The Norwegian sex laws are chapter 26 of the penal code, which is divided into 30 sections numbered from § 291 to § 320, often with multiple subsections. There being so many statutes should already tell you something is seriously wrong. Many or most of these we probably want to discard altogether, but let's analyze them one by one to be sure. Those who feel we need to do away with ALL the sex laws, even the very concept of a sex law, can adopt René Guyon's manifesto from 1951. Which I am not unopposed to, because everything that really deserves to be covered would then be punishable by other existing laws, for example as assault instead of the aggravated kind we call rape, but it is probably more realistic to have a formal and not too extreme alternative to the current sex laws, for the same reasons mentioned in my intro here.
I will start with the rape law, § 291, which of course is the most important one and the one which has been most egregiously reformed by feminists in recent years, from classic rape to the universal excuse for women to regret sex that it is today (there is also an absolute rape age law now that we will get to later, in addition to an age of consent that I suspect we will have some disagreements with). By the time we get done with this series I am sure it have been reformed again to explicitly include simple lack of consent as an independent criterion for all women (which is the way it is already practiced anyway), but for now the rape law says this:
Voldtekt
Med fengsel inntil 10 år straffes den som
a) skaffer seg seksuell omgang ved vold eller truende atferd,
b) har seksuell omgang med noen som er bevisstløs eller av andre grunner ute av stand til å motsette seg handlingen, eller
c) ved vold eller truende atferd får noen til å ha seksuell omgang med en annen, eller til å utføre handlinger som svarer til seksuell omgang med seg selv.
Rape
Up to 10 years in prison is the punishment for someone who
a) obtains sexual relations by violence or threatening conduct,
b) has sexual relations with someone who is unconscious or for other reasons unable to resist the act, or
c) by violence or threatening conduct gets someone to have sexual relations with someone else, or to carry out acts which correspond to sexual relations with themselves.
Commentary:
First it is necessary to define the meaning of "seksuell omgang/sexual relations." As it stands, the word basically means any kind of sexual contact as aside from simple touching. This is insanely broad for a rape law, so I want to restrict it to intercourse and remove the masturbation. Of course we will get to other laws which may reasonably criminalize lesser kinds of forced sexual contact later on, but it doesn't belong in the rape law. In order for a rape to occur, there must be vaginal penetration by a penis. If somebody wants to include anal penetration, then I am OK with that too, with the alternative being to have a separate law for that which differs in name only (for example, "forcible sodomy"), but I am not terribly attached to that idea even though it strikes me as more reasonable from a pedantic point of view. So let us specify that one necessary element of rape -- what the law shall call intercourse -- is vaginal or anal penetration.
Now to the means by which that sexual intercourse is accomplished in order for a rape to occur, and this is the biggest crux of all of feminism and men's rights activism and sexual politics in the modern world. The most radical feminist position is that lack of consent be enough, or even lack of enthusiastic consent. Norwegian law does not go that far (yet), but it goes very much too far, enabling literally all kinds of coerced sex to be called rape, no matter how trivial the coercion. I can't emphasize enough that we need to raise the threshold of coercion back up to the level of serious violence or threats. The single most important issue in all of men's rights activism is to revert "truende atferd/threatening conduct" to something like the old "ved å fremkalle frykt for noens live eller helse/by causing fear of someone's life or health" which was in the definition up to the year 2000, the corruption of which was what really radicalized me into an MRA. The new subsection c, unconsciousness, also has no place here. If consciousness is forced by violence then it already follows from subsection a, or else it has no place in rape law (but may be appropriate for lesser offenses that we shall get to later), where it indeed was absent until the devastating feminist reform in 2000.
