Sunday, October 18, 2009

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.


Eurosabra said...

I think it may be a question of individual psychology with respect to one's bodily autonomy. Landrith may have had a highly developed sense of an impermeable, inviolate self, causing him trauma because of the exploitation of his body and the violation of his will. I am a bit shocked that a US Marine would have such a viewpoint, because as an Israeli at the same age I got used to a situation in which my body was to move, be made to carry objects, was transported against my will, etc. etc. and I believe Marines undergo conditions of extreme self-abnegation in training and service such that they learn to think of themselves as both sovereign agents and mission meat. It is possible that Landrith experienced the violation of the last sovereign sphere of his bodily autonomy.

The other question is one of phenomenology of perception, whether men regard a purely physical experience--that of involuntarily being used as a sex object--as physically unpleasant because of the violation of will. I think we might have to speak of a continuum of relationships, because "date" or "acquaintance rape" as such might not exist for men as it does for women, because one might wish to go along with a date or acquaintance's pressure in hopes of preserving the wider relationship. and because "a bad quarter-hour" may be a lesser price to pay. This is just because I'm relatively low-drive and I've been in relationships where sex became a female expectation and my duty, but I do see that coercion of men other than stranger rape may become laughable. It is too easy to do a favor for some woman I am in a relationship with, or a good friend, or a co-worker, and the good-will earned is disproportionate to the act itself. So you might say I'm an illustration of your thesis and at the same time someone with misgivings.

Kamal S. said...

What I find amusing is the tendency on many (not all but many) Feminist and radical blogs to enforce a lockstep consensus of commentary.

Deleting opposing comments and arguments is a sign of weakness, however it is phrased. A better tact for them would be to actually contend with your points and engage them, or dismiss them. But erasing and censoring them - that's bloody weak.

A blogger provides a private forum, governed by the rules of her choice. I have no problem with this.

I simply find amusing the schoolmarmish censorship (well within their rights of course) of any ideas deviating from the general consensus. I've never been outright deleted (to my knowledge) but I have received many a shrill admonition and threat. And my comments are pretty mild.


Eivind Berge said...

Yes, it is and should be within every blogger's rights to decide which comments to allow, by all means; I just find it amusing, too. It is even more amusing when they have two versions of each thread, and I posted in the one ("Regular Parallel") supposedly moderated more loosely, not the "No Hostility" thread.

Actually, they moderated my comments but moved the responses to a "Detour" thread where they continue to discuss me while barring me from responding. Weak, indeed.

Eivind Berge said...

Right, that does not sway me. Being infected with disease does not constitute a sexual violation. It certainly should be a crime, but not treated any differently than if she had infected me with a syringe rather than forced sex. The sexual aspect is irrelevant, if not an extenuating circumstance. What feminists and their useful idiot males claim is that a woman's sexual act per se can be a violation just like men can rape without any physical damage, and that is the idea that I utterly reject.

Yes, I adamantly denigrate the experiences of all boys and men who were coerced to have sex with a woman and felt sexually violated. I don't deny that it can happen occasionally, usually after brainwashing by "therapists" in the abuse industry who make their living by inducing this kind of mentality, but it is not a reaction that any reasonable man would have. I am not an inconsiderate person, but there are limits to what perceptions of victimhood can be taken seriously, and this is as far beyond as imaginable because female sexuality is the greatest gift.

I agree with you that fertile women are most desirable by far, but the disparity in sexual value arising from anisogamy is so extreme that women can never get so ugly that they can be sex offenders. It is perplexing to me too that eggs are so much more valuable than sperm that women retain their sexual supremacy even after they run out of eggs, but everything I have experienced in life tells me that this is the case.

As to believing in affirmative action sex, this is not a fundamental belief but contingent on the unfortunate reality of women having affirmative action access to male resources.

Anonymous said...

Sex is NOT just a female resource. You denigrated men and gave feminism a bad name by making it not egalitarian, but fascist and controlling.
Now, your argument about rape was reprehensible. Women can, and do, commit crime against men just not as often as men do to women. But to suggest that it should be legal for me to be raped by women... you seem to be the type of feminist who would be taken by a "penetration" argument--what if the woman forcibly penetrated me with a tongue, finger or dildo? You suggest that i should lay back and enjoy being raped because sex is a "gift" from women.

