Eivind Berge's Blog

Nonviolent Resistance: FIJA

2012-01-29T17:18:00.008+01:00

There are ways to fight tyrannical laws without resorting to violent insurrection. We don't even necessarily need to get unjust laws repealed in order to protect ourselves. As long as the right to a jury trial is respected, the people can defend citizens from the worst abuses of government. It is called jury nullification, which is a peaceful way to tell the government to fuck off. If I ever find myself on the jury of a criminal trial involving, say, statutory or feminist-defined rape or nonviolent drug offenses, I would vote to acquit in any event as a matter of principle, regardless of the evidence, because I fundamentally disagree with the laws in question. Convicting anybody for such bogus victimless crimes would be contrary to my core libertarian moral values. Moreover, it would be my right and duty as a juror to judge the law as much as the person, and refuse to convict when I find the law morally repulsive. Sadly many jurors fail to realize this, and instead think they are supposed to uphold the law no matter how much they disagree with it. Today I was delighted to come across an organization working to inform potential jurors of their proper role. FIJA is the Fully Informed Jury Association, and here is finally a charity I can get behind! As they put it,

The primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by government. The Constitution guarantees you the right to trial by jury. This means that government must bring its case before a jury of The People if the government wants to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property. Jurors can say no to government tyranny by refusing to convict.

FIJA Works to:
Inform potential jurors that they cannot be required to check their conscience at the courthouse door;

Inform potential jurors that they cannot be punished for their verdict;

Inform everyone that juror veto--juror nullification--is a peaceful way to protect human rights against corrupt politicians and government tyranny.

This goes for Norway too, with some caveats. In some ways we have less rights and a more oppressive state. We have (at least) triple jeopardy. Double jeopardy is built into the system as a matter of course. Our jury system, which was instituted in 1887, works roughly like this. Defendants are first tried in Tingretten, which is a sort of kangaroo court with one judge and two semi-professional laymen who vote and produce a verdict which isn't taken very seriously by anyone (it scarcely even counts as jeopardy). Then if either party appeals, which is extremely common, the real trial is in Lagmannsretten with 10 jurors and 3 judges. At this point, a certain level of flagrant disrespect for jury nullification is built into the system. The matter of guilt is up to the jury of 10 peers, but if they vote to acquit and the 3 professional judges disagree (if they find it obvious that the defendant is technically guilty but the jury has decided to disregard the law -- the very definition of jury nullification), they can quash the verdict and order a new trial, subjecting the defendant to triple jeopardy. In the new trial there are only four laymen in addition to another three professional judges, and even here I am not sure if an acquittal is necessarily final. Thus there are some serious structural obstacles to jury nullification in Norway. Nonetheless, our jury system is still pretty strong, and it is important that we keep it that way. Ideally we should strengthen it, of course. The buck should stop with an acquittal in Lagmannsretten, after which there should be no way the defendant can be retried for the same crime. This only happens occasionally, however, so with respect to appeals and multiple jeopardy, I am about 70% pleased with the way it works now. We should also guarantee the right to a jury trial for all crimes, and not just crimes punishable by more than 6 years. We might also debate whether just 7 votes out of 10 jurors should really be sufficient to convict. (In the American system, all 12 have to agree. But on the other hand, their system has many other shortcomings including the governmental extortion that is plea bargaining, all kinds of unfair restrictions on what evidence is admissible including rape shield laws, and even ways to get around the double jeopardy rule simply by picking another name for the same alleged crime -- so I am not saying their system is better overall.)

In rape trials based on feminist corruption of the legal definition, jury nullification is in fact already happening. It just isn't recognized as such. The official propaganda has it that some flaws in the system must be preventing justice from being served. We are constantly told that the system needs to be reformed in various ways to convict more men, from the supposedly careless way rape accusations are initially handled by police to the pesky problem of juries refusing to get with the feminist program and convict. But indeed, the low conviction rate (or "high attrition rate," as feminists put it) in rape trials is proof that the system is working, at least to some extent. There is still some vestige of justice and sanity left. The people is protesting corrupt laws and odious feminist prosecutors by refusing to convict in many cases. And ironically, women jurors vote to acquit accused rapists more often than men do, according to one study. Yes, on rape juries, manginas run more rampant than feminists! The problem from an MRA perspective is state feminism, corrupt laws and the disrespect for the citizenry embodied by the weak position of the jury. And it keeps getting worse. Feminists are lobbying to abolish the jury altogether in rape trials, citing what is in fact jury nullification (and should be respected as such -- the proper course of action is to back off and reverse feminist rape law reform) as evidence that only professional feminist lawyercunts and manginas are fit to decide who is guilty of rape. When that happens, we won't have any nonviolent recourse against tyrannical feminist prosecutions, but we still do as of today, and we should avail ourselves of this opportunity for nonviolent activism while it lasts. If you ever serve on a jury, please don't let the feminists with their laws and judges cow you into voting for a guilty verdict if it goes against your conscience.

Which Men Does MRA Serve? Alphas or Betas?

2012-01-09T00:38:00.000+01:00

Is the Men's Rights Movement only for betas? An article signed by four "masculinists" (of Maskulinist.no) in Morgenbladet, where I am also cited, raises the question of which group constitutes the Men's Movement, and I suppose it is easy to get the impression from a cursory look at MRA sites that we are all about betas. I guess I haven't been clear as to exactly who is included in our movement as I see it, so perhaps it is time to define MRA.

Men's Rights Activism is a backlash against feminism. Feminism is basically about restricting men’s access to women’s bodies by means of the police state, all while forcibly reaping the fruits of men's labor without having to put out any more than they feel like. MRA is the opposite. Succinctly put, MRActivism addresses how to get laid and what happens when you do. The former is perhaps best summed up in my “Rape is equality” post, and the latter includes criminal (and civil) sex accusations as well as anything to do with divorce, paternity fraud, child support and custody, etc. While how to get laid is by definition a beta and omega issue, what happens when you do is also highly applicable to alphas. Feminist corruption of justice has made sex extremely risky no matter how alpha you are. Alpha victims of feminist sex laws include Julian Assange, DSK, Silvio Berlusconi, Herman Cain, and Israeli ex-president Moshe Katshav, who is now in prison for false rape and sexual harassment. And that’s just to name a few recent examples off the top of my head. Even Bill Clinton and Al Gore almost ran afoul of feminist sex law, so clearly no man is too powerful to be a victim. There is also a plethora of recent examples here in Norway, where thousands of men criminalized by the new law against buying sex now are exposed by hackers after the media dug into a website where prostitutes advertise and found, unsurprisingly, that men in all kinds of positions were customers. I am linking to the complete user database including all phone numbers (but not the text messages between hookers and johns, which I do not possess because the hackers were too chickenshit to share them) in order to show all these men that the feminist police state is a very real personal threat against which we should all band together. This material alone could be used to at least triple the Norwegian prison population for a year if feminist prosecutors used it for all it is worth, but I guess it was too overwhelming to charge some 20,000 men all at once...

Of course, men always compete for women, with each man preferring to keep all the pussy for himself. Alphas and betas are not natural allies, and so far, hardly any alphas have come out in support of MRA. They probably don’t feel the need to yet. Life is generally good for alphas under feminism, but all it takes to ruin your life is a woman’s word. I believe all men ought to conspire against the feminist police state out of solidarity but also for their own good, and when that happens, feminism won't stand a chance. The hard part is convincing the alphas that supporting feminism is a bad idea, as most of them seem to be incapable of realizing this until it is too late. But they should. Even when I was most sexually frustrated, feminist sex laws and rape reform in particular always remained at the forefront of my mind and I was seething with hatred and murderous rage against the cops who enforce all the freshly minted feminist sex laws against men who do easily get laid. We are in this together, alphas and betas alike, and it is high time to fight the feminist police state. In fact, oppugning feminist jurisprudence is arguably more important than promoting sexual egalitarianism, since at the very least, men would be able to pay for sex without persecution.

The Feminist Police State vs. Female Teachers

2011-12-07T08:09:00.001+01:00

The amount of hysteria our society is able to generate over victimless sex crimes continues to astonish. When I read about Stacy Schuler (gym teacher sentenced to four years for sex with high school senior football players) a few months ago, I thought we weren't quite at that level of insanity here yet. I was wrong. The feminist police state of Norway is now charging a female teacher with "sexual abuse" of a 16-year-old boy, a consensual affair for which she faces up to six years in prison. The cutting edge of feminist hatred lies in criminalizing intimate relationships between students and teachers, with feminist prosecutors having a bonanza going after women too (male sexuality is already so thoroughly criminalized that it's difficult to expand that way). This type of feminist justice has played out many times over in Anglo countries for years, and now sadly we are set to repeat and perpetuate the charade. By hateful feminist logic, being a teacher magically transforms sex into some sort of heinous "abuse." In Norway (Strl. § 193) this is punishable by up to six years (actually, they also have the option of asking for preventive detention for such crimes, which is a potential life sentence), even if the student is over the age of consent (which is way too high, but that's not the point I am arguing here) -- in fact, this law is applicable to "victims" of any age, and the position supposedly being taken advantage of can be not just an official job but any type of trusting relationship, even a friendship. This law is thus a silver bullet which accusers and the feminist state can use against anyone they damn well please whenever our absurdly expansive definition of rape falls short. It's not even an obstacle to prosecution under this law that the "victim" was the one seducing and instigating sexual contact with the "abuser."

Of course, the motivation behind passing this law, as with other absurd sex laws, was to hurt men and empower women. But when you play the equalist charade, you are bound to have some women accused from time to time as well. The feminist police state, in this case represented by Tore Løwengreen, dutifully assures us that although he has never seen a case like this before, the cops regard it as a very serious felony, which they investigate and prosecute with the utmost zeal, just like they would against a male offender.

- Vi ser veldig alvorlig på denne saken, sier politiførstebetjent Tore Løwengreen i Østfold politidistrikt.

At this point it is difficult to decide whether to laugh, cry, or go on a rampage. Frankly I am at a loss as to how it is even possible for a human being to see this as a case of sexual abuse, even with reversed gender roles. How can such deranged feminist bullshit take hold of a man's brain to such an extent that he actually internalizes it? I'm really stretching my suspension of disbelief here trying to give him credit for some sort of humanity; emotionally he appears as just a feminist zombie spouting the party line. Now, it is conceivable that Løvengreen is simply parroting political correctness because it is his job, which he values more than his dignity, and he does not deep down actually believe this boy is a victim. I should give him the benefit of the doubt that he might be a hypocritical scumbag before pronouncing him a moron. But it is also possible he is genuinely brainwashed by feminist ideology, being a gullible fool. In order for the regime of state feminism to work its hateful ways, at least some of the actors need to believe in its lies, I think. There could also be a false consensus effect at work, where political correctness as dictated by the top feminist ideologues holds sway without the general public or even the enforcers much believing in it. Under this theory, the cops and courts operate under the banality of evil, but a more likely and sinister explanation is that the feminist abuse hysteria has honestly infested law enforcement and jurisprudence at all levels. This is where I feel heightened empathy and love for erstwhile humanity, and am impelled to write this post and engage in all sorts of activism against the feminist reign of terror.

Let me therefore interject some sanity. In a sane world, sexual relations between teachers and students would not be regulated by criminal law. It might be defensible for schools, if they are feeling particularly sex-hostile, to have a policy against student-teacher sex, where the worst consequence would be termination; but escalating the hysteria to the level of a crime is never justified. Moreover, a sane society would take sex differences into account, and not pretend a man and a woman copulating are doing the same thing. Since the sex act does not even physically look the same from the point of view of both genders, it takes a tremendous amount of feminist brainwashing to even entertain the notion that there is no meaningful difference. As previously stated, in my opionion women fundamentally cannot under any circumstances commit rape or sexual abuse against males. Since sex is a female resource, males are always lucky to get it from a woman, or at least it is absurd and unacceptable for the law to treat them as victims of female sexual acts per se. Female sex offenders are thus categorically excluded from my ontology. Admittedly this is an extreme position, but it is at least as extreme on the part of feminists and the state to deny any sex difference whatsoever. The proximate explanation for why it's wrong to impute sexual predatorhood to women is just plain common sense and human experience. Nobody can fool me into thinking boys can be abused by pussy, because I remember how much I wanted to fuck the female teachers when I was that age myself. Boys want sex and in the rare event that they get lucky with older women, their peers and grown-up men alike naturally envy and applaud them rather than pity them as victims. The profound visceral rage, hate, and jealousy this case invokes in healthy men like me based on life experience is strong evidence all by itself for a police state gone insane. The ultimate explanation for why women cannot sexually abuse boys, however, can be dispassionately and logically formulated as parental investment theory. The minimum necessary parental investment for each sex explains why each additional mating is beneficial to men and tends to be detrimental to women. As a result of these fundamental restraints, evolution has equipped boys with adaptations to welcome and enjoy opportunistic mating opportunities more, whereas girls are designed to be coy and picky. Boys are objectively as well as subjectively and socially empowered by sex with the teacher, whereas girls are objectively if not subjectively more or less exploited (but not so much that this deserves to be criminalized, either). Any concept of "sexual abuse" which flat-out denies this biological reality is sick to the core. It is insulting and demeaning to men on so many levels. To me, the female sex offender charade is right up there with the lie that rape is about power rather than sex as the most aggravating aspect of feminism. Draconian sex laws against men are bad enough. Going after women for being nice to boys adds a whole new level of insult to injury, and promotes an even colder world for boys to grow up in than I did. It also constitutes a perverse waste of taxpayers' money and, of course, hurts innocent women who are locked up for sharing their sexuality with more or less ungrateful brats while the frustrated majority stands by wishing they could only be so lucky.

There is still a silver lining, sort of. By insisting on equality, feminist legislators and prosecutors make buffoons out of themselves for all the world to see. Besides a select group of MRAs, no one gives a damn when a man is imprisoned for a victimless crime, because men are regarded as worthless in our society anyway, but when a woman is a victim of the system built to empower women, alarm bells start ringing in a wider audience. It takes just a tiny bit of humanity to comprehend that this is a police state run amok. Even the copy in feminist newspaper Dagbladet is slanted against the police state between the lines. Evidently it occurs to some feminists now that things are getting out of hand. Yet experience from other countries indicates that the populace is willing to absorb considerable escalation of the feminist police state against women also. As is often the case, a revolution eats its own children. What was meant to be a utopia for women and children is starting to give the victim class a taste of their own tyrannical medicine. The feminist state is spinning out of control, turning against new groups of offenders based on new kinds of phony crimes at a staggering rate. The abuse industry is even increasingly preying on children, destroying childhood in the guise of protecting children. Some examples from just last week:

A 9-year-old is suspended for sexual harassment because he told another student that a teacher is “cute.”
A high school student is handcuffed for wearing a hoodie that did not match school colors.
a 13-year-old student is arrested for allegedly burping during class.
a 7-year-old is investigated for sexual harassment for hitting a boy in the groin who was allegedly choking him.

How did we come to this? How did a movement intended to promote "equality" devolve into a reign of terror persecuting women and children as well as men? How can women continue to support the feminist police state and its odious laws, seeing that they may well be its next victim? Yesterday a law was proposed to criminalize possession of rubber gloves if the cops feel we might intend to use them for terrorism, along with another slew of new powers for the police state. That level of hysteria has already been implemented with regard to sexuality. Grooming law similarly empowers cops to arrest men for hypothetical crimes, and even provoke fictitious crimes altogether just to get innocent men imprisoned. It is time for the people to fight back on every front, because the feminist war on male sexuality has proven what depths of tyranny our government is capable of. So has the war on drugs, but that is a story for another day.

Psychiatry Claims Another Victim

2011-11-30T08:06:00.000+01:00

It came as a bit of a surprise that Anders Behring Breivik is declared insane by court-appointed shrinks. Which is rather like calling him an animal. Breivik is appropriately offended by this character assassination, which should be enough to raise serious doubts about its validiy. They deny him moral agency, and I bet it even feels like an attempted disqualification of his activism, as if it didn't count after all. There is something deeply dehumanizing about being held unaccountable for your actions. Just like a dog or insect cannot be held to moral standards because they are incapable of moral reasoning and don’t know what they are doing in any moral sense. But is it true? Is he really “psychotic,” and has been so for years during meticulous planning? A "paranoid schizophrenic"?

I had not expected this conclusion, but if he was to be declared insane, I certainly would have guessed they would claim "paranoid schizophrenia." This is the stereotypical diagnosis used when psychiatrists want someone committed whom they can't find anything specifically wrong with. It's like taken out of a book by Thomas Szasz. Watching today's events reminded me of why I don't trust psychiatrists; why I will only subject myself to examination by them over my dead body. As expected, Breivik's insistence that he is sane is simply taken as evidence that he lacks insight into his own illness. Thus any attempt to reason with them will just result in digging yourself deeper into the institutional abyss.

So what does this supposed insanity consist of? Since the full report is secret (another flaw in our system), we are only given some clues, such as "grandiose delusions." It is supposedly delusional to envision himself as a future ruler of Norway. I agree that would be unrealistic to say the least, but being overly ambitious does not have to mean you are insane. By the logic of psychiatrists like Torgeir Husby and Synne Sørheim, Libertarian candidate Bob Barr must have been psychotic to run for president in 2008 with no hope of winning, only to receive 0.4% of the votes. As Breivik is not found to be hallucinating, this type of "delusion" is the sole basis for their diagnosis. Another example cited is his desire to breed Norwegians and put them in reservations, presumably for eugenic purposes. While incredibly wrong-headed and unlibertarian, this does not qualify as a delusion either, as I see it. If Breivik is delusional, then Hitler and any number of despotic megalomaniacs must be considered unaccountable due to insanity, and that's not usually how we see them. Nor does killing 77 people for what you regard as the greater good inevitably qualify as insane, or any general in any war would be insane. How many civilians got killed in Afghanistan, again?