My draft proposal for a reasonable rape law is:
Now to the means by which that sexual intercourse is accomplished in order for a rape to occur, and this is the biggest crux of all of feminism and men's rights activism and sexual politics in the modern world. The most radical feminist position is that lack of consent be enough, or even lack of enthusiastic consent. Norwegian law does not go that far (yet), but it goes very much too far, enabling literally all kinds of coerced sex to be called rape, no matter how trivial the coercion. I can't emphasize enough that we need to raise the threshold of coercion back up to the level of serious violence or threats. The single most important issue in all of men's rights activism is to revert "truende atferd/threatening conduct" to something like the old "ved å fremkalle frykt for noens live eller helse/by causing fear of someone's life or health" which was in the definition up to the year 2000, the corruption of which was what really radicalized me into an MRA. The new subsection c, unconsciousness, also has no place here. If consciousness is forced by violence then it already follows from subsection a, or else it has no place in rape law (but may be appropriate for lesser offenses that we shall get to later), where it indeed was absent until the devastating feminist reform in 2000.
My draft proposal for a reasonable rape law is:
Voldtekt
Med fengsel inntil 10 år straffes den som
a) skaffer seg samleie ved vold eller å fremkalle frykt for noens liv eller helse, eller
b) skaffer noen andre samleie ved vold eller å fremkalle frykt for noens live eller helse.
Rape
Up to 10 years in prison is the punishment for someone who
a) obtains sexual intercourse by violence or causing fear of someone's life or health, or
b) obtains sexual intercourse for someone else by violence or causing serious fear of life or health.
There also needs to be a marriage exemption and of course no primary perpetrator can be female (unless they are trans), so cis women can only commit b.
If anyone has better ideas, just propose them in the comments and I will take everything into account before we arrive at our manifesto. To me it is astonishing that most men are not upset by the evolution of feminist rape law. To them, most of the time, these are just words in books they don't read. My special sensitivity to laws before they affect me personally explains how I could be extremely radicalized by something they don't even notice, which is why it is so hard to get a Men's Movement going.
27 comments:
18 USC 2423 - the entire section must be removed, or rewritten to include only one sentence:
anyone who transports another across state lines for prostitution using kidnap or theft against the victim commits human trafficking.
I suggest an Occam's Razor approach.
The only way to have sex with someone overriding his or her desire not to is by a) use of overpowering physical force, b) credible threat of violence or c) clandestine stupefaction with drugs.
Where a), b) or c) are not present, no one's wish not to have sex has been overborne, because these are the only methods of achieving sex without the partner's consent.
All three are already prohibited in criminal codes, so there is no need for a separate rape law at all. As a bonus, existing prohibitions against physical violence and drugging people require proper standards of evidence with corroboration, not just a mere accusation.
Yes, it would be reasonable to rely on other laws for what really deserves to be punished, but I don't think we will get anywhere with that. Rape is held to be so much worse than anything else that it needs its own special law, plus the hysteria would prevent rational thought about the already existing alternative, which they would refuse to see and just accuse us of wanting to legalize rape. So I think we need to present a legal definition of rape that we can live with and argue for it, if we want to be taken seriously at all, or else we simply won't be part of the mainstream debate. There is no historical precedent for not having a rape law, as far as I know, but we can point to plenty of historical definitions that we want to go back to, such as the common law definition.
Here is some history which shows how far back the tradition of rape law goes. I don't think it is viable to try to reset the clock all the way back to before 1700 BC.
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/history-rape-and-rape-laws
"HISTORY OF RAPE AND RAPE LAWS"
WOMEN LAWYERS JOURNAL Volume: 60 Issue: 4 (FALL 1974) Pages: 188-191,207
Author: C J SMITH
Annotation
THE LEGAL HISTORY OF THE CRIME OF RAPE IN CIVILIZED SOCIETIES DURING PEACE IS REVIEWED, AND A DEFINITION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES RAPE IS PRESENTED; RAPE DURING WAR IS TOUCHED UPON.