Anonymous said...

"You gave feminism a bad name by making it not egalitarian, but fascist and controlling."

Which it is.

Chekov said...

Most men are sexually invisible or disgusting to most women while most men find most women at least somewhat attractive.

This is probably at the heart of all your ramblings on this blog. You despise yourself and cannot get laid and you are suffering from that. Then you make a lot of generalizations that are completely unjustified and thus come to completely wrong conclusions.

Reading your blog, i am not suprised that women find you disgusting. You have no self-esteem and you spout misogynistic crap. This is not something that attracts many women.

I assure you, that women do want sex and that they do not find men disgusting (or how would you explain the existence of male strippers for example?).

Likewise I assure you, that women want sex and that sex is not always a transfer of value. Assuming you have never been in a relationship ("unvoluntary celibacy") you have no idea what you are talking about. And your anger and hate will make it very very hard to find anyone to ever put up with you.

Anonymous said...

No wonder you're so desperate for sex. You're ugly, stupid, and pathetic. Anyone would have to be insane to want to be with a worthless person like you.

Anonymous said...

Dude, if some woman takes a baseball bat and some (optional) vaseline, then takes great pleasure in cramming that thing up your ass until you shit blood and beg for it to stop ... then that's not rape, right?

In that case, what exactly *does* constitute rape, as you see it?

Nora said...

It's difficult for me to attempt to reasonably comment on this without resorting to personal insults, but I shall try my best.

"Women are valuable sex objects"? I am terribly sorry for you that you've never met a woman who enjoys and wants sex (at least not with you). I can absolutely guarantee that myself and my female friends all enjoy sex, all desire it and are occasionally even desperate for it. Obviously not desperate enough to rape someone, but that's because we're not disturbed.

There are also many, many men in the world who have little to no sex drive. There are many couples in which the woman desires sex more often than the man. There are also many couples in which the woman is physically abusive. In many of these situations, it is very possible for a woman to rape a man. Realize that rape can involve forcibly inserting objects into orifices, for example, and not just the insertion of a penis into a vagina.

Eivind Berge said...

Dude, if some woman takes a baseball bat and some (optional) vasseline, then takes great pleasure in cramming that thing up your ass until you shit blood and beg for it to stop ... then that's not rape, right?

No, that's not rape. It is much worse than rape -- horrible torture and mutilation -- but not rape. It does not resemble sex and I don't understand why you would think of this as a sexual act. The woman is not having sex and any pleasure she might feel would be sadism. The least of my concerns would be that she is having sex with me, which she isn't. Why impose this on a category of crime it so clearly doesn't belong to, and in fact makes it sound less severe than it is? Just to please feminists? To promote the lie that the sexes are equal?

In that case, what exactly *does* constitute rape, as you see it?

In A Natural History of Rape, Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer define rape as "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." I agree with this definition and would add that homosexual rape is also possible, with the same requirement to resist to the best of your ability. But under no circumstances can a woman rape a man. This is also compatible with the common-law definition which is "carnal knowledge of a woman not one's wife, by force and against her will." Anything else is feminist corruption of justice. Nowadays a lot of people think lack of consent is sufficient, but that is something I can never accept. Rape is sex accomplished by force, and that means the victim has to resist to the best of her ability; otherwise she is letting him have it. There needs to be a causal relationship between the violence and the sex, and that is not the case if the woman doesn't bother to resist to the best of her ability. Pretending women also can be rapists is a red herring employed by feminists to obfuscate the harm done to men by feminist rape law reform, to get useful idiot males to legitimize their persecution of men.


Realize that rape can involve forcibly inserting objects into orifices, for example, and not just the insertion of a penis into a vagina.

No, you can't copulate with objects. It isn't sex, so it isn't rape. I may easily be much worse, but it does not constitute rape and I disagree with the law defining it as such. Women can commit all kinds of physical abuse, but not rape.

Anonymous said...

Rape isn't about pleasure. It is about control. If you ask any convicted rapist, he will likely tell you it is about control. NOT love or sexual pleasure.

Eivind Berge said...