I believe cognitive liberty needs to be a basic human right, even for the worst criminals. It is a much worse fate to lose your cognitive liberty and be forcibly poisoned by toxic chemicals than merely be incarcerated. Psychiatric treatment constitutes cruel and unusual punishment equivalent to torture, in my view. So even if Breivik happens to be truly out of touch with reality, I categorically oppose sentencing him or anybody to psychiatric care. A desire to sentence him to a punishment worse than prison may have factored in, but ultimately I think the psychiatrists just couldn't help themselves, being as entrenched as they are within a framework of assuming power over individuals. In a larger sense, it points to the extreme conformism in our society. I encountered some of the same kind of bigotry at a public debate with feminists recently, where I was called delusional just for my opinions. And this was even coming from a former terrorist who was himself caught with explosives in Beirut in 1977.

I am offended by psychiatry claiming Breivik as another victim. Of course, my heart goes more out to all the victims of psychiatry who did nothing evil to deserve it. Paradoxically, the more heinous your crime, the more shielded you are from the abuses of psychiatric treatment. Peaceable patients do not have the benefit of a large public hearing before psychiatry starts messing with them. Law-abiding patients don't have the luxury of being confined to the relative safety of a regular jail while an independent commission is second-guessing their pyschiatrists. Instead they go straight to the asylum. Psychiatry rivals feminism as the worst social problem of our time. Arguably psychiatry is worse, since it violates your personal integrity rather than just imprison you. Indeed, if you are a victim of psychiatry, it is probably in your best interest (as well as a publicly beneficial act of activism) to kill a guard or cop in order to get a fair public trial and possibly escape treatment before it ruins your health completely. I have previously written laudatory posts about a man who killed a cop trying to apprehend him for forcible drugging. He turned out to be so dense as to testify in court he thought the cop was a burglar and killed him by accident, and so he blew it. The upshot in this case was just a sentence back to the asylum, just like Breivik is facing, but at least you have a shot to plead for prison rather than psychiatric abuse under a great deal of media attention if you make a criminal out of yourself rather than just another nameless victim of psychiatry. There is still a small chance Breivik can pull this off when he gets his day in court.

I would agree that if someone is so out of touch with reality that he genuinely was unaware of what he did, then it does not make sense to hold him criminally accountable. I still oppose forcible psychiatric treatment, which is always a moral travesty under any circumstances. There is simply never any justification for violating someone's cognitive liberty. A civilized, humane society would always offer at least the option of regular imprisonment to the criminally insane, upon conviction by an ordinary trial. Now if they desire psychiatric care, that is another matter, but it is unethical to force this on anybody, not least because neuroleptics have horrible side effects which shave decades off your life expectancy. I have seen my own grandfather suffer tardive dyskinesia due to psychiatric coercion, though somehow he still managed to reach old age. Now I realize iatrogenic adverse effects from somatic medicine can be just as bad, but at least you have the option to refuse treatment. Medicine should operate on the basis of informed consent, or it does not deserve to be called medicine at all.

Finally I want to condemn the Norwegian barbarity of "preventive detention" (forvaring). One upside of being declared insane is you are not actually eligible for this, but lots of criminals are. The maximum sentence for any crime is ostensibly 21 years (soon to be extended to 30 for terrorism), yet even relatively minor crimes (especially feminist sex crimes) can get you preventive detention instead, which is a potential life sentence as it can be indefinitely extended as long as you are deemed likely to commit more crimes if you are released. This is incredibly hypocritical and has no place in any fair justice system. It really makes my blood boil to lock people up for hypothetical crimes not yet committed, and if you think longer sentences than 21 years are justified, which is not a point I am arguing with here, then that should be the sentence in the first place.

My Antifeminist Journey

2011-11-28T07:14:00.001+01:00

Men's Rights Activists are made not born. We arise out of the hostile conditions of state-enforced feminism. Although frequently depicted as hating women, in truth we simply react to misandry. It is as simple as hate breeds hate. I trace my first memory of serious aversion to feminism back to the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings of 1991. I was viscerally appalled that those accusations by Anita Hill were taken seriously as possible misconduct because I instinctively knew, even as a young teenager, that what they called "sexual harassment" is just normal male sexuality and a society which criminalizes it is a sick, revolting society. I still don't understand how American men -- or men anywhere -- can be such milquetoasts as to tolerate sexual harassment policies, let alone internalize them as valid and desirable rules to govern their behavior every working second and empower and enrich women at their pathetic emasculating expense. To me it is absolutely astonishing that any man can even take the concept of sexual harassment seriously and, when accused, defend himself within the framework of the law and claim he didn't do it rather than attack the systemic injustice of instituting sexual harassment policy in the first place, which is the notion that women are discriminated against if they have to encounter sexual references or quid pro quo advances in the workplace, based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and also brought into the academy by Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. A man would have to be an utter moron to go along with this charade and accommodate women on these terms. It is made even more preposterous by the concept of sexual harassment policy now being detached from its historical origins as an innovative feminist tool to empower women over men and presented as the natural order of things. Gullible fools are even made to believe it's now a gender-neutral concept and that men can also be victims, so as to construct a red herring against the reality that sexual harassment policy is all about oppressing men.

However, my most formative moment as a fledgling MRA occurred during freshman orientation at Austin Peay State University in 1998. This was my first close encounter with a dystopian vision of the feminist police state turned into brutal reality. The first week for incoming students at any American college is notorious for the hatred heaped on men, which once again this year escalated to new levels, studiously obliterating any vestige of due process for males to defend themselves against ridiculous accusations. But even in 1998, I was met with a concerted week-long display of hateful feminist propaganda, all carefully choreographed to impress upon male students the threat of accusations of rape and sexual harassment at all times. Through lectures, dramatizations, leaflets, posters, T-shirts and so on, we were barraged with incessant propaganda that male sexuality equals rape and/or sexual harassment, and how eagerly accusations are awaited from any female offended by as much as an unwelcome desirous glance from a male, which professional feminists will then zealously prosecute to the full extent possible. There are even mandatory signs permanently displayed in every building urging women to report sexual harassment. My most germane memory is a lecture by some woman who was a professor of sociology. I am not even sure if she identified as a feminist. Her enthusiasm for feminist sex law was tempered by having a college-aged son herself. The resulting cognitive dissonance was funny to behold, as she understood how all this extravagant legal protection for women could just as easily screw her son. She pointed out that the law puts tremendous pressure on males, who bear the full responsibility for any sexual encounter. I vividly remember her explaining to us that in Tennessee, intoxicated women are not legally able to consent to sex. She said the woman does not even have to be visibly drunk, and the man does not even have to be aware that she has been drinking. One girl raised her hand and asked if that meant if she had sex after drinking and then felt bad about it the next day for whatever reason, she could simply decide that it was rape. "Yes," she was told, and I could see the smug look of power in her face. I was livid. That was the moment I completely realized I belong to the shit gender. I forthwith fathomed the full abysmal depth of the institutionalized worthlessness of men, how it extends to women wielding the brutal violence of the institutions to lock men up for many years based on the most minuscule of contrived insults, even when they are entirely and admittedly based on regret for consensual acts. I realized that by that definition, I would be a rapist myself and my staying out of jail would depend on women not bothering to report me. After all, alcohol is involved more often than not in the college hookup culture. And I realized that our society is perfectly OK with treating men this way; that this kind of perverse female empowerment is wholly intended by legislators and happily enforced by the police. In short, as considerations of fairness are irrelevant to males because we are so worthless, and the slightest sexual insult against a female is considered weightier than a man's life, sheer violence is our only recourse one way or the other.

We were then told that in order to avoid rape accusations, men should ask women at every step if they wanted it and never do anything unless we get a clear affirmative answer. Which, of course, qualifies as sexual harassment. If we ask for sex, we are harassers, and if we get it, we are rapists. Women have every aspect of male attention covered form the first glance to possible regrets many years after sex. At any stage can they turn around and bring the full force of state violence to bear against the man.

The intended outcome of freshman orientation is to produce a docile mangina. But it didn't work on me. All that hateful propaganda instead sparked hatred in return and sowed the seeds of activism. Rather than cowering in fear of the police, I assumed a warrior mentality and started hating law enforcement. I really, really wanted to hurt those responsible for enacting and enforcing feminist sex law. I did not let feminism influence my personal sex life, but I paid close attention to feminist legal reforms. I watched disgustedly from a distance as radical feminists remolded Norwegian rape law to their hearts' content in 2000, abolishing mens rea and lowering the threshold of force/threat from serious violence to any threatening behavior whatsoever, no matter how slight and including otherwise perfectly legal stuff like ending a relationship if you don't get sex; and sex with females deemed unable to resist due to intoxication, sleep or unconsciousness was also from then on redefined as rape. This reform has predictably opened the floodgates of frivolous accusations against men. The number of women alleging rape to the police has doubled in a decade, yet the official propaganda that not enough women are reporting rape continues unabated. As rape law is limitless but convictions are lagging, today's feminist efforts are centered on eroding due process and ultimately removing the jury, as well as strengthening the police and escalating sentencing. So far the feminist state has been met with negligible resistance -- with one major exception -- and they relentlessly keep pushing for more reforms against men. It probably has to get much worse before it gets better. Sometimes it seems like there is literally no limit to the draconian laws against male sexuality that men will put up with. I can only conclude that most men are remarkably nonviolent, but I am not like most men.

Nevertheless, my own activism all these years has remained fairly innocuous so far, but that's not for lack of affect. Angered by billboards funded by the Clarksville Police Department saying "NO MEANS NO," I painted "VIS GRATA PUELLIS" atop my mortarboard at graduation in 2002. I thought I might get arrested, but nothing happened. I also want to award an honorable mention to Angry Harry, the first MRA I encountered, and whom I've been reading for at least ten years. While nothing can beat college in producing belligerent men, I also owe a great part of my antifeminist awareness to old codger AH, who really opened my eyes to the scope of feminist debasement of our society and convinced me that there will be a time of reckoning for the leftists.

So this is where I am coming from. Freshman orientation was 13 years ago and since then, the feminist police state has grown more monstrous beyond my worst nightmares. Society is already sentencing men to life in prison without the possibility of parole for looking at forbidden pictures of young females. A woman in Nevada got life in prison for letting a 13-year-old boy touch her breast. A man in Sweden was convicted of "child pornography" for possessing cartoons of girls drawn with too small breasts. Norwegian men are criminalized for purchasing sex in the entire world. These are just some examples of the outlandish sex-hostility of state feminism. And it just keeps getting worse and worse. The only way to turn the tide is for men to fight back.

The "Trafficking" Charade Groweth: Au Pairs and Gypsies

2011-11-23T15:35:00.001+01:00

Suppose you hire an au pair while making it clear that she is expected to provide sex as part of the deal, which the woman accepts. A perfectly fair exchange, right? I would naturally expect sex from an au pair myself or I wouldn't hire her, and if she agrees, no reasonable person could object. Unfortunately, we live in a sick society with unbridled feminist power. In the feminist police state of Norway, this is now criminalized as "trafficking." A man and his wife are now on trial for this exact scenario, and it really makes my blood boil with renewed hatred. Just when you thought we had reached the high-water mark, feminism keeps escalating and inventing new ways of persecuting male sexuality. The feminist police state is on a relentless march towards criminalizing ever greater areas of male sexuality -- or in this case, applying existing laws in innovative ways in order to imprison more men. To feminist prosecutor Anne Cathrine Aga I have the following message: The Men's Movement is watching you, bitch, and we are seething with hatred against you personally and the police state you represent. Actions have consequences. Trials are still (mostly) public and they sink into our collective minds, where they form the basis of future activism. Hate breeds hate -- that is a fact of life too smugly ignored by feminists.

The feminist charade of "trafficking" is such a blatant travesty that I scarcely bother writing about it. Only the most gullible fools take the official propaganda at face value anymore, and besides, there are other activists at work diligently exposing the mendacity of the rescue industry more eloquently than I can, most notably The Naked Anthropologist. But I must mention one more example. There is a Gypsy family being prosecuted for "trafficking" in my home town right now. Their crime is simply to carry on their usual lifestyle, which is now defined as trafficking and sexual abuse. One woman is considered a victim of trafficking and sexual abuse by her husband because she at 15 is below the local age of consent, even though they are married according to their own customs. She is trying to get her husband out of jail, but the feminist police state insists on prosecuting. If just a tiny part of all the supposed sex slavery you hear about were true, it's funny that they have to pick a normal family going about their traditional ways to prosecute. I can only conclude that the entire rescue industry is full of shit. Where are the supposed millions of sex slaves in chains, eh? The man in this case is 20 and he is being imprisoned for having relations with his wife who is 15. They were legally married in a place where this is perfectly normal, then made the mistake of traveling to a progressive society. The feminist police state of Norway is a very hateful place indeed for men and will prosecute even when it hurts the "victim" too. Simply crossing the border is "trafficking" and their marriage is now defined as sexual abuse because we are so progressive. I for one do not accept this. I do not want to live in a society so full of hate, and that is why I am a men's rights activist.

These are just two examples going on right now in this feminist police state. We also have a fresh high-profile rape accusation well suited to expose the feminist definition of rape. The women of Norway now wield a shameless reign of terror over men, with unlimited access to feminist police power at their behest for the slightest sexual regret. However, there is a silver lining. Norway by now also has the strongest antifeminist resistance movement in the world, with seventy-seven dead feminists to show this year alone. 2011 is the year Norwegian men as a group emerged out of the blogosphere and into the battlefield. This in turn has led to a breakthrough for MRAs such as my good self in the public discourse, probably for the simple reason that the powers that be now realize ignoring us has deadly consequences. Men are angry now, and we have proven that we are deathly serious about resisting feminism. So the feminist prosecutors referred to above ought to wipe that smug look off their faces before it is too late. Clearly seventy-seven body bags wasn't enough, but I am fairly confident that you will be sorry one day.

The Feminist Police State Grinds On Versus Julian Assange

2011-11-03T14:46:00.000+01:00

“Rape” has in my lifetime degenerated from a crime encompassing only the most severe kinds of sexual coercion, to no coercion at all. This profound expansion of the legal concept of rape must reasonably and perhaps inevitably occasion an equally profound reassessment of the sympathy we afford victims of “rape.” This reevaluation of victimhood due to rape is lagging, I presume, only because the feminist-corrupted definition has yet to sink in with most people. The public scrutiny of rape law generated by the accusations and extradition process surrounding Julian Assange is therefore a welcome contribution to the Men’s Rights Movement. While I sympathize with Assange’s predicament, one could scarcely hope for a better exposition of feminist rape law reform. The rape accusations levied against him by Anna Ardin, Sofia Wilen and the feminist state of Sweden are so patently absurd that you do not have to be an MRA to realize this is a frivolous witch-hunt even if he is guilty as charged. Some bare modicum of sanity will suffice. Today we have it from the horse’s mouth that the definition of rape hounding Julian Assange is institutionalized and entrenched throughout European justice, not just in Sweden. So if you support Assange and also believe the law should apply equally to all men, then you must agree that there is something seriously wrong with current rape law, as reformed by feminists.

It is my pleasure to cite the full text of the latest judgment, which at great length explains that rape law as applied in this case is par for the course in England and all over Europe. In England and Wales, the Sexual Offenses Act of 2003 established rape as intentional penetration of a vagina without consent, and consent is defined as agreeing by choice with the freedom and capacity to make the choice. English rape law is thus at least as extreme as the Swedish version (where coercion is apparently still part of the definition), which means the requirement of dual criminality is satisfied and Assange is to be extradited.

Court cases are often decided more by a climate of opinion rather than the wording of the law itself. The hateful wave of radical feminism sweeping Europe is so powerful, it overrides the varying local definitions and has men uniformly tried and convicted based on the radical feminist definition of rape. Norway, for example, is more extreme than the norm insofar as mens rea is abolished, but we still technically define rape as sex accomplished by some manner of force or coercion, (though this can be as light as e.g. threatening to spread a rumor about a woman), unless the woman is unconscious or otherwise unable to resist. Even so, the Assange judgment asserts that feminism is so impetuous, the trend is to bring charges against men based on feminist ideology even when the law is insufficient. This explains the logical incoherence of defining rape as sex obtained by force/threat yet not requiring resistance from the woman, which is done here in Norway. We might as well ignore the letter of the law and acknowledge the fact that feminist ideology is so pervasive it trumps everything. Fighting feminist law reform with attempted reversal of that reform is thus a futile endeavor, and MRAs must instead mount a resistance external to legislation. An overarching purpose of the feminist police states of Europe is explicitly to “tackle attrition” in rape accusations by whatever means necessary, the law or innocence be damned, and based on an absurd de facto definition of rape by which the essential element is simply lack of consent.

So there you have it. Those who still equate rape with actually being forced to sex, wake up and smell the odious feminist cunt commanding your local police force. Based on this definition of rape, what to think of the “victims” is self-explanatory. Women cannot have their panacean definition of rape and sympathy at the same time. Something has to break. However, even if we arrive at the point where “rape victims” receive nothing but ridicule from the general public (much like Anna and Sofia are getting at the moment), the feminist police state will grind on and destroy innocent men’s lives. As the definition of rape has been expanded to absurdity, sentencing for convicted rapists has perversely increased at the same time, and due process is also constantly besieged. To MRAs this can only mean war.