Abstract
THE OLDEST WRITTEN LAWS DESIGNATING RAPE AS A CRIME WERE PROMULGATED IN THE CODE OF HAMMURAPI ABOUT THE BEGINNING OF THE 17TH CENTURY B.C. HEBREW LAWS, SET FORTH IN THE FIRST FIVE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE PROVIDED CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR RAPE. THE EARLIEST ENGLISH COMMON LAW INCLUDED WRITTEN PROMULGATIONS OF KINGS, STARTING WITH AETHELBERT OF KENT WHO RULED IN 597 A.D. HIS LAWS AND THOSE OF OTHER KINGS DID NOT OFTEN SPECIFICALLY STATE AN ACT AS A CRIME OR CIVIL OFFENSE BUT INDICATED THE PENALTY OR COMPENSATION FOR AN ACT. IN LATER ENGLISH COMMON LAW, RAPE WAS DEFINED AS THE UNLAWFUL CARNAL KNOWLEDGE OF A FEMALE OVER 10 YEARS OF AGE BY A MAN NOT HER HUSBAND THROUGH FORCE OR AGAINST HER WILL. THIS DEFINITION HAS GENERALLY BEEN FOLLOWED WITH SOME MINOR VARIATIONS, EXCEPT THAT THE AGE OF CONSENT HAS BEEN RAISED TO A MORE REALISTIC LEVEL. RAPE EMBODIES FORCE, LACK OF CONSENT, AND SEXUAL INTERCOURSE; I.E., PENETRATION OF THE MALE ORGAN INTO THE FEMALE VULVA OR LABIA; THE MALE ORGAN DOES NOT HAVE TO REACH THE FEMALE VAGINA TO CONSTITUTE RAPE. EMISSION IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF RAPE AND IF IT SHOULD OCCUR PRIOR TO AND WITHOUT PENETRATION A WOMAN HAS NOT BEEN RAPED. IT IS RAPE IF A WOMAN IS ASLEEP, HAS FAINTED, OR IS OTHERWISE UNCONSCIOUS AND A MAN HAS INTERCOURSE WITH HER, EVEN THOUGH ACTUAL FORCE IS ABSENT. INTERCOURSE IS RAPE BY FRAUD UNDER SOME STATUTES IF A WOMAN IS GIVEN A SUBSTANCE WITHOUT HER KNOWLEDGE THAT UNDULY EXCITES HER SEXUAL DESIRES OR PREVENTS OR LESSENS HER RESISTANCE. (DEP)
However, I think that paper gets it wrong insofar as intercourse needs to be by force AND against her will (a bit of feminist wishful thinking there, and as we can see, their rape law reform was already well underway in 1974), rather than just one or the other, in common law and certainly the definition we want to advocate. Being asleep is not automatically sufficient either.
Hvis kvinden sover, skal det højst være "sex uden samtykke", men under alle omstændigheder ikke voldtægt. Et godt eksempel er Julian Assange, som havde sex med en kvinde med hendes samtykke. Men når Julian så gjorde nøjagtigt de samme ting efter at hun var faldet i søvn, var det pludselig voldtægt, hvilket er mildt sagt ude af proportioner.
Hele cirkusset mod ham startede faktisk efter voldtægtsanklagerne, og han sidder stadig i fængsel den dag i dag.
Yes, only if unconsciousness is caused by force, for the purpose of rape, can it be rape. This includes unwilling drugging, but not willing and of course not normal sleep either. If a woman is unconscious or asleep in a situation where she can expect to be left alone, then it can be a lesser sex crime to exploit her condition, but going to bed with a man does not count as such. We can't have the state policing every second people sleep together to make sure the woman is never touched unless fully awake; that's just insane and evil and should be the very most radicalizing aspect of feminism for men. Yet they have managed to turn exactly this kind of situation into routine rape charges, which is what happened to Assange, yes. And he is still in prison even after the rape case was dropped, and even now after the extradition proceedings are shown to be based on lies as well:
https://stundin.is/grein/13627/key-witness-in-assange-case-admits-to-lies-in-indictment/
I wonder if the sex accusations were similarly motivated, but it doesn't matter because this is how the feminist state works anyway. The usual sex crimes prosecution was just a convenient weapon to use. I thought his case would shine light on how insane the feminist definition of rape is, and it did to some extent but men didn't wake up. Instead, Sweden actually expanded the definition some more to do away with the sleep requirement so women can simply claim they didn't consent, as did Denmark and soon Norway.
so women can simply claim they didn't consent
But what about gender equality? If women can claim that, men should be allowed to do the same, too.
