most men would be at least a little bit flattered if the woman had a sexual motive, and I think we can all agree that assaults with no sexual intent would be far worse (for example, to steal something from you) than sexual assaults when committed by a woman.

Pretending women can rape men is an exercise in "equality" for the sake of equality and actually a false equivalency and misogyny. As an MRA, I support fairness in rape legislation, which means I categorically reject the notion that women can rape men. So I agree with the politician about this, and unlike him I am not joking; I am a principled activist for abolishing the feminist lie that women can rape men from rape law.

Eivind Berge said...

I think I said it best like this:

"The category of rape hinges on the ontological/phenomenological assumption that the penis (or male sexuality in general) is capable of inflicting some very serious violation that goes profoundly beyond the physical violence in an assault per se (indeed there can be no physical damage whatsoever and rape is still considered a heinous crime). For all of history until feminism, it never occurred to anyone that female sexual coercion belongs in this category. Now political correctness holds that the sexes are equal, and that therefore women can rape men. But it is a lie. The vagina has no power to violate a man sexually, because the ontological status of female sexuality fundamentally precludes such a thing. Women raping men can only be as bad as the physical violence itself. Or, IF women raping men is the same experience as men raping women, then that would mean rape is the most exaggerated and disproportionately punished crime in history. If feminists want to insist that the sexes are equal, so that we men can ourselves imagine what rape is like based on how we feel about female sexual coercion, then the jig is up on rape and it is exposed as the most grossly exaggerated and disproportionately punished crime in history. I don't actually believe real rape is as trivial as female sexual coercion, so I refuse to go along with the charade that women can rape men."

And this ontology of course has a biological basis explained by evolutionary psychologists and denied by feminists, but even feminist research fails to find men who are very traumatized by female sexual coercion, with typical research findings like this: "Twenty-five percent said they felt good, 50% felt neutral and 25% felt bad."

From page 2 here (free, but requires registration):

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/articles/mens-reactions-female-sexual-coercion

What kind of monster wants to sentence women to lengthy prison terms for something so trivial and not damaging at all? Feminists and manginas, that's who, and certainly no real MRAs.

Eivind Berge said...

Now I want to elaborate a bit on the biological basis for why women "raping" men belongs in the domain of comedy rather than criminal law.

Why do we feel pain? Pain is an evolved response to harmful things, to help us stay out of harm's way. Individuals who don't feel pain are more likely to die before they can reproduce, so it is easy to understand that pain is adaptive. Psychological pain works the same way. It is painful to be ostracized from one's social group, because that sort of thing had low survival value, and it is painful for a man to be celibate, because that has low reproductive value. Rape is recognized as a much more serious crime than what the violence involved might otherwise suggest because the sexual violation is likely to produce severe psychological pain by itself. (Or at least, that is the only rational basis for treating rape as a particularly heinous crime, though other, far less convincing justifications have been put forth having to do with male "ownership" of women.)

People do react differently, and there will always be a minority who is more upset by any given offense than others, but the law must be based on reasonable men and women. If someone slaps you in the face without causing any physical damage, there are limits to how seriously offended you can claim to be, if you want to be taken seriously. If you want to press charges for simple assault, then you might have a case, but if you want it prosecuted as something comparable to murder, you will be laughed out of the justice system. This remains true even if you are a hypersensitive sort who feels genuinely profoundly victimized. Freaks have no right to impose their values on the rest of us. Female sexual coercion, isolated from other violent aspects, is perceived by most men as so trivial that it doesn't even deserve to be a crime, and the justice system should take heed of that fact. Indeed, it is a laughing matter, as evinced again and again even in the most politically correct feminist societies. No matter how much feminist propaganda you throw at it, men continue to laugh at the idea that women can rape men.

It is therefore surreal to observe the hysteria whipped up by feminists in favor or taking female-on-male "rape" seriously. This is something I feel stupid for even discussing, because it is so blatantly obvious to anybody with common sense. It is a case of oversocialization, people who let their intelligence override their common sense because they have embraced the ideal of equality and seek to impose it on reality.

Eivind Berge said...

To understand why rape is harmful, it is crucially important to understand the concept of opportunity cost. Opportunity cost is the cost of not putting your resources to the best possible use. Because of their much greater minimum parental investment, women are the choosy sex. They have much to lose by choosing mates unwisely, because their investment in a pregnancy is so great in all cases, and they certainly have better things to do with their reproductive resources than letting some random rapist do the choosing for them. So rape is quite rightly a horrifying experience, something to be avoided at great cost, worth fearing and being traumatized over.

To understand why female sexual coercion is trivial, we can employ the same reasoning. According the literature on female sexual coercion, the few men who claim to be negatively affected complain about the "rapist" being insufficiently attractive to consent to. Okay. Then the damage of female sexual coercion is limited to the opportunity cost of copulating with a less attractive woman than they believed they could have. So how much is lost, exactly? It is measured in minutes or hours (of refractory time, but the Coolidge effect mostly takes care of that...) at worst, while a raped woman is faced with the opportunity costs of entire pregnancies and beyond, as well as the favors she could have obtained from freely chosen mates. So what kind of moron would equate the two? What kind of mangina would have the nerve to claim he is entitled to the sympathy of a rape victim because he copulated with a woman who was less attractive than he wanted? This isn't just an apples to oranges comparison, but a false equivalency of such magnitude that it boggles the mind.

The female sex offender charade is the most absurd travesty of our times. It is a joke, except when the justice system takes it seriously, at which point it becomes a matter of grave injustice. Even though all the victims are women, I consider it one of our most important issues to combat as MRAs, up there with the other ways sex laws have been corrupted by feminism, because it is the right thing to do and because they all go together in the deranged feminist worldview which denies biology and places sex-hostility above all.