I look forward to the next chapter in the Assange saga, which will expose more human-rights abuses in the sick joke that is the Swedish justice system. It shall be especially satisfying to have the Swedish travesty of conducting rape trials in secret exposed to the world, because no matter what definition of rape you subscribe to, such a fundamental denial of due process is universally appalling to civilized people.

Does the Emancipation of Women Always Herald Civilizational Collapse?

2011-10-25T00:51:00.000+02:00

I mention the matter now because, owing to the egocentricity in our historical outlook, to which I have already referred, it is often supposed that female emancipation is an invention of the modern white man. Sometimes, we imagine that we have arrived at a conception of the status of women in society which is far superior to that of any other age; we feel an inordinate pride because we regard ourselves as the only civilized society which has understood that the sexes must have social, legal, and political equality. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Apart from the last sentence, the above paragraph is a good summary of attitudes held by most Westerners today. Certainly feminists tend to exude the sentiment that we are exceptional for exalting the ideal of equality (while always somehow falling short of true equality, of course, affording them the opportunity to keep whining about perpetual victimhood). It may come as a surprise, then, that the quote is taken from a book published in 1934: J.D. Unwin's Sex and Culture. I finally took the time to peruse it because as old, dense and obscure as it is, this book has attained the status of something like a classic in the manosphere. Unwin's thesis, based on a survey of more than 80 different societies, is that women's emancipation is incompatible with a flourishing civilization and high culture. The anthropological and historical records indicate that the enforcement of monogamy is inversely proportional to what Unwin terms "social energy." Civilizations rise under conditions of absolute monogamy (or at least a considerable amount of restrictions on the pre-nuptial sexual freedom of women), while the inevitable women's liberation and attendant loosening of sexual mores that follow lead to civilizational collapse.

The energy of the most developed civilized societies, or that of any group within them, was exhibited for so long as they preserved their austere regulations. Their energy faded away as soon as a modified monogamy became part of the inherited tradition of the whole society. No group of human beings, however, has ever been able, or at any rate has ever consented, to tolerate a state of absolute monogamy for very long. This is not surprising, for it is an unequal bargain for the women; and in the end they have always been freed from their legal disadvantages. To express the matter in popular language, they have been 'emancipated'. This has happened regularly and unfailingly in every recorded example of absolute monogamy, except one; in that case special circumstances prevailed. The Sumerians, Babylonians, Athenians, Romans, and Teutons began their historical careers in a condition of absolute monogamy; in each case the women were legal nonentities. After a time the laws were altered; a woman became a legal entity, the equal of a man. This happened among the Sumerians before they were dominated by the absolutely monogamous Babylonians; then among the latter just before Babylonia fell under the sway of the uncultivated Kassites. Under the ius gentium the Roman matrons were freed from most of the disadvantages from which they suffered under the old ius civile. Among the Anglo-Saxons the same changes were taking place when after the reign of Cnut the ecclesiastical authorities succeeded in obtaining control of sexual regulations. After the introduction of a pseudo-indissoluble monogamy (which, so far as the position of women and sexual opportunity were concerned, was the same as absolute monogamy) the English instituted the same reforms, which were still incomplete in the twentieth century. Only among the Athenians was the emancipation of native-born women never completed. Yet there seems to have been an emancipating movement in Athens too, but apparently the Periclean decree of 451 B.C. and the laws in regard to the epicleros, never repealed, prevented the native-born women from being freed from their legal disadvantages. In Athenian society the part which was played, in later Sumerian, Babylonian; Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and English society by emancipated women was played by the Outlander women (as Professor Zimmern has called them). Thus the impulses which helped to inaugurate the changes were, operative, and to some extent satisfied, in this case also. (Sex and Culture, pp. 343-44)

I won't go into Unwin's theoretical explanation for the relationship between social energy and sexual restraint, because I don't much believe in it. That kind of Freudian theorizing is rather dated, but Unwin can be forgiven for not being conversant with evolutionary psychology. The historical evidence he presents, however, appears solid. The cycle of sexual restraint (or rather sexual egalitarianism, giving men the opportunity to to invest in families and thus society), feminism, decline and eventual displacement by cultures who subjugate their women has been played out time and again throughout history. The present decline of Western civilization is thus entirely expected, and we can probably look forward to being superseded by a more energetic culture. Islam is a good candidate. Not optimal, since they do allow polygamy, but this theory predicts that they will do better than our moribund Western civilization.

Victimless Crimes

2011-10-02T13:56:00.000+02:00

Lately the Norwegian news media has been trying to shame two male politicians for victimless crimes that are only crimes by virtue of the feminism which real men despise. What they don't seem to get is that just because you pass a law against Norwegian men purchasing sex worldwide and then manage to nail one in Latvia, making this headline news only brings attention to the bizarre and flagrant feminist reign of terror which is the status quo in Norway. This kind of propaganda is counterproductive to feminism because it only serves to highlight unjust laws unless you brainwash people to internalize those laws first. As attested by this blog, some of us are impervious to feminist brainwashing and instead react to feminist escalation by redoubling our antifeminist activism.

Likewise there is no shame in having sex with nubile young teenage girls, and regardless of how the law defines it, only feminists and laughably primitive men have internalized the misandrist sex laws criminalizing such behavior. Real men can see through the charade and know that sex with sexually mature girls under the age of consent is only "abuse" in feminist legal fiction. The reaction to hearing about men accused of statutory rape separates the wheat from the chaff as far as character goes. Only intellectually feeble and easily suggestible sheep unable to think for themselves accept the legal fiction that girls under some arbitrary age are ipso facto victims if they have sex.

Hoksrud and Øygard, you have done nothing morally wrong. There is no shame in breaking unjust laws. It is rather our duty to oppose unjust laws and break them whenever we feel like. It is our moral obligation to undermine and discredit feminist sex laws whenever we can. So while the feminist state is persecuting you, you need to hold you heads up high and join the MRA movement, to which you already have some credibility as martyrs -- but only if you attack the law rather than try to deny or excuse your actions while implying there is nothing wrong with the law. As we have seen, your own parties lack the spine to support your actions just because they are illegal. Seeing Siv Jensen uphold Norwegian law as something men ought to obey even when it is so flagrantly unjust says a lot about her and I decided there and then that I would not vote for Frp again. As to Rune Øygard, his otherwise leftist politics can be excused if he will stand up as a victim of feminism and publicly denounce feminist sex laws. This basic antifeminist cause ought to unite men across the political spectrum. I hope everyone can see by now that the feminist reign of terror is a threat to any man regardless of his position in society. Belonging to the politically correct party won't even help you, so what do you have to lose by becoming an MRA?

Baumeister Now Claims Gender Equality Leads to More Sex

2011-09-09T13:46:00.001+02:00

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

This is the reference:
Roy F. Baumeister & Juan Pablo Mendoza (2011): "Cultural Variations in the Sexual Marketplace: Gender Equality Correlates With More Sexual Activity." The Journal of Social Psychology, 151:3, 350-360.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2010.481686

ABSTRACT
Sexual economics theory assumes that heterosexual communities can be analyzed as marketplaces in which men offer women resources such as love, respect, money, and commitment in exchange for sex. In response to economic, political, and other disadvantages, women collectively restrict their sexuality to maintain a low supply relative to male demand, thereby ensuring a high price. Hence, we tested the hypothesis that sexual norms and practices would be more restrictive in countries marked by gender inequality than in countries where the genders were more equal. An international online sex survey (N>317,000) yielded four measures of sexual activity, and 37 nations' means on all four measures were correlated with independent (World Economic Forum) ratings of gender equality. Consistent with predictions, relatively high gender equality was associated with more casual sex, more sex partners per capita, younger ages for first sex, and greater tolerance/approval of premarital sex.

I always keep an open mind and am able to admit I have been wrong when I encounter new evidence invalidating my previous views. However, having read this article, I don't think the data prove that gender equality leads to more sex for men. Let's look at the actual figures. The numbers in the below table form the entire basis of Baumeister's conclusion. He didn't bother to conduct any surveys himself. Instead he relied on an online sex survey done by condom manufacturer Durex in 2005, from which it was not possible to obtain separate data for males and females, or even gays and straights. Numbers from this database were then combined with an index of gender equality for each country obtained from the Global Gender Gap Report 2006.

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

My Fellow American

2011-08-28T21:28:00.000+02:00

I have been asked by the My Fellow American project to share their short film about tolerance towards Muslims. As they explain,

My Fellow American is a film project in the United States devoted to recognizing that Muslims are our neighbors. I am reaching out to you because you addressed the recent events in Oslo, Norway, on Eivind Berge's Blog and I am hoping you will share this message of tolerance with your readers. We’ve put together a 2 minute film that I believe you will be interested in sharing, watching, and discussing.

Unlike Anders Behring Breivik, or Fjordman for that matter, I don't have a problem with mulitculturalism in principle. In fact, I think of Muslims as potential allies against feminism. Even Sharia law is probably better for men than the current feminist utopia, if Islamization should ever progress that far. So this is a message I can get behind.

More Evidence for Female Erotic Capital and the Male Sex-Deficit

2011-08-24T02:40:00.002+02:00

Honey Money: The Power of Erotic Capital is a new book by Catherine Hakim that should probably be required reading for anyone still in denial of the fact that sex is a female resource. Since I haven't yet read it, I will rely on this review for now:

According to her, while young women may possess considerable charms, men's desire for them always vastly outstrips supply. The reverse is simply not the case: men are both less attractive to women, and markedly less desired by them, especially as those women grow older. What Hakim terms "the male sex-deficit" underlies both the ubiquity of female sexual imagery – as pornography, as marketing adjunct – and the persistent unwillingness of society at large to "valorise" women's good looks. It is, quite simply, not in the interests of all those priapic patriarchs to allow women to actualise their erotic capital, for to do so would seismically alter the balance of power between the sexes.

Ah, but feminism is precisely about valorizing women's good looks. The balance of power between the sexes is already seismically altered because women now have (or soon will have) equality in every way and then all their sexual power on top of that. To make things worse, Norwegian men are even criminalized for purchasing sex while women can legally sell.

That the religiously dogmatic and the merely male chauvinist should have both demonised – and, paradoxically, diminished – the impact of female sexuality from time out of mind, is, following Hakim, only to be expected. In Anglo Saxon societies, such as our own, the net result is, she avers, that we have less sex overall than they do in steamier, less puritanical climes, while our sexual relations are mediated by a tiresome push-me, pull-you interaction: men wanting sex, women refusing it. According to Hakim, Christian monogamy is, quite simply, a "political strategy" devised by the patriarchy in order to ensure that even the least attractive/wealthy/powerful men gain at least one sexual partner.

Indeed, to ensure that most men get a partner is exactly why I believe we should return to Christian monogamy. Whether there is more sex overall in "steamier, less puritanical climes" is beside the point, because it isn't evenly distributed. When women get more freedom to choose, they reject more men, and these men will tend to act as a destabilizing force against civilization, as I know from personal experience.

I may not agree with Hakim's conclusion, which apparently is a call for further female empowerment through prostitution, but it looks like this book is a good resource for debunking the feminist lie that there are no essential sex differences in sexual motivation, as it is said to be "complete with rather leaden prose, extensive annotation, reams of statistical evidence, appendices and tedious repetitions" all pointing to the fact that sexuality is a resource that belongs to women.

Hakim's view is that the myth of "equality of desire" is endorsed by feminists, and that this leads to what she terms the "medicalisation of low desire", whereby therapists and counsellors try to convince women that their lack of sex-drive is a function of psychopathology rather than hormones. She anticipates being criticised by feminists as an "essentialist", who defines men and women by biological characteristic, but rejoins – I think fairly – that the feminist position is equally so.

Yes, the feminist denial of sex differences also harms women in some ways. But these are just minor inconveniences compared to the huge benefit women reap from denying human nature. Because only by denying female erotic capital can feminists credibly sustain the illusion that women have been oppressed and thus justify all their coercive "equality."

Jeg tar avstand fra Breiviks handlinger

2011-08-02T08:18:00.005+02:00

Jeg ser jeg har blitt omtalt i BT og selektivt sitert fra denne bloggen. Det er viktig for meg a understreke følgende. Jeg tar blank avstand fra Breiviks handlinger. Skytingen på Utøya og bomben i Oslo er forkastelige handlinger. Det er overhodet ikke forenlig med det jeg står for å ta uskyldige menneskeliv gjennom en terrorhandling. Det er helt fokasterlig og kan overhodet ikke forsvares av de anliggender jeg har i min blog.

Dette er det aller viktigste jeg har å si i denne situasjonen. Hvis det jeg har skrevet i min blog blir tatt til inntekt for slike handlinger, tar jeg sterk avstand fra det.

All annen diskusjon om det jeg har skrevet er irrelevant i forhold til dette anliggende, altså selve terrorhandlingene som Anders Breivik står bak.

Anders Breivik: Paleoconservative Activism Or Beta Rampage?

2011-07-27T00:34:00.029+02:00

At the time I wrote my last blog post, I believed I would probably become Norway's first modern violent activist in peacetime. Celibacy enforced by a feminist regime had driven me to the point where I saw no other option. I would target the pigs who enforce feminist law, knowing I could realistically at least kill one of them before I would be captured or killed myself. Thus revenge would be assured and if I lived, my reputation as a violent criminal would make me attractive to some women. But then in the nick of time this blog attracted a lovely girl commenting as "Emma." It turns out her real name is Nataliya and she is now my girlfriend. No actual violence was necessary, and it looked like Norway would be a peaceful place for now. I knew things are seriously amiss around here and that neither feminism nor multiculturalism is sustainable in the long run, but I had no idea a formidable activist named Anders Behring Breivik was already years into meticulously planning an attack that would show the entire world what Vikings are made of.

On July 22, 2011 the social democratic regime in Oslo was struck by violence so spectacular it took us all by surprise. The ruling class of a country has never, as far as I know, been so systematically and viciously assaulted by a single individual. The bombing of government offices was impressive enough, but the shooting spree which followed was mind-bogglingly effective, literally decimating the crème de la crème of aspiring young politicians for the ruling Labor Party. The ethics of shooting defenseless teenagers at summer camp can be questioned, to say the least, but it sure was a brilliant way to strike at the core of the Norwegian political elite. These are the next generation of political leaders, and what better way to terrorize the parents – the current top holders of political office – than going after their kids? As Glenn Beck has observed, the AUF youth at Utøya are reminiscent of Hitler-Jugend. Utøya is where leftist kids come to be indoctrinated every summer, steeping themselves in liberal propaganda and listening to inspirational speeches by current and former social democratic leaders such as Gro Harlem Brundtland. In retrospect, it was extremely thoughtless by the ruling class not to post a single armed guard at this event. Politics is serious business after all, and such a hotbed of recruitment concentrated on an island with no easy escape is an obvious target for political enemies, if you think about it. I guess they were still under the illusion that Norway is an idyllic place which somehow does not foster violent malcontents no matter how downtrodden we get.

Indeed, the perpetrators of the evils against men I've chronicled on my blog are the direct maleficiaries of Breivik's aggression. While I am as prone to feeling sympathy for innocent-looking kids as the next guy, and I too feel this atrocity was a bit excessive, then the ugly face of the scumbag Knut Storberget keeps appearing in the news to remind me that this was not an attack against the innocent. Storberget is the main poster boy for feminist corruption of justice, and there is no fucking way his presence can evoke anything but hatred. The corrupt nature of the Norwegian justice system hits home also when, as Breivik appeared at the hearing Monday, the court closed its doors and conducted its business in complete secrecy, admitting neither the public nor the press. They shamelessly did this by request of the cops in order to prevent Breivik from addressing the public. And Storberget is already starting to exploit the situation by agitating for a stronger police state.

Fortunately, Breivik was able to release a manifesto which is now so widely disseminated that they have no hope of censoring it. It could be better, marred by plagiarism as well as lack of proofreading (for obvious reasons, this could not be outsourced), but overall, 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence is fairly decent and contains much truth. While I cannot get behind Breivik’s entire program (for one thing, as a libertarian, I strongly support freedom of religion, though I acknowledge the problems associated with Islam gaining influence in Europe), he does, at least, understand sexual politics:

Females have a significantly higher proportion of erotic capital than males due to biological differences (men have significantly more prevalent sexual urges than females and are thus easily manipulated). The female manipulation of males has been institutionalised during the last decades and is a partial cause of the feminisation of men in Europe. This highly underestimated factor has contributed to the creation and rise of the matriarchal systems which are now dominating Western European countries. European women, in light of the feminist revolution, are now considerably more influential than men due to the sum of all forms of capital. (p. 1180)

From this follows also the fact that rape is equality, as I have pointed out, though it is unclear if Breivik has yet to grasp this point. He seems lamentably politically correct in some ways and at times spouts feminist drivel of the worst kind, such as, “Ethical dilemmas which involve sex can often appear in situations where there is a significant power difference or where there is a pre-existing professional relationship between the participants, or where consent is partial or uncertain” (p. 1173). This is the kind of feminist tripe used to legitimize the worst sex laws against men, and sadly he appears to have internalized it.

Nonetheless, Breivik was sufficiently angered by the Norwegian feminist/Marxist regime to attack it with the utmost vengeance. As was I before I got a girlfriend; the difference being my relative lack of conscientiousness and restraint in expressing my views. As a very public MRA already on the radar for intending violence, there would be no way I could purchase the ingredients to make a bomb without arousing suspicion; and even if I could, I would be unlikely to have the patience and diligence to complete a clandestine project on such a scale. But I would still be able to make a bloody nuisance of myself.