Gender equality is a red herring to rape law. Fair treatment means different treatment of the sexes since we are so different in this. Men have no use for even the original, forcible, definition of rape to protect them from women (which sensibly didn't work that way), and the only use for this new one will be to cancel out accusations from women if the courts will let you do that. Logically the man doesn't consent either if he doesn't sign the consent document, so she shouldn't be able to claim rape, but that's not how it works in practice. Women will be "believed" most of the time, only interrupted by a few absurd cases of the female sex offender charade where the man accused first.
But that sure would be a funny way to deflect it. Men could embrace a new consent-based definition of rape complete with signature by BankID to make it valid, provided that we are only rapists by this standard if we sign and women don't :)
Arguably this is indeed the implication of the new law on its own terms.
Here is Spain already at it:
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/06/europe/spain-rape-laws-intl/index.html
The Spanish government approved a law on Tuesday to define all non-consensual sex as rape, part of a legislative overhaul that toughens penalties for sexual harassment and mandates more support systems for victims.
It approved the bill five years after what became known as the 'wolf pack' case, in which five men gang-raped an 18-year old woman at Pamplona's bull-running festival, causing public outrage and prompting calls to reform laws on sexual violence.
The draft still requires parliamentary approval, which is expected by the end of the year. Based around a "yes means yes" model, which qualifies any non-consenting sex as rape, the law will bring Spain into line with 11 other European countries, including Sweden, Portugal and Britain, that use similar legal definitions.
@eivind
Why do they need to change the law because a gang rape happened? isn't gang rape already illegal? lol
https://writtenbytheyouth.com/young-girls-rape-culture-breaking-down-the-patriarchys-sexualization-of-women/
Feminists are using a graph on this blog to attack men for being attracted to 14 year olds.
https://ibb.co/sVjCM3D
Here is the graph in full view. It says men are the most attracted to 14 year olds out of any age group. But it was recently called out on freespeechtube as a fake graph, from 4chan. I don't believe it though. Want a second opinion. Can Eivind and Theantifeminist do some research on it and find out if it's legit or fake?
I think the graph is legit, but wrongly attributed. This is where I had it:
http://eivindberge.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-faces-of-evil.html
Where somebody already did the research and commented:
Ochi said...
The label of Source on the ages of attraction chart is wrong. It does not come from that 1995 study. (Which I have just completely read.)
Descriptions I have read about the chart say:
As part of making the documentary "Are All Men Pedophiles?", several thousand men on the Internet were shown pictures of girls and women of all ages without being informed of their age and asked if they found them sexually desirable or not.
I myself found it on Twitter and didn't check the citation. So if you are going to rely on it, please change that, but I think the data reflect normal male sexuality pretty well. There could be some sampling biases with how these men were recruited, but it won't be far from the truth.
https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/chatcontrol-european-parliament-approves-mass-surveillance-of-private-communications/
The EU votes in favor of automatic, constant scanning and reporting of all emails and text messages in search of "sexual abuse". Total digital surveillance.
This blog has no influence over laws whatsoever, these statists will do whatever they want as nothing is stopping them.
This blog should focus immediately on ways to get around the statists. Guerilla warfare is the only way to win against a superior power which is impossible to fight.
Burner phones, nicknames, no sim cards...
