Reply to Yvette Lessard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Feminists believe women can rape men

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

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. 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

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

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

"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