Breivik is being called insane right now for fancying himself at war with the establishment, and apparently regarding some newly founded incarnation of the Knights Templar as the legitimate authority in Europe. While that does seem a bit grandiose and perhaps fictitious, we must not forget that his perspective spans more than 60 years. By 2083, it is entirely possible, I think, that we may go through a civil war in Europe, the outcome of which is uncertain. I will not be surprised if Breivik turns out to be a greater hero in the long run to more people than the Marxist “traitors” he executed. Now he will surely gain a bevy of female admirers, as well.

Being born just one year apart, we grew up under similar circumstances. Norway today is a society sick to the core. It is a place which breeds monsters out of the betas and omegas in a sexual market increasingly skewed against males. I am not sure Breivik is properly considered just another beta going on a rampage out of sexual frustration (Breivik seems to me so idealistic his actions transcend sexuality, but then again it is usually a mistake to think men do anything at all for any reason other than to get laid), as fellow Roissysphere blogger Whiskey contends, but I know how close I was to such a rampage myself, and undoubtedly we will see increasing violence if feminist sexual politics is allowed to continue. I don’t particularly have a dog in the Christian vs. Islam fight (maybe this shows bad character, but I would not be averse to convert to Islam if that was the way to get laid), and now that I have a girlfriend I am not out in the front lines attacking feminists, either, but I remain politically aware, and recent events have been a step in the right direction insofar as they demonstrate a willingness among conservative men to revolt against the heretofore completely dominant left.

The Futility of Anonymity

2011-01-25T04:08:00.008+01:00

Italian police requested information from their Norwegian colleagues about two bloggers who were using a service hosted on servers in Norway to maintain their anonymity. It's bad enough that servers can get compromised so easily whenever the authorities want to look into someone, but it gets much worse. In a move completely characteristic of Norwegian cops' arrogance and utter disregard for rights, piggies copied an entire hard drive, thus securing identifying information on 7000 political activists.

While I support the right to be anonymous on the Internet, stories like this go to show it is pointless, really. Personally, I chose to blog under my full name not only because anonymity is futile but because I believe activism is more effective that way and I am in no way ashamed of my opinions. So I engage in open hostility against feminists and their enforcers. I have nothing to lose and nothing to fear. I don't have to watch my back because I currently do nothing illegal (even took the above picture myself, so no copyright infringement in this post), and I am positively itching for a lethal confrontation anyway, seething with rage and profound hatred against pigs as my life is destroyed by feminism.

These days a new Orwellian law is being pushed through in Norway (Datalagringsdirektivet), granting the police tremendously increased power to pry into our lives. Information on all email, web browsing and telecommunications of the entire populace is to be stored for the convenience of cops. Note that everyone is presumed guilty and subject to surveillance by default; this is not a matter of keeping an eye on suspects. While this is of course appalling and incompatible with any notion of a free society, I don't fear Datalagringsdirektivet, either. A transparent society suits me just fine and is bound to be a net positive for men. In stark contrast to the pigs, I take the moral high ground. Since a cornerstone of police method is deception, openness is going to hurt law enforcement a great deal more than it will hurt morally upstanding citizens (and besides, anyone who actually knows how to use a computer can easily get around the new surveillance anyway if the need should arise). Pigs have been known to engage in their usual lies and sneaky behavior on social media, but at least one major service has made it clear that this is unacceptable.

Facebook was the only company to make clear that its strict policies against fake accounts apply to law enforcement as well. In its 2008 and 2009 guides it notes that it will disable all accounts that provide false or misleading information, including police accounts, and in its 2010 guide it notes that it will “always disable accounts that supply false or misleading profile information or attempt to technically or socially circumvent site privacy measures.”

Kudos to Facebook for holding cops to the same standards as everyone else. As feminism and its enforcement cannot stand the light of day, the powers that be are only hastening their own demise be escalating surveillance. The truth will set us free.

Alpha of the Year: Keith MacDonald

2011-01-22T08:55:00.006+01:00

Keith MacDonald is Alpha of the Year for 2010, hands down. No one else I've heard of even comes close. Keith has sired ten children with ten different women by age 25. Even more impressive, he has done so on a budget of £40 a week that he doesn't even have to work for since his back hurts, and only £5 a week is deducted from his incapacity benefit, earning him the accolade "Incapacity Casanova." Moreover, he does not appear to have needed to be criminal or violent in order to attract all these women, and unlike certain other famous philanderers, he has even avoided rape accusations. I also bet he never spent a penny on any PUA material or coaching. And to remove the last shred of doubt, it is clear that the women he gets are hot.

Taxpayers are understandably upset for having to foot the £2million bill for supporting Keith's ten children until they are 18, but Keith is a winner. Boy, is he ha winner!

Macdonald says he first had sex at the age of 10 and boasts that he has since slept with 40 women – claiming to be “a sex god on £40 a week.”

He fathered his first child at the age of 15 when his then girlfriend, Michelle Purvis, now 32, gave birth to a daughter, Jamie Leigh, who is now 10. When they split up he met Charlotte Anderson, now 25, who had a daughter, Kady, now eight.

Macdonald then met Jordan Banks who was just 15 when he got her pregnant. They had a son, Angelis, who is seven.

June Garrick, now 26, gave birth to his fourth child, Brandon, in October 2003 – a month after Angelis was born. In 2006, he met 17-year-old Stephanie Jubb at a bus stop. She gave birth to their son, Matt, three. Then he started dating Ms Barker, now 22, who gave birth to Emily, now two.

His seventh child was born after a brief romance with Bec Wright, now 22, who gave birth to Clio, also two. His eighth offspring was Ms Bryant’s daughter, Paige, born five months ago.

So how can a jobless, "feckless" layabout accomplish this? (Obviously, he is anything but feckless. Keith is smarter than all of us.) I wish I knew. Clearly he is a natural, and I doubt this level of game can be taught. Most men would need to be billionaires or world rulers to have anywhere near this kind of success with women.

Keith is in an altogether different league than even the best PUAs. Roissy, for example, for all his knowledge about pickup, is missing something essential. Roissy does not want children. Not wanting marriage is understandable. I don't think I would want to get married either under conditions of marriage 2.0 if I were the kind of man women want. But not wanting to impregnate women is a sentiment I can only shake my head at. It is all very well to get to fuck all those women, of course, but in the end, isn't it halfway pointless if you subvert the actual fundamental reason for having sex? Keith Macdonald has understood it. The last laugh will be his.

Just to get an idea of how much sex it takes to father that many children:

Given that the probability of conception per coital act is estimated to be about .03, a man must have 33 extrapair copulation partners (with whom he has sex once each) in order to be able to expect to produce one child (number of potential conception = .99). A man can produce roughly the same number of children with one sexual partner with whom he has regular sex (twice a week) (number of potential conception = .96).

And that's assuming they don't use contraception. You would have to fuck 330 women once each to have ten kids, or ten women 33 times. This is what Keith has been doing, all in ten years from he was 15 to 25 while stupid betas have to work and pay. Great for him, not so good for society. I would certainly never stoop so low as to be a net taxpayer and work to pay for another man's spawn, but I am magnanimous enough to congratulate Keith Macdonald on his magnificent success in life.

MRAs Need To Take an Etic View of Rape, Denounce Feminist Emic Rape

2010-12-13T07:56:00.013+01:00

Julian Assange's rape case has made the emic/etic distinction highly relevant in this day and age. Before rushing to pronounce rape allegations true or false, it is important to make clear where we are coming from. This would help clear up a great deal of confusion. As Wikipedia puts it,

An "emic" account is a description of behavior or a belief in terms meaningful (consciously or unconsciously) to the actor; that is, an emic account comes from a person within the culture. Almost anything from within a culture can provide an emic account.
An "etic" account is a description of a behavior or belief by an observer, in terms that can be applied to other cultures; that is, an etic account attempts to be "culturally neutral."

Within the framework of radical feminism and Swedish law, these charges against Assange would indeed make him a rapist if found by guilty by one of their kangaroo courts (which do not even allow a jury of peers):

Gemma Lindfield, for the Swedish authorities, told the court Assange was wanted in connection with four allegations. She said the first complainant, Miss A [Anna Ardin], said she was victim of "unlawful coercion" on the night of August 14 in Stockholm.
The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.
The second charge alleged Assange "sexually molested" Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used.
The third charge claimed Assange "deliberately molested" Miss A on August 18 "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity". The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W [Sofia Wilén], on August 17 without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.

In Sweden, as well as Norway for ten years now and I'm sure a lot of jurisdictions corrupted by feminism, having sex with a sleeping woman is rape (Norway is even one step ahead of Sweden and just increased the minimum punishment from two to three years). Even a woman one is already sleeping with and who will not even realize she has been "raped" until days or weeks later when she has her regrets for some reason, like the man not calling or sleeping with someone else, and often not until a lawyer versed in feminist law has explained to her that it is rape. I was amused to see this delay referred to as "rape latency" on a Swedish blog; this is just one of the absurdities one has to posit in order to prop up the feminist concept of rape and make it internally consistent.

But all of this is merely emic rape, intelligible solely within a radical feminist framework. This point cannot be underlined enough. No reasonable man or even reasonable woman will consider this rape and nor should we respect this law or have any sympathy for the "rape victims" it defines into existence. We need only acknowledge that this definition can be used at a woman's whim to mobilize a gang of blue thugs against men, even internationally, as we have seen -- and then we need to fight it. I certainly advocate defending yourself against thugs with brutal violence, but it is equally important for men to subscribe to an etic definition of rape. Resistance to feminism thus starts in your head, and the etic view of rape would be the one used by evolutionary psychology. Etic rape is sexual intercourse resisted by the victim to the best of her ability unless she is threatened by death or serious injury. It requires a kicking, screaming victim; so if Sofia Wilén woke up and did nothing to resist, she was not raped. This also corresponds closely to the common-law definition ("carnal knowledge of a woman not one's wife by force and against her will") and the definition used by most jurisdictions until very recent feminist corruption of justice. Norway, for example, used a definition of rape I can agree with until the year 2000. Feminist rape law reform has spawned terms such as "rape-rape" to distinguish feminist rape from real rape, indicating that people don't truly buy it and deep down maintain the etic view.

Allow me now to quote our great Western literary canon. This is a from a sex scene in The Crying of Lot 49 (p. 29):

She awoke at last to find herself getting laid; she'd come in on a sexual crescendo in progress, like a cut to a scene where the camera's already moving.

If Thomas Pynchon was a feminist, he should have written that Oedipa "awoke at last to find herself getting raped." Or at least she ought to realize she'd been raped by the end of the book, and it ought to end with a rape trial rather than a stamp auction. Now, I know a great many feminists have read this story, and other accounts like it. Do they really think of rape when they hear something like this? No, it is only when convenient in order to bring down state violence on a man that they reinterpret ordinary sex as rape. I don't recall any discussion or mention of rape when we read Lot 49 for class as a graduate student in English, and that is because it does not occur to women unless they have an ulterior motive that this can be rape. They don't really want to reinterpret the canon to find rape everywhere or even act like the feminist definition is valid in their own lives -- unless they have a specific axe to grind.

Men do everything we do in order to get laid. That is why men do great things. Julian Assange founded WikiLeaks so that he could have young, beautiful groupies and fuck them. And he did. He is quite alpha, yet he is vulnerable to feminist sex law because that is how far it has gone. No one is safe. All men need the men's rights movement to stand up for the nullification of feminist rape law. The fact that Assange is incidentally involved in other controversial business and is wanted by the USA is a red herring here. These ridiculous rape charges can easily stand on their own and get men locked up. It happens all the time. I am glad this is finally starting to sink in, and rape accusers relying on the feminist, emic definition will hopefully face a great deal of derision from now on. Needless to say, it is equally ludicrous to call sex without a condom "sexual molestation." It makes sense emically within a bizarrely sex-hostile feminist setting, but men should refuse to stand for it anymore. Nor do we accept that there is anything wrong with "using our body weight to hold a woman down in a sexual manner." This is what's otherwise known as the missionary position, presumably, and it is perfectly respectable.

Assange has yet to prove his chops as an MRA and I don't know if he is one. Now is the time for him to come out as an anti-feminist or MRA. If he is one of us, he will not deny the charges, but rather attack the Swedish law itself. He has done nothing wrong even if the charges are true -- nothing that can even tarnish his reputation -- so it would only make him look like a foolish feminist to deny them. The rest of the world has already caught onto the fact that feminism is what's on trial here. A rape trial will expose emic feminist rape to a level of scrutiny it cannot survive. The cat will be out of the bag for the feminist rape industry, and scorn will shift to their alleged victims. I think we have reached the point of critical mass with this case, and at the very least women won't be able to accuse rape so smugly any longer when there is no etic rape. Sweden is making a mockery of itself here, which is well-deserved, but many countries are not that far behind. Now I hope the entire climate of opinion will change so that our legal systems can be reformed throughout the Western world. Imagine how many men are imprisoned due to feminist emic rape. It will occur to us that miscarriage of justice has occurred on a grand scale and the backlash against women will be cataclysmic -- I hope.

Thus it is possible for rape accusations to be both true and false at the same time. The accusations against Assange are quite possibly true within their emic setting. But they are decidedly false in an etic, culturally neutral sense even if the women are telling the truth. So the question becomes not whom to believe, but whose side are you on? Men have the power to decide this in our favor. Let us now toss the feminist definition of rape in the trash bin of history.

Sofia Wilén

false etic rape accuser

(probably) true emic rape accuser

Anna Ardin
all-round feminist bitch

Julian Assange: A Case Study of Feminist Corruption of Justice

2010-12-07T15:02:00.006+01:00

I am pleased that the Swedish feminist justice system is making a fool of itself in the eyes of the entire world as we speak. The hubris of feminist prosecutors relying on feminist sex law knows no bounds, but they are setting themselves up for a fall.

It is important to understand that the persecution of Assange is not some kind of aberration. It is not a conspiracy having to do with international politics. Nor are the accusations technically false. What we are witnessing is simply the normal workings of a feminist justice system. In Sweden as well as Norway, women routinely accuse men in this fashion in order to bring down upon them the violence of the state. Thanks to a succession of feminist rape law reform, women don't have to make up some sort of story about being forced to have sex in order to have a man prosecuted for "rape." All a woman has to do is show up at a police station, state that she has had sex and is unhappy about it for some reason, and the cops will gleefully trump up rape charges; or if they won't, feminists higher up in the system will make them proceed with the case. Finally, the cases they lose or are forced to drop because the accusations are too absurd even in Scandinavia are portrayed in the media as men getting away with rape and a relentless campaign is waged to further extend the scope of sex law and preferably even abolish the jury in order to convict more men.

What is so heartening about the Assange debacle is the refusal of the rest of the world to buy into the victimology of the accusers (Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilén). This finally shows the limits of feminist sex law. There comes a point when the definition of rape is so diluted that it is plain for all but the most radical feminists that the real villain is the legal system itself. I am glad this is getting so much publicity, because it will hurt women and benefit men in the long run to expose the nature of a typical Scandinavian rape prosecution. Our feminists are smart enough to shroud these cases in secrecy and will usually not name even convicted rapists publicly, but now they can't help but receiving full scrutiny.

Cognitive Liberty

2010-11-18T07:48:00.012+01:00

I have previously expressed my heartfelt appreciation for the killing of policeman Olav Kildal. This was truly a breath of fresh air in an escalating police state. Now the trial has taken place and our hero has been sentenced to more psychiatric "treatment." Of course, he was already subjected to this and had no cognitive liberty even when sitting peacefully in his own home, which is why he had to defend himself against invading thugs sent by the state in the first place, so the conviction hardly makes much difference. Anyone can be a victim of psychiatry and lose his physical and cognitive liberty at the whim of doctors. In this connection I want to make my stance on psychiatry and cognitive liberty known for the record, as well as the consequences if I should ever have my cognitive liberty infringed on.

Cognitive liberty, which I fully support, is the freedom to the sovereignty of one's own consciousness. This sounds like a really obvious, basic human right, but in practice there is no such thing as self-ownership of our own minds. In fact, the state acts like it owns our consciousness and sadly there is surprisingly little opposition to this (it is telling that the Wikipedia entry on cognitive liberty is a stub shorter than this blog post). The war on drugs is bad enough. While I personally can't be bothered to use recreational/entheogenic drugs or alcohol anymore, I believe that of course anybody should be free to alter the state of their consciousness by any method. Far more crucial, however, is the freedom from being forced into a different state of consciousness against your will. Psychiatry's right to police your consciousness and indeed your entire personality is a major social problem. The swine Olav Kildal died while trying to enforce our lack of cognitive liberty. This was a defensive, much deserved killing that cheered me up. Now the court has ruled that we are not allowed to defend ourselves against psychiatry by killing cops, which means judges are just as guilty as cops in violating our cognitive liberty and deserving of the same public contempt and violence.

A common misconception used to justify force in psychiatry is the idea that the "patients" are dangerous. But in fact, only 6% are considered dangerous. The vast majority of force is used to coerce compliance with "treatment"; in other words, solely to change people's consciousness. And even when people are dangerous, forcible psychiatric "treatment" is always wrong, as is preemptively locking someone up. Insanity does not exist and should have no bearing on criminal cases, either. Psychiatric treatment, like other forms of torture, is never an acceptable punishment in a civilized state and of course it is equally ludicrous to plead innocence by reason of insanity. Like Thomas Szasz I reject the concept of mental illness, but even if you believe in it, forcible treatment is wrong. It is such a serious violation of your integrity that lethal self-defense is always justified. If ever a victim of psychiatry, here is what I would do. I would first attempt to kill the cops or whoever tried to apprehend me. Failing that, I would feign docility in order to get out as soon as possible and then kill a representative of the industry as revenge. Your life is over anyway when you are trapped in that system and the state is lording it over your innermost feelings. If only people working in the vast infrastructure responsible for this oppression risked more frequent violence and malicious revenge wherever they go, maybe they would reconsider if it is really worth it.