Yes, the 1984 dystopia is truly here, but I see there it is already intended to get worse:
"The European Commission has already announced a follow-up regulation to make chat control mandatory for all email and messaging providers. Previously secure end-to-end encrypted messenger services such as Whatsapp or Signal would be forced to install a backdoor. There is a considerable backlash against these plans: A public consultation carried out by the EU Commission revealed that 51% of all respondents oppose chat control for e-mail and messaging providers. 80% of respondents do not want chat control to be applied to encrypted messages. Due to the resistance, EU Commissioner for Home Affairs Ylva Johannson has postponed the proposal until September 2021."
With that, ironically only criminals are entitled to speak in confidence anymore, as attorney-client privilege will be the only kind of human communication that the police is not supposed to have access to. Otherwise, and if not outlawing that too will be the next step, we have to get used to the very concept of human privacy being abolished. Everything will be read by AI in real time and reported to the police if flagged by whatever the machine learning deems suspicious (which itself will be inscrutable).
I wonder if humans will adapt, and be mindful that nothing is private unless out of earshot of any electronic devices. It is possible that human resilience will strike back and find ways around even this level of surveillance (at which point I am sure they will first outlaw being away from phones and then force implanted devices). All in the name of protecting the children, which not enough people will object to to stop any of this, but trust me, there will be workarounds. AI doesn't just learn; it trains people how to avoid it and ultimately people are stronger, if for no other reason than Gail Tverberg's collapse scenarios coming true.
The hypocrisy in Society is without bounds: "A former Victoria's Secret model says agencies told her to use cocaine and 'have lots of sex' to lose weight while she was underage". Here:
https://news.yahoo.com/former-victorias-secret-model-says-143505707.html
I bet that model wet her knickers when she was told this as a teenager, and probably still wets them recounting the story now. She is probably actively trying to lose weight now.
This brief and principled pro-sexual leaflet, written by a woman (Valentine de Saint-Point) in 1913, is quite interesting:
https://ubu.com/papers/saint-point_lust.html
This "Futurist Manifesto of Lust" truly belongs in the male sexualist canon, in my opinion. I'm sure Eivind agrees with 95% of what's there, if not 100%.
Amusing, and yes, I agree with most of it, maybe all but will have to think about it. Definitely one for the male sexualist canon. It is a more poetic manifesto though, with expressions such as this: “Lust is the quest of the flesh for the unknown, just as Celebration is the spirit’s quest for the unknown. Lust is the act of creating, it is Creation.”
Nothing wrong with that style, and indeed there is a place for it and can be wonderful, but what I am focused on now is one which provides a drop-in replacement for the sex laws, without witch our movement has a black hole in our literature.
I have a comment on that horrible feminist piece which was linked to earlier because it picked up our attraction graph:
https://writtenbytheyouth.com/young-girls-rape-culture-breaking-down-the-patriarchys-sexualization-of-women/
Pornhub’s most popular search term for the past six years has remained “teen.” With more than 80 million people watching porn every day, men have full access to content that portrays young girls as ready to be taken advantage of as sexual beings for a man’s satisfaction. Why do men have an affinity for barely legal pornography? Perhaps it’s because men derive pleasure from knowing that they’re in power — that the female, the teenager or child, is subject to his will.
It occurs to me what kind of self-delusion goes into this. The jealous old feminist would like to think that she is just as hot as a teen girl, so she imagines that men only prefer young girls because of "power." Bizarre thinking, but it is a feminist trope that they literally seem to believe. As we know and make explicit in our movement, in fact teen girls are superwomen, the most attractive AND powerful. If men truly wanted weak women, granny porn would be most popular search term, preferably so powerless that they need to be in a nursing home, lol. It is so hard to be honest about attraction and beauty that the relative lack of that desire is simply glossed over.
