Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Israeli justice, or rape by deception

It is politically correct to criticize Israel and it is politically correct to demonize men for having sex and to support rape convictions no matter how ludicrous. But what happens when an Arab man is convicted for rape by deception of a Jewish woman, after pretending to be a Jew? The cognitive dissonance going through these little CNN journalists' brains is palpable. Should they call it rape or racism? It turns out that anti-Israeli sentiment is stronger than feminism in this case, so they slant the story sympathetically towards the "rapist."
"It is terrible, but the law says very clearly that if someone has sexual intercourse using deception about his identity to conduct the act, it can be considered rape," said Leah Samael, a lawyer specializing in civil rights and human rights cases.
But, if the circumstances had been different -- if a religious Jew had said he was not religious in order to woo a potential suitor -- "he would not be brought to court," she said. "And I am not sure that, on this occasion, it is a reason to charge. To have intercourse in daytime in a deserted building in the center of town -- I say the circumstances speak for themselves."
She added, "The thing that interests me in the case is the need, the necessity, of Arabs in Israel to pretend. To speak without an accent so as not to be seen as Arabs. To dress not to look like Arabs."
If the racial aspect were absent, CNN would assuredly have hailed the conviction as a victory for women, as they usually do whenever the scope of any kind of sex law is expanded. That said, feminism does appear to be a very Jewish problem. They do have a point there. Israel is evidently a feminist hellhole on a par with Scandinavia. I just wish they would be able to admit that the core problem is feminism rather than racism or religious discrimination.

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


Eurosabra said...

As an Israeli, this verdict made me aware of how very anti-Israel mainstream US feminist blogs (Feministe, FlipFlopping Joy) really are, but I consider the verdict an improvement on the old Israeli song, "Sarasnucha Ya Mohammed" ("We Have Castrated Thee, O Mohammed.") The law has previously only been used against Jews lying about patronage or social status ("I can get you welfare benefits and housing", "I am a wealthy neurologist.") so I am happy to see a married Arab hoist on that petard when for years I had to say, "American-born, not rich, clerk in a research library, no car" or fall foul of the law.

john q communard said...

a bit off topic here, but after much deliberation, i have revamped, rethought, re-edited as it were, my anti-misandrist blog and opinion on these matters.after posting on mens rights 'activists' websites(as if) for some time now,( spearhead, false rape society), etc ,and having had MALE shaming language directed at me! that i have come to the conclusion that western, ESPECIALLY american men deserve their hypergamous
'women' by allowing to pass, at best, and right out supporting! at worst, anti-male dv,divorce laws.
just as voting for g.bush( and obama) supports and fully endorses american imperialism, its far too late to complain NOW.
youre not united YET?!
o.k then, this issue is settled.
whining on the internet?
apathetic, and unwilling to mobilize?
it's a complete victory for radical feminism then.

anyway, if america teaches one ANYTHING, it's that if you get rich,and it doesnt matter how one does that,
o.k then. more power then, to mel gibsons extortionist,(oksana) al gore's gold digger,paul mccartneys gold digger( heather mills) etc etc, etc, ad infinitum.
they are just doing things the 'american way'-- getting wealthy, by any means possible.
plenty more male bashing in the media on the way!
just don't bitch about it.
REALLY want to vote in tea partier scum in 2012?
dont you bitch then when that turns out to be a disastrous decision.

Eurosabra said...

"Entitlement" is an empty phrase in a world in which a man has nothing economically, socially, or romantically except by his own initiative, unless he is lucky enough to be born into the ownership class. And I have pointed out that emptiness on many a feminist blog: if a man does not believe in his right to romantic success, no one else will believe in it strongly enough to grant it to him. Certainly no woman.

Anonymous said...

Most women don't fuck for status or money. A large majority of women fuck men they desire physically or are in love with. Most women are in long term relationships with regular men, men who do not support them financially. It is puzzling how you fail to see this.

Eivind Berge said...

This is a particularly bad context for pretending physical attraction is enough for women. If women didn't fuck for status or money, they wouldn't need laws to protect them if the man turns out not to have the wealth or status he claims, now would they?

Anonymous said...

What laws? Women often fuck men regardless of their money and status and they don't get any protection from anything.
It is true that some women sleep with men with money and status - this is an atavism that some women still act upon or they do it because they want an easier life. Men also try to have the most attractive woman and some of them flaunt their money to get them.
But in everyday life, in normal relationships, most women pick men based on their physical attractiveness and attractiveness as a man (personality, kindness). It is an objective fact that most women make their own money, support themselves and sleep with regular men. Some do better and are able to get more handsome men. Others get regular chumps. And that's all fine as most couples seem to be happy without being superstars or models.

Eivind Berge said...

What laws? Women often fuck men regardless of their money and status and they don't get any protection from anything.