The anti-psychiatry movement is unfortunately tainted with Scientology. I appreciate Scientology's work against psychiatry, but I only wish it would be possible to foot a resistance without bringing in some equally deranged bullshit.

Finally, here is how anti-psychiatry ties in with men's rights. While resisting psychiatry is a human rights issue, killing cops is also very much a men's issue. Every pig killed is also a blow against feminism, so men should be doubly elated whenever an officer goes down in the line of encroaching on our cognitive liberty.

Why has the men's movement failed to Darwinize?

2010-10-27T22:13:00.011+02:00

A category error (or category mistake) is a semantic or ontological error by which a property is ascribed to a thing or group which could not possibly have that property. Imputing culpability for sexual abuse or rape of boys to women is such a mistake. The lie that women can rape or sexually abuse males is I think the most preposterous and egregiously offensive category error imaginable. I have addressed this topic numerous times, but it cannot be emphasized enough that the notion of a female sexual abuser is a complete and utter falsehood. Since sex is a female resource, any male is only lucky to get sex from women regardless of whether he is underage, forced or whatever.

The lie that boys can be raped by women was invented by feminists during the latter part of the twentieth century. At no time previously in no culture during the entire history of civilization did the notion exist that boys can be harmed by pussy the same way girls can be raped by men. As these were mostly patriarchal times according to the feminists themselves, surely it would have occurred to society that boys can be sexually preyed on by women if indeed this is a problem, and we wouldn't need to wait thousands of years for feminists to identify the "problem" and pass gender-neutral sex laws in order to punish female sexual "predators." Only a gullible fool can buy this official narrative and think feminists had the best interests of boys in mind when they decided there is no difference between the sexuality of boys and girls and therefore boys are just as vulnerable to sexual abuse by women as girls are to men. In fact, this lie is merely instrumental to the greater charade of social constructionism and war against male sexuality. I do not think the top feminist ideologues are such drooling retards that they actually believe boys are "abused" by pussy rather than lucky. They merely sputter this tripe of political correctness in order to further the feminist agenda because otherwise more men would catch on to the relentless persecution of male sexuality that is going on.

Crudely speaking, access to women's bodies is the core of men's liberation and should be pursued as vigorously and violently as the feminists have attacked men to the point where I quite literally can't have sex without being a criminal anywhere in the world at the moment. At least this is my vision of what the men's movement should be, and needless to say, any notion of female rapists is diametrically opposed to the aim of the men's movement. I am therefore infuriated by supposed MRAs playing the part of useful idiots for the feminists in promoting the lie that women can be sexual abusers, and this is now happening alarmingly often. Just witness Paul Elam at A Voice for Men:

What about all the men in those classes who have already been sexually abused and victimized by female teachers in the elementary schools, middle schools and high schools they attended prior to attending Hamilton? The fact is that there is an all but silent epidemic of female teachers in America that are sexually abusing, raping, young male students. And they are getting away with it, either at the hands of a judicial system that seldom delivers more than a slap on the wrist to the perpetrators, or the media that is as likely to play the “hot for teacher” angle as it is to covering it like the crime it is. This, and much worse is fostered by an indifferent and misandric culture that ultimately either finds blame with the male victim, or sees him as just another guy who got lucky, or both.

This is the speech of a blithering idiot. It is time for some patricide in the men's movement. If esteemed "MRAs" hold views like this, I need to distance myself from the movement and pick another label. Anyone who fails to comprehend that these boys are lucky -- so lucky that I am consumed by jealousy and would have killed for that kind of experience myself -- is not someone I want to be associated with even though I agree with just about everything else they stand for and even the overall point of the article just quoted. The Spearhead similarly reads like a cesspool of feminist dross and I have mostly given up commenting there because they never get it.

The view expressed by Paul Elam above is so absurdly detached from human experience that he downright fails the Turing test and must be a zombie. Not a philosophical zombie -- that would be too nice -- but a traditional one who blatantly lacks any trace of humanity. I don't think Paul is conscious, because it really doesn't seem like he has any inkling at all of what it is like to grow up as a heterosexual boy even though he purports to be a man. Youth is not a fun time for boys, because your sexuality is worthless and women are infinitely desirable and unattainable at the same time. Sexual frustration is all I can recall from my youth, overshadowing everything else until I paid to lose my virginity at 21. Anyone suggesting that too much sex is a problem for boys is not just a moron but so offensive I want to stave his face in with a rock. The commonest insult women use is "you can't get laid." This is hurtful because it is generally true. How do you surpass that? By saying you can't get laid even at 32, but there is an epidemic of young schoolboys getting laid and we have to use your tax money to prosecute and incarcerate these women to "protect" these male "victims." This is the ne plus ultra of feminism, folks. Intimacy between the sexes is now so ferociously criminalized thanks to feminism that a woman in Nevada got life in prison merely for letting a boy touch her breasts (so much for the lie that women "are getting away with it," Paul). The feminist utopia has arrived. And "MRAs" are cheering them on, pretending the deleterious effects of involuntary celibacy don't exist and the greatest thing is to imprison women for bogus sex crimes as much as we do with men. I renounce this movement as long as you all are just an extension of feminism. We need to make it perfectly clear that women are never culpable in any way for having sex with underage boys or "raping" males, and make it a priority to fight the laws feminists have passed criminalizing women for being nice to boys. Until then, we don't belong to the same movement.

Boardroom quota failure

2010-10-14T08:38:00.007+02:00

Since 2008, Norwegian publicly traded companies have been required to have 40% women on their board of directors, or else be forcibly dissolved. Despite simply relying on brute force, this law has been praised as a paragon of equality; a great advancement for women that should be looked up to and imitated worldwide. If you believe in forcible equality of outcome, we are on the right track.

Or so it seemed. Now it turns out that roughly half the companies affected by the quota have changed their organization to avoid it. By opting no longer to be publicly listed, they can avoid having to appoint so many women to directorships. Finding qualified women is often problematic, it means you have to fire more highly qualified men, and in any case companies dislike this kind of government infringement on their autonomy. 31% of CEOs surveyed say they reorganized the company in order to circumvent the quota.

So not only has this attempt to coerce equality stirred up discontent and provided grist to the mill for MRAs who, as I do, advocate sexual coercion in response to feminism based on the feminists' own violent logic -- it has actually been counterproductive. In absolute numbers, because there are now fewer directorships to fill, representation of women in the boardrooms is now back nearly to the level of 2007, before the law went into effect, and declining.

Doubtless feminists will propose more stringent laws to close this loophole. Which will in turn stir up more hatred and more morally legitimate use of force for the advancement of equality for men as well. It is by now abundantly clear that equality is not achievable without violence (or at least threat of violence), and even rather drastic measures are largely ineffectual. As the use of coercion to promote women's equality escalates and becomes more accepted, the case for sexual coercion against women to even the score in that supremely important and unequal arena will inevitably be strengthened.

Escalation

2010-09-22T00:55:00.011+02:00

Norwegian feminists have once more escalated the war on male sexuality. For example, the minimum sentence for rape has been increased by 50%, from two to three years. An overview of all the changes now in effect can be found here, and here is the official document attempting to justify them. Penalties for real violence such as murder have also been toughened somewhat (about 30%), but sentencing guidelines for sexual crimes -- most of them entirely bogus, based on nothing but misandry -- are now even more absurdly out of proportion, conveying the unmistakable moral that as far as Norwegian justice is concerned, the sanctity of a woman's vagina is worth more than her life. Based on possible jail time, it is far less serious to drive drunk and kill a girl (up to 6 years) than to have consensual drunken sex with the same girl which she later regrets (up to 8 years). The latter act would be so-called negligent rape, which Norwegian feminists introduced ten years ago, abolishing mens rea in order to convict more innocent men. This time they have left the definitions alone and merely ramped up sentencing, since rape and other sex crimes are already so loosely and preposterously defined as to be meaningless.

Needless to say, my seething anti-feminist hatred has just increased accordingly. I am now a good 50% more enraged.

Israeli justice, or rape by deception

2010-07-28T18:14:00.005+02:00

It is politically correct to criticize Israel and it is politically correct to demonize men for having sex and to support rape convictions no matter how ludicrous. But what happens when an Arab man is convicted for rape by deception of a Jewish woman, after pretending to be a Jew? The cognitive dissonance going through these little CNN journalists' brains is palpable. Should they call it rape or racism? It turns out that anti-Israeli sentiment is stronger than feminism in this case, so they slant the story sympathetically towards the "rapist."

"It is terrible, but the law says very clearly that if someone has sexual intercourse using deception about his identity to conduct the act, it can be considered rape," said Leah Samael, a lawyer specializing in civil rights and human rights cases.

But, if the circumstances had been different -- if a religious Jew had said he was not religious in order to woo a potential suitor -- "he would not be brought to court," she said. "And I am not sure that, on this occasion, it is a reason to charge. To have intercourse in daytime in a deserted building in the center of town -- I say the circumstances speak for themselves."

She added, "The thing that interests me in the case is the need, the necessity, of Arabs in Israel to pretend. To speak without an accent so as not to be seen as Arabs. To dress not to look like Arabs."

If the racial aspect were absent, CNN would assuredly have hailed the conviction as a victory for women, as they usually do whenever the scope of any kind of sex law is expanded. That said, feminism does appear to be a very Jewish problem. They do have a point there. Israel is evidently a feminist hellhole on a par with Scandinavia. I just wish they would be able to admit that the core problem is feminism rather than racism or religious discrimination.

Feminist rape law reform has proceeded to the point where men who say they are against rape increasingly come across as buffoons. When we look at actual rape trials, it is evident that the legal concept of rape is now such a charade that even journalists are starting to catch on, albeit so far only when political correctness dictates that the accused man is worthy of some special sympathy.

Reply to Yvette Lessard, part 2

2010-07-25T21:37:00.014+02:00

Yvette now naively thinks she has proven me wrong. It's funny how she was a social constructionist until she found a paper self-described as "entirely based on the biological differences between men and women" which appears to support her argument. However, it fails to prove what she thinks it does.

Updated—this proves my point that higher gender inequality worsens hypergamy, and vice versa. It’s the final nail in Eivind’s coffin, and while I’m sure he’ll write up something about refusing to accept it because it clashes with his worldview, that’s the end of the conversation for me.

That paper by Gilles Saint-Paul is far from a final nail. It is unpolished and unpublished, contains a lot of math but little reference to the real world, and makes a number of simplistic assumptions for the sake of the model, such as "children cannot borrow to accumulate their own human capital and must stick with what they inherit from their parents" (p. 6), and a sharper dichotomy between alphas and betas than I have seen anywhere else (along with the assumption that alphas are also the most productive members of society, which the author himself admits is problematic). Saint-Paul argues that the only two possible equilibria are the Victorian type (homogamy -- people marry someone with the same rank in the distribution of income) and the "Sex and the City" (SATC) type, where women are hypergamous. He claims too much inequality leads to a switch from a Victorian to an SATC equilibrium, where more women are better off unmarried and mating with alpha men. The Victorian equilibrium is indeed preferable for most (beta) men and this is what I am advocating, but I don't see how we are moving in that direction as women get more equality. The SATC model clearly fits reality better now, so feminism is certainly not conducive to a Victorian marriage market. No amount of economic theory can disprove this observation in the real world.

I also suggest Eivind Berge look into parental investment, which explains exactly why the above link would be true. Primates which are most gender equal also tend to be the most promiscuous, ie, ever male gets to mate. Next time, don’t start an argument about human nature with me when I’m in the middle of studying for an anthropology exam.

Of course I know about parental investment. The unequal minimum investment fixed by biology makes women the selective sex. Bateman's principle applies to most species and especially humans. Even though it may be true that females of more gender-equal primates are more promiscuous, making society more equal will not change the nature of women in any reasonable time. They will continue to follow their instincts and the difference will be that now they can afford to reject more men, which is what they are doing in this feminist hellhole.

It’s rape if there’s no consent. You’ve provided zero reasoning, and the educated world disagrees with you. Most people in the developed world disagree with you. Burden of proof is on you.

Only radical feminists believe lack of consent is a sufficient definition of rape. The definition I have used is almost verbatim from Thornhill and Palmer's A Natural History of Rape. They define rape on page 1 as "copulation resisted by the victim to the best of her ability unless such resistance would probably result in death or serious injury to the victim or in death or serious injury to individuals the victim commonly protects. Other sexual assaults, including oral and anal penetration of a man or a woman under the same conditions, also may be called rape under some circumstances." Are they not educated? Craig T. Palmer is an anthropologist, so I guess you aren't working on a real education yourself?

The feminist definition serves its purpose of putting more men in prison, but it's easily shown that people don't actually believe in it. Humans instinctively distinguish between rape and lesser sexual coercion or simply sex without consent and don't treat them alike in real life. Husbands of women who don't bother to resist sex even though they are not threatened with violence will not consider it rape even if they otherwise profess feminist views. They will consider it cheating. Only if their wife is actually forced (or threatened with death or serious injury) to have sex will they consider her raped. Most women still consider this to be the definition as well. There is a lot of "rape" going on in the feminist sense where women don't realize they have been raped and could have had the man convicted as a rapist. The feminist definition is meaningless except as a tool for terrorizing and imprisoning men.

Bullshit. If your goal is to get laid and you do it by going to bars and clubs, you’re going to find one kind of women. Your anecdotal evidence is hardly enough to justify rape. Let’s discuss this when you hopefully address the fact that men have sexual value to women.

Men don't have anywhere near the same sexual value to women as women have to men, and the evidence for this is not exactly anecdotal. This profound inequality justifies rape as much as other inequalities justify affirmative action in favor of women. Also, I look for women everywhere and don't even go to bars anymore. I quit drinking and have realized that bars are for beta men only venues for being rejected by women while wasting money. I want to get married or do whatever it takes to have regular sex.

How do you not get this? You’re stating that the research inherently leads one to believe that rape is justified. Obviously it doesn’t, the one person who understands it best disagrees. So obviously it isn’t inherently in your favor.

The research shows that sex is a female resource. If we are to have equality, some manner of sexual coercion would be justified. This is such a short step removed from what Baumeister says that he felt obliged to include a disclaimer condemning rape. Of course he can't say rape is justified, or the article would be unpublishable. But that does not prevent readers from drawing their own conclusions.

So an infant can’t be raped because they didn’t resist?

Infants can be sexually abused and that would be at least as bad as rape. But it's not controversial that child sexual abuse is still a separate concept from rape in Norwegian law. The child being under a certain age does not automatically make it rape. Your ignorance of Norwegian conditions is as evident here as in thinking you have to supply a machine translation of my blog so the local women can comprehend it.

All that is required for a woman to rape a man is a lack of consent on the man’s part. Forgetting for a moment that not all men are as desperate as you to have sex with this, I challenge you to actually prove that 100% of heterosexual men would sleep with any woman period.

I never claimed all men "would sleep with any woman period." I say no man ever deserves to be considered a victim if he is forced by a woman, even if he resists to the best of his ability. Of course it is possible for a man to resist a woman and even feel genuinely violated. In the same way it is possible for you to feel horribly violated if I deposit a million dollars into your bank account against your will. But you wouldn't get much sympathy, particularly from people living in poverty. A man claiming victimhood for rape by a woman gets as much sympathy from me as you would get in my analogy claiming you have been robbed because somebody gave you money. Sex is a female resource, and heterosexual sex is the transfer of value from a woman to a man. Female sexuality is objectively valuable, just like money, and the few individuals who feel otherwise are not reasonable and should not be taken seriously. They are irrelevant. Certainly the law should not recognize women raping men any more than it should recognize unwanted gifts as robbery. Female rape is a feminist lie invented to bolster the lie that the sexes are equal and serve as a red herring obscuring the fact that feminist rape law is pure misandry.

I remind you that you contradicted yourself repeatedly by stating that underage women are not good enough to have sex with.

Not quite. I stated that prebubescent girls are not desirable sex partners and I don't pursue them. (But that does not mean they could rape me... LOL, you are as naive as you are unpleasant.) For the record, I will sleep with any girl who is pubescent and up regardless of the consequences. I am not born yesterday. I have by no means internalized the misandry saying it's bad to have sex with girls simply because they are underage, and I laugh at men so stupid and brainwashed by feminist propaganda that they think underage women are off limits.

Sometimes? Please. See above, that proof? Showed that it increases when women have wealth of their own. If sex really was all you cared about, you would be pushing for more equal opportunities and more equal wages for women so you’d have a better chance at finally getting laid. I guess sex isn’t all you care about then.

The "proof" was pure mathematics and does not reflect the real world. Women with wealth of their own act more like SATC than Victorians in the real world, and beta men such as myself get less sex as a result.

Blacks were also defined as one third of a person for quite a long time. Simply because it was tradition doesn’t prove a thing, sorry bud.

That example also proves nothing. Some traditions are right, some not. Feminist redefinition of rape is a step in the wrong direction, completely unacceptable for men.

So women deserve to be raped simply because you disagree with a legal definition? How does that follow at all?