Rape isn't about pleasure. It is about control. If you ask any convicted rapist, he will likely tell you it is about control. NOT love or sexual pleasure.

This is a feminist lie. A hateful, deliberate lie intended as a rhetorical castration of men. The supposed evidence for it doesn't even support it. And I quote from A Natural History of Rape, p. 135:

"Numerous studies have found that rapists often cite sexual desire as a cause for their actions. For example, Smithyman reports that 84 percent of rapists surveyed cited sexual motivation 'solely or in part' as a cause of their acts. Indeed, even the quotations Groth selected in an attempt to demonstrate the insignificance of sexual motivation includes such statements as 'She stood there in her nightgown, and you could see right through it--you could see her nipples and breasts, and you know, they were just waiting for me, and it was just too much of a temptation to pass up' and 'I just wanted to have sex with her and that was all.' Indeed, Groth points out that the most common type of rapist--what Groth calls the 'power rapist'--may report that his behavior was prompted by a desire for sexual gratification."

Melanie said...

As a woman can I just say that I do not find male sexuality or male bodies to be worthless and neither do any of the girlfriends I have. We often talk about men we find sexually appealing, it's a constant source of conversation for us. There are many many men I would have sex with if I could, of course many of these men are not necessarily interested in having sex with me in return which is their right. I'd never go so far as to rape one (which has been done by women) because I fully respect their right to chose their sexual partners even if I feel slighted by it.
Male sexuality is not worthless; I find it sad that you think it is. I believe quite the opposite in fact. It's very hard to find a man who is good in bed as most are only interested in pleasing themselves. When I find an attractive man who is an attentive lover I'll climb over mountains, fending off rabid bears to keep him in my bedroom with me.

And, of COURSE men can be raped by women. The idea that they can't is ridiculous to me... you have serious self-loathing problems, and I think you need counselling before you do something drastic like hurting yourself or others. I think the idea that men can't get raped is damaging to men, especially men who have felt violated in a sexual experience but had no means of recourse because they felt they would be mocked or denied. It's important to allow men to voice their traumatic sexual experiences, instead of pretending it doesn't happen to them. I know a man who was raped while drunk at a party by a sober woman who climbed atop him while he was unconscious and too confused to resist. He did not feel that he got a gift.

Anonymous said...

So if a chick tazers you, duct tapes you to a bed and sticks a carrot up your ass it's not rape?

Good to know.

Ok, seriously - have you ever used a cock ring? If some fat old slag with bad breath and crusty lady-bits wanted to get it on with you, and your dick wouldn't cooperate, she could - technically - "put a ring on it" and have her wicked way with your poor, defenseless body. And give you the scabby crabbies, but that's another story.

Chicks can rape guys. Not that I can immagine one wanting to, but it takes all sorts in this world.

SvenskaNyborjare said...

say that a man would derive sexual pleasure from forcefully inserting objects into another man´s anus- wouldn´t that constitute rape? and say that it wasn´t a man who was holding the object, but a woman- wouldn´t that still be rape?

Anonymous said...

Well, this is some backwards thinking if I ever saw it. Several years ago, I was beaten and anally raped by two women. Claimed that I was a "typical male degenerate who was feeling the vengeance of the female gender". I did nothing to deserve such a thing, I can assure you. I love how I go through life doing nothing but treating women with the utmost respect, and yet I am chosen as a target of their so called "revenge on the male gender". Yet, a lot of men physically and mentally abuse women, and they end up marrying them. Anyway, I very much consider what happened to me to be rape. I don't what the hell else you could call it. And no, women do NOT get a pass just because they are women. The ones who beat and raped me got the book thrown at them in court. Their lives are ruined now because of what they did to me. I hope their "revenge on the male gender was worth it. Nothing but bars and concrete for them for a log, long time. I'm just glad they won't be doing it to anybody else. Plus, I will say this, I'm sick and f'n tired of feeling like I have to apologized for being born with a penis! That's how some of us males are made to feel. It's gotten very old.

Eivind Berge said...

I was beaten and anally raped by two women. (...) I don't what the hell else you could call it.

Call it torture and sure it is as bad or worse than rape, but it isn't rape.

say that a man would derive sexual pleasure from forcefully inserting objects into another man´s anus- wouldn´t that constitute rape?