In Israel, and increasingly in the feminist world, women can get men convicted for rape if they fuck them because they lied about their status. This is feminist jurisprudence -- the kind of laws women will pass when given free reign -- and nothing could underscore the fact that women fuck for things extrinsic to the physical appearance of men more forcefully. The damage done when a woman gives up sex without getting what the man says he can do for her is apparently equivalent to rape. It IS rape. This is incompatible with any notion of sex as an act shared between equal partners.

Here is a story about attempts to get a similar law passed in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts legislators considered a bill Wednesday that would close a loophole in rape laws to allow prosecutors to bring charges against people who gain a victim's consent to sex through deception.

One example cited in that piece is a mere lab technician posing as a doctor to get sex. Sex is a female resource and women won't stand for giving it up to lesser men. Women will make damn sure they can get the man imprisoned as the worst kind of criminal if he turns out to be poorer than he said. It doesn't get any more explicit than this.

Anonymous said...

A peculiar law. Then again, Israel is a very specific country, so let’s not take it as a paragon. Can Israel be compared to Scandinavia in terms of women’s equality? That is doubtful.. Israel appears to be rather traditional/patriarchal (except that women have to do army as well). But with this particular charge it is unclear whether it is racial and why she sued him in the first place. It seemed that she wanted to have sex with him. Was she later disappointed to find out he was an Arab?
But, yea, this amendment would be an interesting novelty if it were ever adopted in the Western world. Maybe it would finally be the beginning of the women’s backlash to men getting sex from them without committing and supporting them. Yes, sex is indeed a female resource and women should not stand giving it up for any men – not just lesser, any men, alphas, betas, any of them – without receiving something in return. Either commitment, material rewards or mere sexual/sensual gratification. Mostly the first two, as those are the most important. Sexual intercourse is too important for a woman, she risks too much by having it. Men should not mislead women to get sex but should present themselves as they are and let women choose them (even for casual sex). If a woman wants a family, she will have strong criteria so they deserve to have an open playing field to choose the right man to father the children. Lying and misleading is questionable because women risk by having sex. Men don’t. This is not something to play with – sex can have serious consequences for the woman. The woman is much more vulnerable in this situation and deserves protection.

Anonymous said...

But on the topic of hypergamy: for some women, the man’s status is certainly a part of his attraction. That’s normal. Just like men desire young and attractive women. Yes, some women want the whole package – handsome and with money (just like men want young, beautiful and self-sufficient). But this doesn’t mean that ALL or even most women just want men with money or status. Most women grant sex to regular men, this is evident, just look at couples around you (since the majority of men do not have special/high status or do not have above the average incomes, yet these men do get laid and have long term girlfriends or wives – this means that most women do chose them, regardless of the fact that they do not have high status or lots of money so they must have picked based on other qualities).

Eivind Berge said...

It's not just Israel. The story I just linked to says California and Tennessee already have laws against "rape" by deception.

Your self-contradictions are astonishing. First you say most women make their own money and support themselves, which is true. Then you claim women are so vulnerable they need to be protected from having consensual sex based on male deception about resources and commitment, even for casual sex. All your talk about equality always boils down to nothing and you end up supporting the most egregious feminist laws. In fact, male deception as seduction is only a threat to a woman's ability to be a whore, which is an extra opportunity she has as a woman in addition to everything men have. There is no vulnerability beyond that when women are financially independent, and criminalizing deceptive game is completely indefensible.

Anonymous said...

You are simplifying everything, reducing mating to the mere act of sexual intercourse and money. Yes, women are more financially independent than before and don’t have to depend on men for survival, but women do not just seek out sex like men do – women want stability and long term relationships. For them sex, very often, is not just sex (yes, it can be, but women are more complex than men and sex often includes a romantic element (sex and romance are tied on the neuron level) – maybe it’s hard for you to understand that or maybe it has never even occurred to you. Men are more non-chalant about sex and they don’t have to deal with the consequences. Men lie too much to get into women’s pants and this can have broader consequences than just that one act. Women sometimes give sex with the expectation or hope that the man will commit – since men insist that sex is so important for them and pressurize women into having sex, women give it to them hoping that they will give in return what they want – love and commitment. Yes, this is very na├»ve and it’s about time women wake up and act realistically, but in romantic life you have to start somewhere and this is the step that we as women make in order to come closer to the men we desire. But men abuse it. So there has to be a way to address this problem. One would be to abstain from sex before marriage (before the man truly commits). In general, women should be much more selective as to who and when they sleep with – women have become way too lax. Unless they don’t consider a man relationship material, they shouldn’t sleep with him for months before he shows exclusivity and real commitment. The men must give something in return for sex. It is not fair and acceptable that we give it out for free (unless the man is super hot and we only want him for sex and we know nothing else will follow) – and men use all kinds of techniques to exert sex, even misleading and intimidating. And deception is not seduction – it is deception. It makes a big difference if a man is merely sexy and charming and you sleep with him for mere sexual gratification or when you sleep with a man with hopes of making him your romantic partner while he claims he has a different ethnicity or status (or if he lies about being single).
And, yes, there is vulnerability – such as the possibility of getting pregnant, getting an STD or being slut shamed. Not to mention the emotional consequences (but, ok, let’s not count those since you wouldn’t understand that anyway).
It’s interesting that you think false rape accusations are immoral yet rape by deception is ok. What a double standard – the woman can’t lie, but a man can. I hope there is a backlash against men feeling entitled to free pussy. It’s about time women woke up to the ways of modern men.