It follows as retribution and learned helplessness. My rape advocacy is twofold. Two aspects of feminism currently independently justify rape, in my view: 1. equality and 2. feminist corruption of justice. Feminist rape law reform has more than blurred the distinction between rape and consensual sex. In many circumstances it no longer matters in the eyes of the law whether we actually rape a woman or not -- she can regret sex in any case and have us convicted of "rape." The law quite explicitly states that mere negligence is enough to be a rapist even if you had no evil intentions. So why should men care if we rape or not? Women don't respect us anymore, so why should we respect women? Hate breeds hate. I have followed the deterioration of justice closely throughout my life, and my heart has been filled with deeper hatred at every step of feminist legal reform. False rape is now institutionalized. At this point, I don't believe Norwegian women are morally entitled to protection from rape.

Well, shit. All that proves is that women want long-term partners. Nobody is denying sexual differences.

It proves women want much less sex outside of long-term relationships, and this is indeed a profound sexual difference that feminists deny.

I’ve already debunked your use of this source. All your source proves is that women prefer longer-term relationships. I don’t see how it shows that we aren’t in a transitional stage. Not even a generation ago women had hardly any rights or power, now women are just starting to get it. We are still dealing with old, patriarchal culture, we have not transitioned to gender equality. As for your statement, it’s silly. Read below where I talk about marriage.

All the subjects in the Kennair study were under 30 years old. Younger than me. I know what kind of brainwashing they have gone through about the sexes being equal, yet their preferences are identical to previous studies. If there is a transition, it would be evident by now. But it isn't. Women are as picky as ever. I'm not saying women don't have a sex drive, so all your verbiage about that straw man is irrelevant. There just isn't enough of it to go around. Women control everything (except rape). People have sex whenever women want, and men want it a lot more. If I could choose, I would have had 1000 times more sex in my life so far. But only women have sexual agency. And it is getting worse. It is getting to the point where it is difficult to envision ever having consensual sex again.

"Cock is always disgusting to straight men and this isn’t a social construct." Whoops. Psychologists disagree.

No, they don't. The Kinsey scale has been much discredited. The distribution of male sexual orientation is bimodal, with nearly all men being either completely straight or gay. Male bisexuality is largely a myth and certainly not as common as the Kinsey scale suggests. Female sexuality is very different, however. Most women I've known have been at least somewhat attracted to both sexes.

Second, I fail to see any evidence provided on your part for why sexual harassment shouldn’t be taken seriously, of course you don’t take it seriously, because it clashes with your worldview.

No, not because it clashes with my worldview. Sexual harassment fundamentally shouldn't be taken seriously because there is nothing wrong with the kind of behavior feminists call sexual harassment. Both kinds. It is of course well within the moral rights of any boss to demand sex from women quid pro quo or for there to be what they term a "hostile enviroment" due to sexual references. Any claim that this is discrimination against women and therefore should be criminalized must simply be dismissed out of hand. And if women engage in "sexual harassment," then that's great, but it is absurd to call it sexual harassment because the rationale for inventing the legal concept was supposed discrimination against women. Women can't cope with the workplace, so the workplace must change to accommodate women. Of course men should never have accepted this and MRAs must fight for the abolition of all sexual harassment laws.

I’m sorry, but bureaucracy is not “enforced at gunpoint by the police”. Your exaggerations are ludicrous. And you know what? If you disagree with the law, vote against it. It isn’t violence to require schoolchildren to go to school, it is not violence to require business owners to not rape their employees.

What you call "bureaucracy" is indeed ultimately enforced at gunpoint. Norwegian companies are forcibly dissolved if they don't put 40% women in the boardrooms. The threat suffices to coerce compliance, and similarly we could coerce sex out of women without actual violence, for the most part. But the threat of brute violence is always there in bureaucracy no less than in rape. That's how so-called civilized society works. Thugs with bigger guns than us lurk beneath a thin veneer of civility, or we wouldn't pay taxes or comply with government regulations. Forcing children to attend school is also violence, but this is a form of violence I am inclined to agree with unless they are homeschooled. One might also justify violence to prevent business owners from raping their employees (with rape properly defined), but enacting laws against sexual harassment is way out of bounds from a libertarian perspective.

Reply to Yvette Lessard

2010-06-27T22:25:00.010+02:00

Apparently Yvette Lessard still thinks she has good points that I haven't answered in her blog post EIVIND BERGE: Pro-rape advocate & pals, so I am going to finish this here. See my comments at her blog for the rest and also here.

Eivind Berge does not think rape can be considered rape unless the woman (and he believes only women can be raped) resists to the best of her ability (nevermind if she is unable to give consent, not in a state of mind in which she can give consent, or is being threatened or coerced).

Yvette's reading comprehension is rather poor. I never said only women can be raped. What I have said is only men can be rapists. She also gets my definition of rape wrong. A victim must resist to the best of her (or his) ability unless she is credibly threatened with death or serious injury. Otherwise there is no rape. Having sex with an unconscious woman is not rape unless the rapist forcibly put her in that state with the purpose of accomplishing sex with her. It might be a lesser offense, though, depending on the circumstances. If, say, a man breaks into a woman's house and finds her unconscious by chance, sex would be theft or abuse but not rape. If a woman willingly gets intoxicated and goes home with a man and he has his way with her while she is unable to resist, then there is no offense whatsoever and the man is completely innocent, doing what most men would do.

And quick note: I sincerely hope this guy gets raped. Not by women, because he’s made it rather clear he’d take any woman because he’s so desperate, and wouldn’t view it as rape. No, I hope an entire prison worth of men takes their sexual frustration out on them. I’m sure you’ll agree with me on that one. Read on for a dissection of his argument, information about the guy and his misogynist pals, and how to help prevent this creep from taking his pro-rape views out on any women.

So, Yvette strongly agrees that there are circumstances where rape is justified. Undeterred by any notion of cruel and unusual punishment, she blatantly states that I deserve rape merely for expressing my opinion. Well, I am saying women deserve rape for actual violence against men enforced by cops, so my case is much stronger than hers, though one might reasonably argue that both are reprehensible.

He states repeatedly on his blog that women have value as sex objects and nothing more.

No, I state that women have the same value as men for any equal accomplishments unrelated to sex, but women have tremendous additional value as sex objects that men lack. This fundamental inequality is the crux of the matter and why rape is equality when everything else is equal.

Eivind Berge’s entire argument basically revolves around “well this psychiatrist guy wrote this article with a title that sounds like it supports my position so I’m right”.

Um, no, of course I knew sex was a female resource long before I read Baumeister. That fact is painfully obvious to any man trying to get laid or any honest observer of what goes on in the real world. I merely cite Baumeister for the convenience of those living under a rock or brainwashed by feminist social constructionist boilerplate, such as yourself.

Yet the psychologist who wrote the article does not even find rape justifiable.

So what? I am able to think for myself and have my own opinion. And he did include a disclaimer because he must have known his argument combined with egalitarian thinking leads to the conclusion that rape is justified.

Eivind Berge focuses entirely on heterosexual-heterosexual rape. Presumably, he thinks he also has a right to the bodies of lesbians whose “sexual worth” was never his to take. I am curious if he thinks male-male rape is rape.

Yes, male-male rape is rape, but it isn't justified because homosexuals are already equal. They can have sex anytime they want just like women can. I might be willing to leave lesbians out of this as well. Only the heterosexual context concerns me.

He believes rape is only rape if the victim, a woman, is resisting to the best of her ability. He does not believe violence, coercion, drugs, childhood innocence, etc, come into the equation. Consent is not necessary in his opinion. However, he doesn’t think it’s possible for a woman to rape a man – he argues this by saying that men would consent to any sex (why hello there double standard) and apparently ignoring the possibility that a man might not consent despite being aroused (Viagra, physical arousal vs. saying NO). This is important to keep in mind when it comes to his argument that women should be raped because, in setting a double standard when it comes to what is rape for a man and what is rape for a woman, he acknowledges that women desire sex of their own accord and without desire for a man’s wealth.

I already answered how a woman might give up resistance and still legitimately consider herself raped (if such resistance most likely would get her killed or seriously injured). And how rape by drugs is possible if the drugs are administered against her will. The same definition of rape applies to children, and in fact even Norwegian law is not yet so corrupt that it considers it rape simply because a child's innocence is taken advantage of. That would be considered sexual abuse but not rape if the child went along with it. I do indeed think it's impossible for a woman to rape a man. The double standard is quite real and based on biology. And yes, sometimes "women desire sex of their own accord and without desire for a man’s wealth," but they do so much less often than men with a much more limited number of partners. This profound difference is the problem, and a few loose women here and there do little to improve things for men. Sexual coercion is called for if we are to have equality -- and equality was the feminists' idea, remember?

His argument also apparently rests on a false definition of rape, judging by his other posts. Rape is not sexual intercourse where the woman is resisting to the best of her ability. Rape is sexual intercourse without consent. That is the nearly universal definition, accepted by just about…everyone, and includes sexual intercourse where one party is coerced or unable to give real consent.

Nope, your definition of rape is only a very recent feminist corruption of justice, and even then it is most often not accepted by juries. Common law defined rape for hundreds of years as carnal knowledge of a woman, not one's wife, by force and against her will. Simple lack of consent does only make it rape according to the most feminist-corrupted jurisprudence. In fact, only ten years ago Norwegian law was aligned with my definition of rape, and a causal element of violence or coercion is still required unless the woman is unable to resist. However, that coercion can now be as mild as threatening to start a rumor about a woman, reporting her for a crime she has actually committed, or even a husband threatening divorce, so the Norwegian definition is now so corrupt that women deserve real rape for this alone, in my view. Until 2000, Norwegian women had to be threatened with serious violence in accordance with my definition. That year mens rea was abolished as well, so now women can get men convicted without even knowing that she didn't really want sex and no malicious intent whatsoever. And the penalty for this is more severe than for involuntary manslaughter. The law quite blatantly says a woman's vagina is worth more than her life, so it is better to drive drunk and kill her than to have drunken, willing sex with the same woman which she later regrets. This is also the year sex with an unconscious woman or a woman unable to resist (which means women can just say they were too drunk to consent) was upgraded from a sort of misdemeanor to "rape," punishable by over ten times as many years (up to 21). Feminist rape law reform has come a long way and is responsible for much of my seething hatred, but still has ways to go because juries often refuse to convict based on the new definition. The final solution will be to abolish the jury in rape trials, and they are working on that right now.

Women’s worth lying in their nether regions is, let’s make this clear, a social construct. Specifically, a social construct which was created by men, perpetuated by men, and is now being defended by men. The article which Eivind links to analyzes the current state of gender roles in most societies (Eivind happily ignores gender equal or matriarchal societies as they do not fit into his worldview), and Eivind uses the nice, authoritative sound of a psychologist’s findings to make his point sound stronger than it truly is.

No, it isn't a social construct. Norway is now as close to an equal or matriarchal society as any known society ever was, and the same sex differences persist, as I posted evidence of recently.

Let’s get this straight: it’s not exactly a revelation that women’s bodies are traded for wealth. This is the general model for how society expects relationships to work. It is, however, just that: a model, a social construct. Male sexuality has no worth in society because those it is of no worth to those in power, ie men. Eivind, as a heterosexual male (aha! So that’s why his link specified heterosexual society) has no desire for cock. He is not willing to pay for it, or make any effort for it, and he would surely cry crocodile tears if it were forced upon him. Would he change his mind if the cock in question were attached to a wealthy business owner, and he were a single father in need of cash? Quite possibly. Does this mean Eivind’s only worth is as a sex object? After all, Eivind is just as capable of being valuable in other ways.

No, I wouldn't change my mind if the cock were attached to a wealthy business owner. Cock is always disgusting to straight men and this isn't a social construct. Unfortunately, most cocks are also disgusting to most women most of the time.

By equalizing economic worth, feminists are equalizing other forms of worth as well. As I’ll mention below, the slow increase of sexual harassment in the workplace with women as the perps and men as the victims greatly weakens Eivid’s argument.

I do not take sexual harassment seriously at all (it was invented by feminists as a tool to empower women and oppress men, criminalizing normal male behavior), and as I have made abundantly clear, women can never be "perps" in any kind of sex crime including forcible rape, because female sexuality is a good thing and any male recipient of a woman's sexual attention is only lucky. However, if the system rewards allegations of sexual harassment and, absurdly, takes men accusing women seriously as well, then it is hardly surprising that some men will try to exploit the system. In any case, only feminists and morons take them seriously as victims. The rest of us see through the bullshit and understand that these men are not alleging harassment because they feel sexually victimized by women.

It’s been well known for a while that women have begun to sexually harass men and make advances in the workplace towards men, abusing their higher economic power just as men have done the past thousand years or so. Why Eivind is not in the know remains unclear. What isn’t unclear is that when men’s economic power is reduced, women are happy to use their own economic power to get sex from men. This proves that when men women gain economic status instead of men, men are not left worthless—their social worth is simply different. In fact, if, as Eivind argues elsewhere on his blog, “men cannot not want sex, they will happily take anything”. If this is the case, perhaps Eivind should be celebrating the fact that economic equality leads to sexual equality and some insane woman might see him as worth anything.

This is simply gibberish. Women do not try to use their power to get sex from men. They use their power to reject more men than ever, and this is the problem. Economic equality leads to sexual inequality.

This is probably the most clearly misogyny-driven claim in Eivind Berge’s argument. The old model (of: society only recognizes women’s value as sex objects and prevents them from having any wealth or power) is being dismantled by the feminists Eivind hates so. In freeing up positions for women, feminists are ending the system of legal prostitution (ie: marriage) in which women had no choice but to give their bodies in exchange for the ability to have food on the table. We are in a period of transition: many women and men still expect women to trade their bodies for sex because it has only been a decade or two since those ideals started being challenged. At the same time, many don’t want that at all.

As the Kennair study shows, we are not in a period of transition. Liberated women will use their power to reject men. Either women must be economically disempowered again so they have to get married, or sexual coercion is necessary. Otherwise there will be a lot of frustrated and dangerous men.

Wealth represents (note: represents, not is, wealth is a social construct as well) access to resources that provide political power and a longer, happier life. Sex is an action resulting from biological lust, socially, it touches upon countless socially constructed meanings. To take wealth to the point where it harms a person is violence, but to deny wealth or power not to the point of harm is not violence. Rape is always violence.

Taking wealth from men is worse than rape reproductively speaking for all the men becoming evolutionary dead ends as a result. And when equality is enforced at gunpoint by the police, it is also quite literally violence. Of course, the threat of violence usually suffices, but such a threat is also all the violence you need for rape. Even more so by the feminist definition, which requires no violence at all and any kind of threat will do no matter how light. You really get hoist by your own petard here. If you want rape to be so loosely defined and still call it "always violence," then it doesn't take much for affirmative action to amount to violence, either.

This is the most obviously ludicrous claim, and where the argument truly falls apart. “Men get less sex as women get more money and power” is not only entirely unsupported by Eivind, only claimed, it’s obvious bullshit. Women have a sex drive.

Of course women have a sex drive, but it is normally very different than the male sex drive. The average man gets less sex as women get more money and power, because women prefer to reject betas and go for alphas when they are in a position to do so. I am not arguing in terms of absolutes, and admit exceptions, which is a concept you don't seem to understand:

The idea that women won’t put out at all as a result of their newfound wealth, however, is downright stupid.

Yes, and I never said such a thing. They put out less for men who are average and below, and that is where I am coming from.

If women are economically equal to men, and as a result are no longer forced to barter the only thing men feel they need from them, women will no longer barter their sexuality. The day men stop treating us as sexual objects is the day women stop treating men as blank checks. But men seem to be in no hurry to do so. It is feminists who are giving men increased social worth by making them more than a checkbook. But leave it to a libertarian to think only in terms of monetary value.

This is a complete non sequitur. Feminism takes away much of the leverage we had to obtain sex. You are either intellectually dishonest or very stupid if you think this gives men increased worth. We don't like to pay for sex and would prefer not to, but receptive women are just such a scarce resource that we often have to. Feminism makes female sexuality even scarcer because women can afford to be pickier and never have to sell sex out of necessity. Only the most desirable men get more sex under feminism, but they always had easy access to women. Everyone else gets less.

PUAs do sometimes successfully use the artifice of game to fool women about their value (e.g. refusing to pay for drinks, negs, etc.), but this deception will only work as long as PUAs are few or until women catch on.

Yvette also posted a Follow-up: Pro-rape advocacy, “male rights”, and rape culture.

First, let’s get something clear. Women are not stupid—on average, we’re as intelligent as any male, as tests over the last century have confirmed. Occasionally we are found to be a few points less intelligent, but that’s been disputed by men, and women have been found to have higher IQ’s at later stages of life.

Average IQ is not the whole story. While the mean IQ might be about the same for both men and women, the variability of male IQ is greater, meaning there are more men at both the high and low extremes. There are more male geniuses who accomplish great things (as well as more male idiots), and also men are more aggressive and have a different cognitive repertoire than women. So you naturally get different outcomes for the sexes.

Eivind also bases many of his claims on A Natural History of Rape—which is all fine and good except that it makes up half of his references and it is not held as a very reputable source.

The quote about Thornhill is a lie. For one thing, the sample size was 790, not 27:

doi:10.1016/0162-3095(90)90008-T

According to the hypothesis, mental pain is brought about by social tragedies in the lives of individuals and focuses the attention of individuals on the events surrounding the pain, promoting correction of the pain-causing events and their avoidance in the future. The hypothesis applied to rape victims proposes that in human evolutionary history raped females had increased fitness as a result of mental pain, because the pain forced them to focus attention on the fitness-reducing circumstances surrounding rape, which are discussed. Some of the hypothesis' predictions about the psychological pain of rape victims are examined using a data set of 790 rape victims in Philadelphia (USA) who were interviewed about their psychological traumatization within five days after the assault. The analyses indicate that, as predicted, a victim's age and marital status are proximate causes of the magnitude of psychological pain following rape. Reproductive-aged women appear to be more severely traumatized by rape than older women or girls and married women more than unmarried women. The results presented suggest that the psychology that regulates mental pain processes information about age and mateship status in the event of a woman's rape.