No, because it isn't sex and the sexual pleasure would be highly idiosyncratic. Rape can only be performed with a penis.

and say that it wasn´t a man who was holding the object, but a woman- wouldn´t that still be rape?

These acts are only rape in a loose metaphorical sense. They should be treated as serious crimes but not be confused with rape.

Anonymous said...

Oxford English Dictionary definition of 'rape':

The crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will.

And here's the OED definition of 'sexual intercourse':

Sexual contact between individuals involving penetration, especially the insertion of a man's erect penis into a woman's vagina, typically culminating in orgasm and the ejaculation of semen.

Surely if your absolutist definition has any validity, the words 'especially' and 'typically' are completely redundant? So why did the OED include them?

Eivind Berge said...

Surely if your absolutist definition has any validity, the words 'especially' and 'typically' are completely redundant? So why did the OED include them?

Because the OED is a descriptive dictionary. Yes, some people, mostly feminists and their useful idiot males, use "rape" to refer to acts performed by women. I disagree with their definition. My blog is normative. Here I express my own opinion, which categorically excludes women from being sexual offenders because female sexuality is something positive. Since the proximate purpose of life for males is gaining access to women's bodies, of course women can't be rapists.

Anonymous said...

Because the OED is a descriptive dictionary. Yes, some people, mostly feminists and their useful idiot males, use "rape" to refer to acts performed by women.

But if the OED disagreed with this usage, it would have included a footnote to this effect, as it does with many, many other words. So why didn't it in these two cases?

Eivind Berge said...

Which edition of the "OED" are you quoting, anyway? I just reached for my own copy of OED (the compact second edition, which includes the full 20-volume text in one and comes with a magnifying glass), and it defines rape (sense 3.a.) as "Violation or ravishing of a woman. Also, in mod. usage, sexual assault upon a man." So the OED does in fact make it clear that the "rape" of a man is just a modern usage, and all the sentences illustrating this refer to homosexual rape, starting in 1976. Not that I necessarily defer to the lexicographers of the OED (they might employ feminists there as anywhere else nowadays), but you don't even have a point since it's not the OED you are quoting.

I agree that forced buggery can be called rape. That is a reasonable extended usage of the word. But women "raping" men is not, and the venerable OED does still not overtly acknowledge this possibility either. And if they ever do, say in the third edition or later, it can safely be dismissed as feminist lexicographical corruption.

Eivind Berge said...

I figured out where you got your definitions from. They appear in the Oxford Dictionary of English. According to Wikipedia,

"The Oxford Dictionary of English (formerly The New Oxford Dictionary of English, often abbreviated to NODE) is a single-volume English language dictionary first published in 1998 by Oxford University Press. This dictionary is not based on the Oxford English Dictionary and should not be mistaken for a new or updated version of the OED."

Evidently you made this very mistake -- which makes sense, really. I guess knowing which dictionary you use is too much to ask from someone so obtuse they believe women can rape men.

Anonymous said...

Hey there

Anonymous said...

how many time i do not do what i want to do but do what i dont want to do

Anonymous said...

There are two kinds of men.
1.Who would be ok with having sex with any women.
2. Who would decide certain things like staying virgin till marriage, or they will marry certain type of women etc.
So if 2nd type men get force-able seduced by an unwanted women . OR imagine one has a beautiful innocent wife and an elderly cruel women forces one such men for sexual favors because she feels safe of having sex from this men then gigolos or other men . Would any such married men would think of cheating their innocent wife with whom they love trust etc, no
, I think forced seduction is rape.
Because balls gets charged up then we can loose our mind.
Regarding me I feel uncomfortable with some women.

Eivind Berge said...

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

Also, I don’t know what you mean by “forced seduction,” but obviously any kind of seduction isn’t rape no matter who does it.

Anonymous said...

"Haldninga til Berge om at valdtekt er eit rettferdig svar på kjønnskvotering og andre likestillingstiltak, kom ikkje like godt fram". Dette er eit klipp frå Dagbladet,stemmer denne påstanden?

Eivind Berge said...