Well, that's what I thought anyway before I checked out the authors, who turned out to be hot teen girls themselves...
https://writtenbytheyouth.com/authors/
Aria Chawla is a 17-year-old from Singapore living in New Jersey. She enjoys writing and reading, especially anything that involves romance. In her spare time, she can be found watching Rick & Morty, curating her Pinterest boards, and listening to music that makes her nostalgic. She is one of the creators of Written by the Youth.
Reese Polk is a 17 year old girl from New Jersey. Her hobbies include dancing, watercolor painting, reading, and building puzzles. She’s passionate about pop culture, politics, and art history. Her favorite shows include Avatar the Last Airbender, Euphoria, Gossip Girl, and Grey’s Anatomy. In the future she wants to work in psychology, social work, or fashion.
So they are wolfs in cute-girl clothing. How does this absurd indoctrination happen so prematurely? How can teen girls not know they are superwomen and instead think they are children? The behemoth strikes again!
They are right to hate porn though, which is adorable but for the wrong reasons as usual.
https://i.redd.it/rjyhz420el971.jpg
https://www.reddit.com/r/IncelTear/comments/oeuo1j/dear_incel_we_dont_want_to_be_anywhere_near_you
"Nothing wrong with that style, and indeed there is a place for it and can be wonderful, but what I am focused on now is one which provides a drop-in replacement for the sex laws, without witch our movement has a black hole in our literature."
We don't need a replacement or a manifesto even, other than a demand for the repeal of all feminist (anti-) sex laws of the last 150 years.
Let's keep it simple.
Interesting that she married a professor when she was 18, who was nearly twice her age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentine_de_Saint-Point
"How does this absurd indoctrination happen so prematurely? How can teen girls not know they are superwomen and instead think they are children?"
Of course they know their sexual power. As they look ahead, they are terrified of its decline, so they get on the old hag power train because they know that's where they're going.
"How does this absurd indoctrination happen so prematurely? How can teen girls not know they are superwomen and instead think they are children?"
Eivind, a few weeks ago you claimed that NO teenage girl could ever be brainwashed into believing she had been sexually abused.
The above commentator is correct. Teenage girls are aware of themselves as beings existing over time, they are aware of their fleeting power, they only have to look at their mothers to see what lies in store for them.
So teenage girls are not only superwomen, they are super smart as well unlike boys. Or else we would surely get articles from 17-year-old boys saying there is nothing wrong with attraction to teenage girls, which they themselves will get stigmatized for in one year and criminalized shortly thereafter. Perhaps. Teen girls are superwomen, after all, and I won't underestimate them ever again. But no, I still don't think they get brainwashed to feel they didn't make their own choices. They support the narrative that everything is abuse, but make exceptions for themselves at least to themselves, because all healthy developed humans such as teenagers function that way. We know that if we do something willingly then we bear some responsibility. At least equal responsibility in many cases, or more. Society tells them they are "groomed" and abused even if they actively go out and seduce an older man, including lying about their age and so on, but no way they think so privately.
More hateful antisex propaganda:
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/10/asia/philippines-age-of-consent-intl-hnk-dst/index.html
A new line of argument is the age of consent is "inconsistent," bolstered by the marriage age creeping up to 18 everywhere:
Some clauses have been amended over the years, but not the age of consent -- meaning there are now "inconsistent" legal ages, she added. "The minimum age for getting married is 18, to enter into contracts and to vote is also 18. Yet, the minimal age for sexual consent is 12."
You can see where this is going in order to be "consistent," though they might settle for 16 at first and there soon won't be any countries left with a reasonable age of consent.
This might be of interest:
https://www.freespeechtube.org/v/15l0
I definitely will finish this series and make a manifesto with complete sex laws that we can get behind. Even if the result is basically the same as repealing all the antisex laws of the past 150 years, people don't even remember or imagine that most of these laws can be gone, so it needs to be spelled out.
But for now, I just did another post on bitcoin:
http://eivindberge.blogspot.com/2021/07/journal-of-metaphysical-bitcoin.html
Post a Comment