Eivind Berge actually claims that when a white man rapes a woman, it’s a made up feminist statistic, but it’s not (and somehow worse) when non-whites do it.

No, I was just comparing the number of rape allegations, not saying how credible they are. The point is that women didn't even accuse a single white man of attacking and raping them in the street in those years, versus 41 non-white. This is the classical form of rape that fits my definition and most women agree is the worst, even though they now also can legally call it rape in a number of milder scenarios such as regretting drunken sex, etc. You have to believe that women report false rape close to 100% of the time to deny this trend, and not even any MRAs go that far.

Hypergamous? Yea, women had to be. As one commenter put it: "It strikes me that hypergamy can only occur in societies where there is a pronounced social inequality between sexes in the first place. ‘Marrying up’ is presumably an attempt to address that imbalance for some reason, possibly for the sake of children. Wouldn’t this imply that as the sexes become more equal in terms of status, money, power etc, the difference between the desirability of rich and poor men will decrease?"

It is becoming clear that women respond to equality by increasingly not marrying at all, or delaying marriage while sleeping around with the few men who actually have the status to be attractive to women. Betas get less sex with women when they are young and most desirable.

Affirmative action was not pushed through by "feminists." Affirmative action was pushed through the political sphere, which is overwhelmingly controlled by men (for example, in the US, only 17 out of 100 senators are female today). So you should really be angry with other men, not women.

The political sphere is not "overwhelmingly controlled by men" just because most senators are men. Whoever votes for these men has the power, and women are the majority of the electorate.

The final blow to Eivind Berge’s claims? It’s well acknowledged that the single largest factor in women’s choice of mates is the man’s natural body odor. Try taking a bath, Eivind.

Sure smell is important, but the study you link to also confirms female hypergamy: "These findings support previous results showing that body odor is a critical signal in female mate choice (Herz & Cahill, 1997). Also in accord with previous studies (Buss; Buss; Buss and Landolt), women gave higher ratings than men did to variables related to status and resource potential and men gave higher ratings to good looks (Buss, D.M., 1989. Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12, pp. 1–49.). For men, the only factor to outrank good looks was the social factor, pleasantness."

And in a more humorous end, let’s point out another way in which Eivind Berge is wrong—here’s an example of a “free-sex” brothel opening in Norway where men and women are volunteering to have sex with strangers, for free. Kind of goes against everything he’s claimed, doesn’t it.

How naive can you get? That "free-sex brothel" was just a publicity stunt or hoax and isn't happening.

Oh, and everybody please be my guest and sign Yvette's petition against me. It will accomplish nothing.

Human sexuality illustrated

2010-06-17T18:31:00.016+02:00

Yesterday I posted empirical evidence for the usual sex differences still persisting in ostensibly egalitarian Norway. Today I am going to elaborate a bit on the theory behind why women must always be the selective sex.

In the Darwin festivities of 2009 I attended a talk by professor Peter Hammerstein, where he said the law of supply and demand does not apply in the sexual marketplace. Simply put, anisogamy + sex ratio theory = supply and demand doesn’t apply = sexuality belongs entirely to women and male sexuality is worthless. The mating market is indeed a market, but an asymmetric one where the balance of sexual power is so skewed in favor of females that the law of supply and demand is abrogated. What he basically said can also be found here starting at page 156. In a typical market, supply tends to equal demand. We don't have, for example, a motor industry manufacturing billions of cars than no one has any use for. Not so in the sexual market. Since sperm is so cheap compared to eggs, sperm is tremendously overproduced and eagerly offered to all takers and more. The inevitable result of this (and more to the point, the fact that females must also invest in pregnancy) is that male sexuality is worthless and we are mere slaves to women.

But enough theory for now. This poster was recently shared over at The Spearhead, and I wanted it to find a home here on my humble blog as well to illustrate what life is all about (click to enlarge).

As someone said, sex to a woman is a means to an end while to a man, sex is an end in itself. Or, when it comes to sex, women are capitalists and men are communists. Women choose. Women are sex objects. Women are the gatekeepers of sex. Rape is equality. All these clichés are equivalent statements and can also be graphically presented like this:

In other words, sex is a female resource and the male body has no intrinsic value. Due to evolution and human nature it must perforce be this way, and it is only delusional to think the playing field can be leveled within the present social conditions. While studying game is a good idea and can greatly benefit individual men, this does nothing for men as a group because mating is a zero-sum game. Others in the movement take a sour-grapes approach and pretend surrendering in the sexual marketplace is a solution. This is beyond pathetic and only serves to make them evolutionary dead ends. If the men's movement is going to go anywhere, we need to face reality first.

Only after acknowledging this reality can men begin move forward and decide what to do. Many of us are clearly unhappy under feminism, and I tend to think the solution is to reinstate patriarchal values. We will always be ruled by pussy and that is the way it should be, but by subjugating women in other ways, men and women can have fulfilling relationships based on a fair exchange of resources. Then more men will actually have something to offer and women will be compelled to barter their sexuality, rather than enjoy gratuitous equality in addition to all their sexual power like they do now.

The ugly truth about female sexuality

2010-06-15T17:10:00.018+02:00

Commenters on my blog often claim I can't have as much sex as I want because there is simply something wrong with me, and if I only held politically correct feminist views like most people in Norway, I would have no problems. This anonymous comment left last night is typical:

Just because women don't want to have sex with YOU (which I'm willing to bet is because of your digusting view towards them) doesn't mean that they don't want to have sex with men. You are turning your personal issues into a dangerous weapon that will serve no purpose other than to drag down humanity as a whole. That's right, we're in this together men and women both with equal responsibility.

If my views were really the problem, then other men in Norway, being the well-trained feminists that they are, would have as much sex as they want. But they don't. We are certainly not in this together with equal responsibility, because women call all the shots and have all the power. Sexuality belongs entirely to women, and men are far from satisfied with what women decide to give us. A recent study by Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair et al. gives the lie to the myth that all is idyllic in this feminist utopia:

"Sex Differences in Sexual Desires and Attitudes in Norwegian Samples." Interpersona 3.1 (2009), 1-32.

Once again it is demonstrated that sex is a female resource. Norway is extremely egalitarian and feminist -- according to the article "typically the highest rated nation in terms of gender empowerment as indexed by the United Nations" -- yet women desire as few partners and little sex after as much courtship as ever. The only thing changed as a result of all this feminist "empowerment" is that women now tell the truth about actual partners rather than underestimating as they have done on past surveys. Remarkably, for the first time women and men report the same number of partners in the last year on average, which mathematically must be the same in the same population. This shows women are honest, so we have every reason to believe they are also telling the truth about wanting sex less than men and with far fewer partners. Even with the extreme scores (all male, of course) omitted, which means the difference is probably actually larger, sexual attitudes are so profoundly different:

It is by now abundantly clear that this is immutable human nature. Norwegian women believe they can do everything men can and they don’t even face significant shaming for being sluts, yet they simply don’t want sex as much as men, even on anonymous surveys. This is the ugly truth about female sexuality, well explained by the difference in minimum parental investment required of the sexes. There is nothing morally wrong with women for pursuing this limited sexual strategy, of course, any more than there is anything wrong with men for wanting to sleep with as many women as possible. Each sex is simply acting optimally according to the mandates of evolution. But it does mean that sexual equality is not achievable. And it means that when women coerce equality in other areas, making male sexuality even more worthless, then the appropriate response from men is to coerce sexual equality to recover what we have lost by women's unprecedented economic freedom to express their feral, extremely picky sexuality.

The authors warn against the dangers of denying sex differences:

Importantly, one should seriously consider the effects of continuing to make claims that are not reasonable based on the extant empirical evidence. Continuing to claim that there are no significant, predictable sex differences in sexual desire, fantasy, or attitude does a disservice to the truth, and will only generate attitudes of distrust and violation from those who in time come to learn the actual evidence. According to this study and the overwhelming weight of the evidence, it is clear: there are sex differences. In everyday life, people continue to be exposed to these differences and only an honest approach to the expression of sex differences will allow us to fully understand them.

From a clinical perspective, it is worrisome to consider the effects of claims that there are no differences, when indeed there are, have on the emotional climate of couples experiencing differences. In such cases, experts claiming that there are no differences will be inducing guilt and shame in females, and doubt and worry in males, and increase the number of couples experiencing differences in sexual desire that believe there is something wrong in their relationship. Thereby ideological claims of similarity aimed at not suppressing female sexuality, might be causing females to feel pressure into having sex they do not desire.

All of this is true, but it is also dangerous to tell the truth about sexuality in an equalist society, because equality applied to sex is not going to be pleasant for women. So perhaps the social constructionist feminists are not really the clowns they appear to be. All the hate my blog has elicited indicates that deep down feminists know true equality would also entail sexual coercion, because women's advantage as sex objects is so great that it surpasses any historical male privilege, and when all this supposed male privilege is abolished, we are left with sexual oppression of men. They can't really argue against this rationally, so they resort to denying sex differences instead and try to have me censored or worse.

Fighting with monsters

2010-05-29T19:45:00.005+02:00

Commenter Aaron Weingott said something under my argument that rape is equality that made me reflect a little on where I am headed.

Well, this is the best corroboration of Nietzsche's maxim "fight not with monsters lest ye become a monster" I've ever seen.

My initial reaction was that fighting with feminists may be a dirty job, but somebody has to do it. Nonetheless, there comes a point when all the hate you generate becomes a little too onerous, and especially the deluge of lies from social constructionists and gullible morons indoctrinated with this feminist drivel about rape being about power rather than sex is getting on my nerves. So perhaps I will take my blog in a slightly less strident direction from here. I still think my argument is valid though, as reductio ad absurdum of feminism, but spending too much time debating it might be a bad idea. Have I become a monster?

Rape of woman in skinny jeans not possible

2010-05-02T20:23:00.015+02:00

CAN a woman wearing skinny jeans be raped? Or are they so tight they can be taken off only with her consent?

These are some of the questions a jury asked before acquitting a Sydney man of sexual assault.

Quite right. It isn't rape by any reasonable definition unless the woman resists to the best of her ability, and such resistance would obviously make it impossible to remove her jeans without leaving a mark. The only way a woman can legitimately consider herself raped without fighting to the best of her ability is if doing so would likely get her or someone she commonly protects killed or seriously injured. Since the woman does not even accuse the man of threatening her with anything in this case, this is certainly not rape even if she is telling the truth.

This is a victory for men, albeit an isolated one in a hateful climate of feminist corruption of justice, and I'm sure feminists will only redouble their efforts to convict more men falsely accused of rape. I don't know if they have double jeopardy in Australia, but if they do, Nicholas Eugenio Gonzalez will almost certainly be convicted upon appeal. In Norway we actually have triple jeopardy, at least. A man can be acquitted twice and then the professional feminist judges can set aside the jury's verdict and order a new trial with fewer jurors and this happens because that's how arrogant the feminist justice system is. The legal definition of rape is vastly more inclusive than what your peers including non-feminist women consider to be rape, so a jury will frequently acquit despite the man clearly being guilty by the feminist legal definition. The final solution is to abolish the jury, which feminists are lobbying for as we speak, and meanwhile they will disrespect the jury whenever it refuses to convict a man accused of rape. Norwegian men ultimately have no rights, nothing to stop feminists from rigging the system against men however they see fit. My guess is the jury will be gone relatively soon in rape cases.

Of course, even if we had some sort of sacred constitutional guaranteed right to a jury trial like Americans do, feminists would still find ways to rig the system against men and prevent us from getting a fair trial, as in rape shield laws and so on, withholding evidence from the jury to boost convictions. So either way feminists win and men lose. Until we start fighting back. The first step is to stop respecting women and not have any sympathy for actual rape victims either. I have at least reached that point. In fact, I gloat when a woman is actually raped. Since women and the law do not care if we actually rape and only care about obtaining convictions, we might as well get our money's worth.

A small victory

2010-04-22T21:52:00.024+02:00

On Wednesday evening policeman Olav Kildal thought he was going on a routine mission in Mo i Rana, Norway, to kidnap another victim of psychiatry for forcible "treatment." But this time, the victim was prepared to fight back. After 34 years on the beat as a fascist pig, Olav Kildal finally had his comeuppance. Kildal was stabbed to death as he tried to enter the victim's house. His female porcine partner meanwhile got scared and ran away, leaving Kildal to bleed to death by the time the thugs returned with plenty of reinforcements, riot gear, automatic weapons, and tear gas but nonetheless took all night, until 6 in the morning to capture this hero of the people (whose name the newspapers won't mention, so all we know is he is 62 years old).

Good news for men is rare in this hateful feminist utopia that is Norway, but today is a joyous day! Today I feel schadenfreude in my heart along with all the hate that feminism and resultant mate deprivation have instilled in me. One blue thug less on the streets. One less feminist enforcer. And as this story so beautifully illustrates, the pigs enforce psychiatry as well. This hero's knife attack on Kildal can only be characterized as self-defense. Forcible psychiatric "treatment" is fundamentally wrong and of course anyone subjected to it has the moral right to defend himself with deadly force.

Update: It has come to light that Kildal apparently broke into the victim's home without the requisite warrants. So it wasn't just morally wrong and based on laws I disagree with; it was probably illegal, too, and defending oneself from such abuses of power is justified in every way. Killdal wasn't just doing his job. He was a criminal thug who got his just deserts.

Dead swine now burning in hell.

Lady Raine, thanks for promoting my blog

2010-04-08T02:47:00.005+02:00

The same crazy lady who tried to bring down Roissy is now reporting my "rape blog" to the "Vice President" of my university.

Don’t worry, Denise I already reported him, his IP address, his physical address, and his blog to the Vice President of his campus (at Bergen University in Norway). I sent her proof that the he is currently posting his rape blog FROM the campus, using their network, and is likely to be selecting a victim as we speak.

I provided her with all his IP information, user info, net stats, full name, photo, and everything else she needs to send to the Norwegian Police or use as one of the Heads of the University (since I have no idea what the laws are in Norway) but I warned her that there is a dangerous man who is encouraging and planning rape and possibly murder typing all that from her campus as we speak.

I will continue to send her any and all information on his geographical location each time he so much as takes a breath, moves from his spot, or posts something new.

I am quite certain that she would be concerned about a student on campus using their network to blog about raping women….especially being on a college campus where rape is very rampant. No school would overlook a student like him or his comments and blog that he stupidly posted his name and his picture right next to, to remove any doubt at all.

Bye, bye asshole. Hope you get the help you need.

Lady Raine is so dense it took her a year to figure out my location even though it was right there in my profile the whole time, and now she thinks she can hurt me by reporting my blog. Well, the whole reason for blogging is to be read. I stand by every word of what I have written (except the typos). It is not, however, criminal and her paraphrase is a distortion of what I am saying. To accuse me of planning rape and murder is nothing but calumny. For example, I said that in the hypothetical situation of rapists being assured the death penalty, this would likely lead to more rapists killing their victims as well, and so imposing the death penalty for rape would make the world a more dangerous place for women. Her reading comprehension is such that next she accuses me of planning to murder women. And that is representative for everything she writes. I appreciate my blog being promoted, but anyone should take everything Lady Raine says with a grain of salt and read what I actually write before jumping to conclusions.

The abuse industry groweth: animals

2010-01-03T13:51:00.010+01:00

Legislators are constantly at work finagling further erosion of our liberties, and this New Year's Day the turn came to animals. It is now illegal in Norway to have sex with animals. It is illegal to use live bait or pet food. You have to be 16 to be responsible for a pet, and it is illegal to fail to report any kind of animal abuse or neglect -- snitching is mandatory. The punishment for breaking this law is up to three years imprisonment.

So what are people going to feed their snakes now that live food is illegal? No problem, Norway already banned reptiles and amphibians back in 1974, no exceptions.

Last year we banned bottle rockets, but that's all good because there is nothing to celebrate anyway. Each year just heralds new prohibitions and more feminism. This year in feminism we are expanding the 40% female quota to apply to the boardrooms of 1500 more companies. Readers of my blog already know how I feel men should react against that.

Happy New Year.

Feminists believe women can rape men

2009-10-18T00:58:00.011+02:00

Feminists, the abuse industry and even some misguided MRAs sometimes claim that women can be rapists. It is really too ridiculous to even consider, but since some people apparently say it with a straight face, I took the time to explain what is wrong with the notion of the female rapist. Feminists don't tolerate much dissent, however, so when I posted my views on this in a thread titled Can Women Rape Men? over at the Feminist Critics blog, my comments were deleted. So I shall post them here instead:

It is my unconditional opinion that women can never rape men, for the simple reason that sex is a female resource. Sex is obviously something women have and men want, and any man claiming to be raped by a woman is not a reasonable person and cannot be taken seriously. It is the height of arrogance to claim a woman raped you and as a man whose life has been ruined by involuntary celibacy I find it incredibly offensive. Nobody who takes the concept of the female rapist seriously is a friend of mine.