Jeg er mot både voldtekt, kjønnskvotering og andre voldelige likestillingstiltak. Men hvis vi først skal ha tvungen likestilling som gagner kvinner, så mener jeg at en eller annen form for seksuell kjønnskvotering for menn er rettferdig.

Anonymous said...

After reading the whole thing, I agree that only in an extreme circumstance (requiring drugs and physical force of epic proportion) could any woman or women ever rape a man, even if a group of 10,000 set out on a life endeavor to prove it could be done they would fail. I think that the only reason that society convicts such things to elevated repercussion is this: (the woman is completely overpowered and used without her ever being able to retaliate in any equal amount of damage). meaning she is far less capable or formidable to an average mas physical capabilities an thus is defeated and plundered, this leaves the woman emotionally and sometime physically ruined. Usually because now she is terrified of what almost every man is capable of. Most American women do not realize that every man they see has the ability to completely destroy them in a mater of a minute and walk away without any considerable damage and only the consequences of society and religion prevent them from doing such things. A look at would quickly confirm this, but i would warn you this site has no respect to any viewer. Equality only exists where there is civil practice and dignity amongst fellow human beings, outside that realm there is not even the faintest hint of equality, because it is only a mindset, enforced by MEN with civilized intentions and a productive/peaceful environment.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the fact women can rape men. Even men saying here that rape includes a penis. My ex-girlfriend (girlfriend) at the time took advantage of my sleep deprivation that had accumulated over a week. I was only getting an hour or two of sleep a night and when the weekend came along I was exhausted and tired. The next thing I kniw I woke up with my dick inside of her after I ejaculated. Some people would make fun of this or insult me or say crap like "oh you liked it and wanted it or whatever". Thing is I rarely talk about it. I mean who am I going tell. Like the police or courts will believe me. Why? Because feminist forced it into everyone's head that all men a re pretty much rapists deep down. Every time I see a feminist bring up rape they always make evry man an enemy. News flash for those feminist who think this way, there are normal people and then there are criminals. Criminals can be rapists and criminals can also be from either gender. The saying that feminist want equality for everyone is BS. Yes I dislike feminism as a whole, but I also dislike a lot of other groups that claim to try and bring equality when they don't. Yes I agree with some of the non-rediculous arguments feminists put out there because yes they somewhat bring equality. Though feminist seem to make things only female prolems that are problems for more then just women from my experiences and they seem to hate everyone who disagrees with one point of theirs. Es women can rape men and I know this from experience. MRA's should have women raping men as an arguement. No man who has been raped by a woman could do anything about it but a woman who had consensual sex could yell rape and have a man put in prison even if he did nothing wrong. I'm glad you got justice man. Hopefully society and feminist will open their eyes to the fact that men can be raped by women. The legal definition of rape in canada is forcing somebody into sex without their consent. Rape can consist of statutory rape, if someone is drunk or drugged and can't consent, if someone is unconscious and if someone is just straight out violently raped. Yes it may sound rediculous as a whole that women can rape men but that's only because society sees men as hypersexual creatures who are up and willing for it anytime and since men are on average stronger then women there is no way she can force him into sex.

Anonymous said...

I can't see this as rape in any frame of mind other than if the victim was honestly gay and was completely gay minded. He had a girlfriend so that's not the case. Worst case scenario this guy was annoyed or somewhat disturbed by the fact he did not participate with "consent". There is no real damage here other than this guy is (and I mean this in a serious way) a sissy. If i was to make a presumption I would presume that this poor fellow has been bullied by practically every person he has encountered, and thus has several mental issues that make him a victim in most situations. No sir you were not raped, you were sexually offended (worst case scenario). You probably think you need to go to a rehabilitation center for rape victims and receive mental counseling because your ability to socialize and have a normal life has been destroyed by your girlfriend playing with you. You probably spend most of your time alone crying because every time you close your eyes it all happens again, and now your worried to death that it could happen again with some other 110 pound brute who will just use your body without you being able to do anything about it. If this is the case, than I agree you were raped. Bad thing is no one will help you, because you are too feeble minded to help, you have little or no mental attributes that are masculine nor do you seem to have any real self confidence. Do yourself a favor grow a backbone or find a fruity gay guy and join their ranks.