Anonymous said...

These laws should not apply to casual sex. It doesn't matter what a man says or what his profession is in case of casual sex. It would also be interesting to see in what instances such laws were applied over in the US.

Eivind Berge said...

Here is a reference to feminist theory on rape by deception. Not just an Israeli idea at all. Feminists are always pushing the envelope of rape law so more men can be imprisoned. Not until all rape accusations result in convictions will they be satisfied.

"Rape by Fraud and Rape by Coercion"

Patricia J. Falk
Cleveland-Marshall College of Law

Brooklyn Law Review, Vol. 64, No. 1, 1998.

For more than a century, courts, legislatures, and legal commentators have struggled with the controversial and highly charged question of whether accomplishing sexual intercourse by means of fraud or coercion is blameworthy and appropriately condemnable as rape. In 1986 Professor Susan Estrich suggested that rape law should "prohibit fraud to secure sex to the same extent we prohibit fraud to secure money, and prohibit extortion to secure sex to the same extent we prohibit extortion to secure money." (Susan Estrich, Rape, 95 Yale L. J. 1087, 1120 (1986)). Such suggestion spawned the latest cycle of discussion about this age-old conundrum in the American legal academic community. As the cases proliferate and the intellectual debate in response to Estrich's suggestion rages on, state legislatures, riding the successive waves of rape reform of the 1950s and 1970s, have been quietly enacting a comprehensive array of criminal statues outlawing multiple forms of sexual offenses committed by fraudulent or coercive means.

The potential criminalization of rape by fraud and rape by coercion is, however, a difficult and troublesome legal development for a myriad of reasons. First, cases involving such acts pose significant definitional challenges for the crime of rape, inevitably implicating the debate over whether it is a crime of violence or a sexual offense and the concomitant issue of the proper function of rape law as either protecting citizens' physical security or, more broadly, sexual autonomy. Second, because these cases generally involve factual scenarios in which physical force is absent and consent, in some form, is present, they strike at the doctrinal heart of rape law, raising issues like: the appropriate relationship between the elements of force and nonconsent, the necessity of physical force, and the parameters of legally effective consent. Third, discussion of these offenses often "trigger[s] common prejudices about the behavior of men and women in sexual encounters" (Martha Chamallas, Consent, Equality, and the Legal Control of Sexual Conduct, 61 S. Cal. L. Rev. 777, 832 (1988)) and reinvigorates colloquy about rape victims' culpability and trustworthiness, deflecting attention from what should be the real question -- the criminality of defendants' conduct. In short, consideration of these offenses pushes the envelope of rape law's function in regulating the outermost limits of sexual encounters in our society.

Anonymous said...

The point should not be to have more men imprisoned or convicted (since we want healthy, happy men who are not marginalized), but to have as many men as possible behaving in the way that is compliant with the women's needs and wishes - that would be a way towards female supremacy. But maybe that is too much to ask, gender equality should be enough. Maybe, instead of these laws, women should start with themselves - by withholding sex until the man behaves in the way they want him to, regardless of what he says (pussy control). Women should also stop bending to the society's expectations to oversexualize themselves. Maybe that would be more effective in achieving what we as women truly want.

Eivind Berge said...

For them sex, very often, is not just sex (yes, it can be, but women are more complex than men and sex often includes a romantic element (sex and romance are tied on the neuron level) – maybe it’s hard for you to understand that or maybe it has never even occurred to you.

Sex often includes a romantic element for men, too. Do you really not know that? Though we are far more able to have casual sex, we also fall in love, like I did with Elisa. She even deceived me and said I could see her again, giving me false hopes (in fact she later said she felt bad about that). So I certainly understand the emotional consequences and they don't just apply to women. The difference is I would still have slept with her knowing it would just be a one-night stand, of course, and I was by far the one getting the most out of it. But maybe I wouldn't have fallen in love so hard if she had been honest and not suffered for years. However, it would never occur to me to confuse this type of deception with criminal behavior and I can't accept women doing so. Having your heart broken is not rape. It is just a fact of life.