While women are extremely valuable sex objects, male sexuality is worthless or (usually) worse, having a negative value; there is no intrinsic value in the male body, unfortunately. Most men are sexually invisible or disgusting to most women while most men find most women at least somewhat attractive. Sex is the transfer of value from a woman to a man; it is the woman giving something precious to the man in all cases. Female-on-male “rape” would thus be like a reverse robbery, analogous to someone forcing money into your pockets or breaking into your home to leave a pile of money. I used to compare it to the stealing of garbage, but the reverse robbery analogy is more apt, as the man is always getting something objectively valuable. A man getting sex from a woman is lucky, period, even if he was forced, and I categorically condemn anyone who thinks he is a victim of a woman’s sexual acts. Sympathy is the last thing such a man would get; the normal reaction is jealousy and then hate if he tries to pass himself off as a victim and get the woman prosecuted. I categorically refuse to see it any other way.

I also very much disagree with the feminist redefinition of rape condoned in this thread. Only this is actually rape: “Human copulation resisted by the victim to the best of her ability unless such resistance would probably result in death or serious injury to her or others she commonly protects.” This is the definition used by Thornhill and Palmer in A Natural History of Rape. Feminists and the law now use a corrupted, vastly more inclusive definition. For instance, here in Norway it is sufficient to threaten with starting a rumor about a woman; then it is legally rape if she has sex to avoid it, and it is rape if a husband threatens divorce to obtain sex from his wife.

Daran said: “It’s not the severity of the threat which is the issue, but it’s nature as something that does or does not lie within your discretion to do.” If the threat is not about death or serious injury, then it is not true rape but a lesser form of sexual coercion. Feminists, of course, call everything rape to demonize men maximally, with the inevitable result that the whole concept gets trivialized. Here in Norway, since the latest feminist corruption of the legal concept of rape in 2000, the threat can most assuredly lie within your discretion to do, such as reporting the woman for a crime she has committed, such as theft. The threat can be about something perfectly legal and honorable; that’s how far the feminists have succeeded against men. They also removed mens rea for rape that year, so now a man can be a rapist without realizing it or intending to. Women mostly use this to get men convicted when they regret consensual sex while intoxicated (women are not responsible for their actions because they are drunk, men are responsible despite being drunk — so the asymmetry goes), as I have gone to court and seen with my own eyes, engendering profound antifeminist hatred in my heart. We can also thank feminism for corrupting the concept to allow for male victims of women, which is a red herring introduced to obfuscate the fact that the all-inclusive, ostensibly gender-neutral rape law is all about hurting men and empowering women. I can’t believe you guys fall for it.

The common-law definition of rape was a good one that we should return to: “Carnal knowledge of a woman not one’s wife by force and without consent.” The sex has to be accomplished by violence; lack of consent is not enough, so the woman has to resist to the best of her ability (unless this would likely get her killed). As a man, this is the only definition of rape I can accept, and I cannot ever accept that sexual coercion by women on boys or men can qualify as rape or any kind of crime.

[Now some people thought I was trolling and even a misandrist, to which I replied:]

I just expressed my sincere opinion and am assuredly not a troll.

Schala, men can be raped, but only by other men. And I am an MRA, not a misandrist. A gender-neutral concept of rape hurts men because it gives feminists a red herring as I explained above and because it makes a mockery of male sexuality and insults most men, who have the opposite and real problem of not enough sexual attention from women.

[The Feminist Critics uphold James Landrith as an example of a man who was supposedly raped by a woman. She threatened him with accusing him of rape if he didn't have sex with her.]

James Landrith had a luxury problem. I and most men would only be delighted to wake up and find a woman straddling me and demand sex. There is no way I can take that situation seriously as rape.

Now the ease with which women can destroy men's lives with false accusations of rape is a serious problem, but acknowledging female rapists is not the solution. It only makes it worse because then gullible men won't see the feminist-corrupted justice system where everything is rape and anyone can be a victim as the pure misandry it is. Landrith is barking up the wrong tree. He should instead focus on reversing feminist rape reform to where allegations of rape backed by nothing but the woman's word and no corroborating evidence will go nowhere. Then he could just ignore the woman's threat if he really didn't want the free sex.

Feminists think they are smart, but expanding the concept of rape to include female rapists will backfire and hurt women in the long run. If being forced to have heterosexual sex is similar for men and women, then men are compelled to conclude that raping women, too, is a trivial crime. The only way I can maintain the belief that rape for a woman is a horrible experience is to accept that women's experience of it is radically different than mine, as the thought of any woman forcing herself on me is sweet or neutral at worst if she is really ugly. Homosexual rape is another matter, of course, but we are talking about being raped by a person of the opposite sex here. So be careful what you wish for. If you want real rape victims to be taken seriously, then trivializing the crime like this is a bad move.

Clarence asked, "I also wonder what he’d consider it if a really really unattractive woman put a gun to his head and made him have sex with her?" I would consider it neutral or a mild nuisance at worst, but I could never consider it rape or even think about pressing charges. Clarence also brought up cases where "men have been unconscious and women have had sex acts with them that resulted in children and they’ve had to pay up." I agree this is wrong, but the problem is not "rape" but child support. Of course these men should not have to pay, but they were lucky to get sex.

Apparently I have been banned, so I guess I will have to post these comments to my own blog instead. What is the point of even asking the question "Can women rape men?" if you can't handle arguments to the contrary?

I also find it unreasonable to delete comments based on something else I have written elsewhere. I have not said anything to the effect that "men should be free to rape" here and my argument that rape is equality is a little bit more nuanced than that. But I guess that is the kind of moderation one should expect from feminists so extreme they believe getting sex by threatening to end a relationship is rape.

***

Even a woman at that blog, Ana, worries that she raped her boyfriend by threatening to end their relationship:

I had a situation when I was 16 and wanted my virginity removed, where I threatened to break up with my (17 year old) boyfriend if he would not have sex with me. We did it, but some months later he told me that he believed I had raped him.

It bothers me deeply to this day, because I did not think that it was rape.

I don’t know whether the situation could have been prevented with better education, although the concept of females raping males was certainly nothing I had ever heard before. I still don’t know how to talk to him about it, so I just don’t talk to him anymore. I still don’t understand why it was rape.

Could someone address these concerns for me? I promise I’m not trolling.

This has got to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my life. This was indeed rape by the feminist definition, to ensure that men can be imprisoned in the more typical cases where the roles are reversed. The solution to this corruption of justice is not to apply this absurd definition to men as well, but to reverse feminist rape law reform, and I hope most sane men can see this. The last thing we need is protection from having to take the virginity of 16-year-old girls, whereas being convicted of rape ourselves on the basis of the flimsiest threat is a very real possibility with feminist justice.

***

Norwegian readers might want to check out me discussing this with a feminist bitch, Rannveig Svendby, here. She is straight out of women's studies and has been well trained to promote the feminist agenda by pretending women can rape men. Don't fall for it, gentlemen, or you will be useful idiots for the feminists.

Never trust a cop

2009-07-22T17:20:00.010+02:00

The police force in Norway and other Occidental countries is basically a special interest group for the feminists. They enforce the feminist definition of rape, age of consent and all the other misandrist feminist laws that make my blood boil with hatred. Now Norwegian cops are even empowered by the feminists to arrest me for being a john (while the whores of course are innocent) and this applies anywhere in the world. For this reason, I viscerally despise cops and wish them the worst. Killing at least one cop is on my bucket list. Whenever the pigs try to interrogate you, keep this in mind:

Abstract:
The police routinely rely on deception when questioning criminal suspects. Because the United States Supreme Court has placed so few limits on the use of deception, the variety of deceptive techniques is limited chiefly by the ingenuity of the interrogator. Interrogators still rely on the classic "Mutt and Jeff," or "good cop, bad cop" routine. They tell suspects that non-existent eyewitnesses have identified them, or that still at-large accomplices have given statements against them. Occasionally, an interrogator will create a fake lab report purporting to link the suspect to forensic evidence. Most often, interrogators lie to create rapport with a suspect. Thus, an officer with feelings of revulsion toward a suspect accused of a horrible crime may speak in a kindly, solicitous voice and profess to feel compassion for the suspect. The officer may suggest that the victim, even if a child, should share the blame for the crime. In the end, virtually all interrogations involve some deception. At the very least, the successful interrogator deceives the suspect by allowing him to believe that, somehow, it will be in his best interest to undertake the usually self-defeating course of making an uncounseled confession.

Because most deception is employed only after the suspect executes a valid waiver of Miranda rights, Miranda imposes few limits on the use of deceptive interrogation techniques. Thus, commentators have increasingly looked to the voluntariness requirement of the Due Process Clause as a basis for urging drastic limitation on these techniques. Commentators who focused on due process rationales such as equality, trust, morality, and dignity have not been able to mount persuasive arguments for limitation. Reliability, however, as the chief rationale for the voluntariness requirement, is an appropriate concern in setting limits on deceptive interrogation techniques. Deception should not be permitted when it creates an unreasonable risk that an innocent person would falsely confess.

Some commentators have asserted that there is a significant problem with false confessions. In fact, the evidence of false confessions, both in the academic literature and in the popular press, is entirely anecdotal. Statistically sound research on a random sample of confession cases should be conducted. At this point, however, drastic limits on the use of deceptive interrogation techniques are not justified. Such limits would impose substantial costs on society in terms of lost confessions from guilty persons. When guilty persons do not confess, additional resources must be expended to obtain convictions, some guilty persons are able to plead to lesser charges, and some guilty persons simply go free and have the opportunity to commit new crimes.

Although the wrongful conviction of any innocent person is a terrible failing of the criminal justice system, it does matter whether such occurrences constitute rare tragedies or an epidemic.

Laurie Magid is on the feminist side, but thanks for telling it as it is.

Citation

Magid, Laurie. "Deceptive Police Interrogation Practices: How Far is Too Far?" (March 2001). Michigan Law Review, Vol. 99, 2001. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=272659 or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.272659

Rape is equality

2009-05-10T21:11:00.002+02:00

When men have something women have less of, such as money or power, women simply take it by force. It's called affirmative action and feminists believe it's right. I am not going to argue against that. I accept that as a lost cause. So instead I am going to embrace forced equality and demand it for men as well.

What women have that men don't is of course sex. If anyone doubts that sex is a female resource, go here and request the PDF file Baumeister, R.F. & Vohs, K.D. (2004). Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 339-363.

In light of feminism, or if you believe in equality, this article makes such a compelling case for rape that Baumeister felt obliged to include the otiose disclaimer, "Our analysis should in no way be construed as excusing sexual coercion and we roundly condemn any such acts."

So let us give women equality if that's what they really want. Remember that due to the hypergamous nature of women, men get less sex as women get more money and power. Women are generally incapable of feeling attraction for men who are not better than they are, and soon men are no better than equal. So it is about time men in feminist countries such as Norway stop thinking of rape as wrong. I have previously argued this point e.g. here as Arpagus, and no one has been able to justify why affirmative action is right when it benefits women and hurts men but is wrong when it helps men and hurts women.

Is the peacock a sex object? I don't think so

2008-09-06T04:19:00.008+02:00

The second footnote of this article made me think.

Kanazawa and Still claim, in all likelihood correctly, that females are the choosers in all species where they invest more parentally than males. In these species it is the male that is the object of sexual attraction. However, it is well known that in humans this pattern has been reversed so that it is the female rather than the male who is the primary object of sexual attraction. For this reason, Kanazawa and Still's attempt to draw a parallel between humans and other animals in the mode of mate choice does not succeed.

What has Sanderson been smoking? The male is the primary object of sexual attraction in most species? Surely when the female gets to chose and the male must display, that means the female is the sex object. Being the selective sex equals being the object of sexual attraction as I understand it. Peahens (say) may look drab to us, but it is they who are the attractive ones. They are the sexy sex. The peacock isn't attractive; he is desperately trying to attract females with a pathetic and costly display. Most males are unworthy of most females and it would be ludicrous to call an average peacock who may well fail to attract any female at all the primary object of sexual attraction while every female is desirable by default. This has not been "reversed" in humans. It is precisely the same. Some women are more desirable than others of course and able to get men of higher status, and they do things like boob jobs and wear makeup to enhance their attractiveness which peahens don't bother with, but fundamentally it is the same. If the peacock's display makes him a sex object, then men must be termed sex objects by virtue of our desperate and largely futile attempts to seduce women, and clearly that is preposterous.

We all know that women are sex objects (and the bodies of men are worthless, in other words sex is a female resource, universally understood as something women have and men want as Baumeister makes abundantly clear), and I believe that is the case in other species as well where the female invests more parentally. The only true male sex objects (besides homosexuals, of course) are found in the few species where the male invests more in parenting, e.g. the bird Centropus grillii, where the males care for the young while the females spend a large proportion of their time calling from conspicuous perches. It would be nice to be a sex object, but the downside is the parenting burden. You have to work hard either way, but the choosy sex has the bonus of being sexy -- they have intrinsic value unlike men and an extra unlimited resource at their disposal -- so in the aggregate women have it easier. Females of most species are also virtually assured reproductive success, but on the other hand men can succeed spectacularly when they do succeed, like Djengis Khan.

By the way I found Sanderson's explanation of monogamy somewhat compelling. Male choice may in fact have a hand in polygyny -- not everything is completely driven by women.

Works Cited

Baumeister, R.F. & Vohs, K.D. (2004). "Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions." Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 339-363.

Wolfgang Goymann, Andrea Wittenzellner & John C. Wingfield. "Competing Females and Caring Males. Polyandry and Sex-Role Reversal in African Black Coucals, Centropus grillii." Ethology, Volume 110 Issue 10, pp. 807 - 823.

Sanderson, Stephen K. "Explaining Monogamy and Polygyny in Human Societies: Comment on Kanazawa and Still." Social Forces, Volume 80, Number 1, September 2001, pp. 329-335.

Sexual Utopia in Power

2007-12-02T16:25:00.000+01:00

"Sexual Utopia in Power" (The Occidental Quarterly Vol. 6, No. 2) is possibly the best article I have ever read. My blogging against feminism is almost redundant after F. Roger Devlin has put it so well. This is what I have been thinking ever since growing up in the hateful climate of feminism -- and hate breeds hate, resulting in the angry man I am today. These are my views exactly on everything from sexual harassment to divorce. The Occidental Quarterly is clearly a great, paleoconservative journal. It is heartening to see some sanity in this age of feminist terror. I am especially thankful for Devlin's recognition of "the forgotten men" -- the losers -- "of the sexual revolution" (p. 29). I am one of them and it is indeed time for us to speak up. Perhaps we really ought to form gangs which engage in antisocial behavior, as Devlin suggests, to increase our chances with women. It is perplexing and dispiriting that this has not already happened. Where is someone like Catiline when we need him? Or perhaps Spartacus would be a better analogy. We have to do something. Individually, we can improve our lot somewhat by working on our game, studying the material of David DeAngelo, Neil Strauss and the other pickup gurus, but that can only change the order of the hierarchy while the fundamental scarcity of women remains. We can't all be alpha males, by definition. It does not seem to me that the gurus realize this, as evinced by this line from The Game: "By socializing guys like Sasha, Mystery and I were making the world a better place" (p. 87). No, Style, you are not making the world a better place. If Sasha gets lucky, it means some other man will be frustrated instead, and that is just as dangerous. I doubt that there exists a large reservoir of untapped female promiscuity ready to materialize once we all become pickup artists. Perhaps a few spinsters could be converted, but all of us improving will mostly just raise the bar and there will be about the same number of losers as before. To improve the overall situation of men, we have to assault feminism at its core. We must destroy the independence of women which permits them to be so choosy. Of course this means ending welfare and affirmative action, but serial monogamy, which is just as bad as polygamy and has led to a record number of childless men, must also somehow be discouraged by making divorce more difficult. Women will still be hypergamous and men will seek promiscuity, but a kind of sexual egalitarianism will have been brought back when no woman can afford to price herself out of the market. Another strategy is to improve the sex ratio, as Angry Harry is advocating, and that appeals to me even more than restoring monogamy. And why stop at 15%? Let us breed women like cattle! Meanwile, we do still have the option of foreign brides, and that is probably what I will resort to as soon as I can afford it.

I disagree with Devlin's optimism about the tipping point being at hand, that "we have reached the historical moment when we men have the upper hand in the battle of the sexes" (p. 33). The way I see it, we are still in stage two of the sexual revolution -- the reign of terror -- and I think it must get even worse before it can get better. Most men still don't realize what has hit them and many even consider themselves feminists. There has been some reaction, yes -- or you wouldn't be reading this -- but men's activists are still far between and mostly ignored. The men's movement has yet to make the transition into a mass movement, though I concede it could happen at any time and am reasonably confident that it is inevitable. The feminists are still able to pass any law they wish without significant outcry from men. The persecution of men is currently only limited by the imagination of the feminists, as we shall see.

While the other evils of feminism of course also deserve attention, the number one priority of the men's movement should be to fight the feminist definition of rape, in my view. At least this is what enrages me the most, along with their constant assaults on the justice system to bring juries into line with the corrupt laws already passed (Norwegian feminists are even lobbying for abolishing the jury in rape trials in order to boost convictions). In the latest further corruption of British justice, video recordings of statements made to police by alleged rape victims can now be used as their main evidence in court. The feminists at the BBC censored out my comment to this article, so I shall publish it here instead:

This further corruption of justice may help to increase the conviction rate for a while, but it will also help to increase the amount of hostility towards not just feminists (who deserve it) but all women, and hopefully there will be a devastating backlash sooner or later. There is a limit to how far you can go before men will fight back. Personally, I lost sympathy for "rape" victims long ago. It is impossible to take rape seriously the way the feminists have redefined it, and the "justice" system is now clearly just a special interest group for the feminists, or it would be concerned with getting at the truth rather than simply finding ways to convict as many men as possible based on the assumption that everyone accused is guilty, and probably all the rest of us too.

Eivind Berge
Bergen, Norway