Anonymous said...

p.s. I would further like to point out your use of the word "fact".
If this is a fact to you than I would bet you really believe in almost anything and everything you like at will. This would mean you can't discern between reality and fanticy. A fact is usually not disputable because it is proven. Example of a fact "sound travels at 1,100 feet per second at sea level".
example of a theory "gravity controls the universe"
example of an opinion (bias) "men have been raped by women and goats"

Samael said...

Got it. You're jealous because some of us were raped. Why us, and not you? That kind of rejection's painfully obvious that you're obsessed with it.

And it's that attempt to cover up your vulnerability that's the reason we're all here.

Because everything you wrote is fantasy. In your imagination, your trained Pavlovian response to visual sexual imagery is all that matters, conditioned as you are by popular media to make that the depth of your entire sexual identity.

After all, it's easier to arouse someone than to seriously engage their mind. Especially during a short commercial break.

But hey, you can't be expected to understand, because sexual imagery is all female on male rape is to you. Fear of the unknown, violation of bodily autonomy, the threat of disease, pregnancy, and being accused of rape yourself...

And especially if you're powerless to prevent any of it...

All of that, you can only completely dismiss, because you're completely sheltered from experience in the real world.

In the real world, our brain structures are each individually designed to create our emotions and our reactions before we're consciously aware of them.

In the real world, male sexual assault victims show the same range of response as female sexual assault victims. Some don't give a shit. Others do. A lot of people who should know better give them Hell for either reaction.

But, the rates of PTSD is what you'd expect to see among soldiers in combat.

Feminists who changed their minds about whether or not men could be raped were simply responding to the overwhelming evidence at hand.

Until you're able to do the same, don't expect anyone to take your blog seriously.

We come here for the same reasons we try to dunk clowns at the carnival. The only difference is that you can't tell when you're drowning.

Eivind Berge said...

My refusal to acknowledge female-on-make rape goes way beyond jealousy. It simply isn't a meaningful category because men don't have anything sexual that can be meaningfully robbed by women. There is also no evidence that men are particularly traumatized by the sexual aspect of female sexual coercion, and a great deal of evidence to the contrary. And all the other damage such as bodily harm and disease infection are adequately addressed by other nonsexual laws (and the paternity aspect ought to be addressed by reforming child support laws rather than pretending women can rape men). I have no objection to a man pressing charges for simple assault or whatever else fits if he was sexually assaulted by a woman. But the sexual aspect is irrelevant and does not aggravate the crime.

The threat of being accused of rape yourself is also exacerbated by the very rape law reforms you support. Back when rape was reasonably defined, women had to show real evidence of violence. It was not enough to simply claim she didn't consent to sex, which feminism has enabled. Only by expanding the definition of rape to include all sorts of trivially light coercion with no resistance can male "victims" be recognized, so by foolishly supporting this agenda, you make it that much easier for women to accuse you of rape. You are duped into being a useful idiot for the feminists.

Anonymous said...

It simply isn't a meaningful category because men don't have anything sexual that can be meaningfully robbed by women.

I'm probably more inclined than others here to agree with you on female-on-male rape and you make an interesting assertion concerning feminism's interest in it.

But the above quote, I don't accept. DNA is not a valueless sexual product. It may have been cheapened by men who are proud to sow their oats with abandon or the use of sperm banks (much like slutty female behavior cheapens female sexual value), but as long as there is a man who places some value on his reproductive abilities and an interest in his potential offspring (and who their mother should be), then I believe "coercing" a man either via drugs or outright violence, could be considered rape.

I probably won't come back here to follow up, so feel free to consider or respond for other commentor's benefit.

- C

Eivind Berge said...

No, a man does not lose anything by having his DNA used to beget children. In fact, he has a great deal to gain, since procreation is the natural, biological meaning of life. It is of course possible to assign value to anything you like even if it is complete garbage, including not having children, but that does not mean you are entitled to having your idiosyncratic sensibilities taken seriously and enforced by society. No reasonable man would consider involuntary fatherhood the equivalent of rape, as long as he is not forced to support the child (which would be a separate issue amounting to robbery rather than rape). Why should I respect your desire to inflict draconian punishment for a trivial insult which most men would consider a luxury? Indeed, men evolved to be sexual opportunists, not to be traumatized by low-cost reproductive opportunities. Going against this instinct requires a great deal of oversocialization, and why would you want that? Pretending female sexual coercion is rape is possibly the most absurd and bizarre charade in history.