True2God said...

I remember reading this from http://docdreyfus.com/psychologically-speaking/affects-of-statutory-rape/

"Affects of Statutory Rape"

A woman askes clinical psychologist Edward A. Dreyfus:

"My boyfriend had his first sexual encounter at age 12 with a female troop leader; he considers it to have been consensual and positive. By age 15 he was having sex with his English teacher. Now he’s 27 and he’s had at least 150 sex partners, numerous orgies, and can’t abstain from sex for more than a month. He’s excessively proud of his sexual prowess and skill. I’m not judging him. But is this ‘healthy’ or ‘normal’? My instincts tell me something is wrong as evidenced by his sexual control, trust, and commitment issues. Could these early sexual experiences with women in positions of authority have caused these issues? What kind of psychological damage, if any, could he have?"

And then here's Edward A. Dreyfus' answer:

"Legally your boyfriend was raped by both the troop leader and his teacher. Adults who have sex with minors can be prosecuted for statutory rape, regardless of whether the act was considered consensual by the minor. It is an abuse of power. It is even more egregious when the adult his someone entrusted to care for the minor. Such behavior is a violation of that trust. You described a fairly common result."

"The process often often goes something like this: an adolescent boy is seduced by an adult in authority. As most adolescents he considers it somewhat of a feather in his cap for having an older woman show sexual interest in him. While he is physically mature enough to engage in sexual behavior, he is far from emotionally mature enough to handle it. He cannot talk to anyone about his experience because he feels guilty, perhaps ashamed and protective of the adult. He thus may feel estranged from his peer group, his parents, and others. As he grows up he begins trying to work out some of the internal struggles. He may become sexually promiscuous, seeking women whom he can control in the manner in which he was controlled by the troop leader and teacher. He wants to do to them what was done to him. He has to repeatedly prove that it is he who is in control, not the other way around. Genuine, mature intimacy is difficult for these men. They have difficulty trusting women; in your boyfriend’s case, the two women who were supposed to take care of him failed him. They took care of themselves at his expense. They controlled him through the power of their position and took advantage of him; he was vulnerable."


"Psychotherapy can be very helpful to men who have been molested, even if they claim to have enjoyed it and found it to a positive experience. It gives them opportunity to explore their feelings and discover the long term, often unconscious, affects these early experiences had on them. The result of effective treatment is that they become capable of engaging in an intimate, loving relationship with a woman where loving sex becomes integral to the relationship."

What do you make of this? Is there any truth to what Edward is saying?

Eivind Berge said...

That is a good example of feminist sex-hostility propaganda. It is complete bullshit and utterly malicious. This contrived "victim" of the legal fiction of "statutory rape" is in fact an astonishingly lucky boy, and what I would call a super alpha. Any man who's had sex with 150 women by age 27 is so outstanding and enviable that I have trouble even believing it, but let's assume it's a true story for the sake of argument. Did this man become promiscuous because he was abused? LOL! What kind of moron would believe that, as if any man can simply choose to "become promiscuous" and sleep with 150 women. If only it were that easy, there would be no incels and no market for PUA training... No, of course it takes a rock star, a billionaire or a man with exceptional game to get that many women, or we would all be doing it. And what kind of scumbag would tell a man who is naturally proud of his exceptional luck with women that he is in fact abused and messed up instead?

And lol, is being unable to abstain from sex for more than a month a measure of psychological damage in a man, rather than healthy sexuality?

I hope you see how ridiculous it is and don't take any of that drivel seriously.

Edward even spelled "effects" wrong, all of which are figments of his sick feminist imagination and wishful thinking so he can peddle psychotherapy.

Eivind Berge said...

Men who are exceptional natural pickup artists don't have those skills magically kick in at the age of consent, you know, like dimwitted feminists believe. The qualities that make some men promiscuous in adulthood obviously also tend to make them more attractive to women and hence sexually active in adolescence. So you should logically expect a boy who is having sex with women at 12 to also get more women than his peers later in life. Only an utter moron or a feminist would conclude that the latter promiscuity was caused by early "abuse," which of course isn't abuse at all but rather an expression of superior fitness, the same alpha traits that make men incredibly successful with women later as well. Blaming promiscuity on early sexual experiences, and pretending it is bad, makes as much sense as saying Bill Gates became a billionaire because of childhood abuse. And that the rest of us should be so glad we weren't abused, because then we would go out and become billionaires, which only someone abused would do, and easily could do just because he was abused...

The notion that superior fitness can be caused by "abuse," and statutory abuse at that, arbitrarily defined into existence by feminist legislators, is mind-bogglingly insane. Yet this is what feminists literally claim. Please try to do some independent thinking before accepting their harebrained theories.

Eivind Berge said...

Notice also how the female point of view is privileged in typical feminist fashion, while the male point of view is dismissed out of hand as caused by "abuse," even when the man is happy about himself. The psychologist only listens to the woman's perspective, and tries to impose it on the man. Male sexuality is by definition "damaged" unless it conforms to female values. No one gives a flying fuck about what the man wants. The woman in the anecdote wants her boyfriend to commit to her and abstain from sex for long periods and if he has different priorities, then he must have been abused. SHE is the one consulting a psychologist about supposed female-on-male sexual abuse, which he does not perceive as such at all. Healthy male sexuality is redefined as "commitment issues" because Edward only caters to women, being the thoroughly indoctrinated feminist that he is.

Leave it to the feminists to turn reproductive fitness into abuse. Only in their perverted worldview can male prowess, pride and joy be twisted into rape and abuse.