Sunday, June 27, 2010

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.

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:

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.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

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 clich├ęs 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.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

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.