Women "raping" men is a bullshit problem contrived by feminists in order to promote the feminist agenda, and that is all it is.

Anonymous said...

Women want sex, or at least many of them do. Maybe they don't want to have sex with you, which may be why you think like you do. :)

It is a rare thing though. It may be true that normal women do not rape men.

For all your philosophizing, of course a woman could rape a man. If there were some ugly-looking obese woman who wanted sex, who went to a party and de-pantsed man who would be too repulsed by her normally to want sex with her, why wouldn't that be rape? The only reason it wouldn't be is if a legal definition of 'rape' required that it be a man that penetrated a woman. For a regular use of the term, yes it would be forced sex.

There are also accounts of small groups of South African black women with AIDS kidnapping the random young male stranger, lubing up his member and stroking him hard, then taking turns having sex with him. Physically repulsive women can want sex as much as the attractive ones. How could that not be rape?

Not all men would choose to have sex with attractive women either. Men with sexual morals who do not want to have sex before marriage or who do not want to cheat on their wives could theoretically be raped by women.

On the biological side, I have read comments from women who say men can't be raped because they wouldn't get an erection if they don't want it. Women aren't men and may not quite understand the biology, that erections aren't completely voluntary, and even moreso in younger men. I don't understand men making similar comments. I wonder if these men are border-line impotent, and unable to achieve an erection without a lot of effort. Maybe they don't realize that other men have better-working 'equipment.'

As far as rape in marriage goes, if a couple are married, I think the state should not consider it 'rape' no matter what. If the state is going to have suing for divorce, why not just leave that stuff for divorce court? It should be recognized that the husband and wife have some 'rights' each to the other's bodies. I read in Canada, having sex with a sleeping partner, even after marriage, was considered rape. I can understand why a man shouldn't do that to an unprepared female partner, since they can be sore without foreplay. But it doesn't hurt a man to do that if she doesn't put pressure on his bladder. If a wife pounces on her husband's erection like that, the state should stay out of it. For a woman married to a semi-impotent man, maybe one of those men who thinks a woman can't physically rape a man, this may be one of her few chances. And why wouldn't a husband say 'thank you'? Most probably would, anyway. I told my wife she can Canadian rape me. She can have free access while I am awake, too.

Eivind Berge said...

Do you think the trauma of rape, and how seriously the crime is taken, is adequately explained by the disgust of having sex with a repulsive person? Men can obviously find some women repulsive and not want sex with them, but you need a lot more than that to justify the usual punishment, and in particular the minimum sentencing guidelines for rape. Women (and society) take rape so seriously because they are evolutionarily adapted to protect their sexual assets/selectivity, whose violation is a hell of a lot more damaging than a woman doing the "same" to a man. Which is not the same at all in any meaningful sense, obviously, since he does not risk getting pregnant and therefore is not equipped by evolution to be so careful about which women he has sex with. If you don't see that this matters, then you are so far out of touch with reality than I don't know what to tell you. You are just too dense and indoctrinated in political correctness.

If philosophizing doesn't do it for you, then maybe fairness will? Don't you believe that the punishment should fit the crime? Are you so incredibly misogynistic that you want to punish women for something that most men find too trivial for punishment at all as if it were a heinous crime, just in the name of "equality"? If you want to punish female sexual coercion, then the only fair way to do it is to ignore the sexual aspect and treat it as a nonsexual assault. Those can also involve plenty of disgust, and the applicable laws address that adequately. If, for example, someone kidnaps you and forces you to lick their toilet, it would qualify as a number of crimes but it would not be rape. Female sexual coercion is likewise not rape; that is a category error.

Atle B (B for brainwashed) said...

Eivind Berge said...

Female sexual coercion is not rape because it does not carry that significance to any reasonable person. What a soap opera might dream up after they have spent several thousand episodes exhausting all remotely normal topics doesn't change that.

Anonymous said...

You should watch this - - you mongol.