It’s interesting that you think false rape accusations are immoral yet rape by deception is ok. What a double standard – the woman can’t lie, but a man can.

Those aren't equivalent lies. Not getting benefits from sex beyond the experience itself does by no means compare to many years' imprisonment. Sex is a female resource and women can reasonably expect something in return, but it isn't *that* valuable. Funny how feminists manage to deny that sex is a female resource and act as if their sexuality is infinitely more valuable than male sexuality at the same time.

Maybe, instead of these laws, women should start with themselves - by withholding sex until the man behaves in the way they want him to, regardless of what he says (pussy control).

That would be reasonable and within your rights, but feminists are not satisfied with using anything less than the violence of the state against men. And so we get a gender war and men, too, need to start using violence. MRAs have been mostly nonviolent for way too long now.

Anonymous said...

You're threatening violence now. It will not get you anywhere, it will not improve the men's situation, because the MRAs will then be just one more group of criminals that women have to protect themselves from. Women through out evolution have evolved to be very flexible. They will learn to spot and avoid these men. These MRA sites have already been very helpful to me, now I view men with much more suspicion and I'm much more on guard then before. Certainly I contemplate much longer whether to have sex with a man. By threatening violence against free women who owe you nothing, you are basically giving us licence to rob men - if a woman hasn't received any material benefits or protection from a man (as is the case with most Western women), you now give us licence to take the men's material possessions by force. The next time a man wants to sleep with me, I will demand that he pay me.

And don't underestimate women. Many women are physically rather fit these days (gym and all). Even if the rapist will be stronger, we can still do quite considerable physical damage to him.

Anonymous said...

And, of course, I know that sex includes an emotional component for some men sometimes. But men are different. And they abuse women's naivete. Western women should have woken up to this long ago. Maybe it was some sort of a transition phase when women still believed that most men would want families, but certainly with a couple of generations now past, we see that lesson very clearly that the men have changed. So it is now time to adjust our, women's, behaviour, to the new behaviour of men. It seems that we will all just become increasingly more independent of each other. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.

Eivind Berge said...

And don't underestimate women. Many women are physically rather fit these days (gym and all). Even if the rapist will be stronger, we can still do quite considerable physical damage to him.

Most men, including myself, are vastly stronger than most women. And even if a woman is able to fight, all it takes is one accomplice to neutralize any resistance and rape her comfortably. All it takes is one more man with my mindset, and an unguarded woman won't stand a chance no matter how fit. The 4-6 years I expect to serve ["3.2.4 Straffen for voldtekt"] can be no deterrent when I most likely would have been involuntarily celibate the whole time anyway, which is literally worse than death. My true cost per notch is rapidly approaching the penalty for rape, and at this point I can't really envision any realistic prospects for consensual sex whatsoever. I don't think you are quite able to comprehend the depth of the rage and hatred of a celibate man, even after hanging around MRA sites awhile. The powerful motivation for violence and disregard for consequences in the face of celibacy is something no woman can fully understand, as she can't even begin to empathize with the problem. I don't expect a sex object to comprehend what it's like to be sexually worthless, but I'm glad you are starting to sense our growing anger. You have reason to be afraid. Male aggression is burgeoning because we don't get laid and also over what happens after we do.

Maybe it was some sort of a transition phase when women still believed that most men would want families, but certainly with a couple of generations now past, we see that lesson very clearly that the men have changed.

Men want families as much as ever. I certainly do. But feminism has destroyed my ability to get a woman and also ensured that marriage is a bad deal for men even if we are able to secure a wife. Of course men have to adapt when the system has changed, but blaming men for these changes is highly disingenuous. If I were affluent, I probably wouldn't want to get married either. The fact that no woman wants to marry me while still complaining that men don't want marriage proves that women really only care about wealth and status.

Anonymous said...

I can easily comprehend your rage, as I feel a similar rage towards one part of men (for other reasons). The fact that you objectify women and don't see any other value in them is the root of your problem. It is not feminism's fault that you cannot marry. It is simply the fact that you are incredibly cold and aggressive and you have a very creepy air about you. Besides, marrying involves practical responsibilities (a more down to earth approach). The fact that you are weird should not be a reason to abandon you though, but the fact that you are aggressive and hostile towards the female sex, is the very reason why they avoid you.

You could still get sex if you wanted to. You are not in a muslim country, but in secular West - people fuck all over the place and loose women are everywhere. You can do what other Norwegian men are doing - take an Asian woman. Even if you're poor (and that is clearly your own, not anybody else's fault), with the Norwegian social system you are still much more affluent than an Asian woman (and even more affluent than most Europeans). You could get a foreign woman, if you weren't so aggressive and beaming with hatred. Your whole persona exudes that and that is the reason why women avoid you, not feminism. Under feminism, women fuck many poor men every day.

No, I have no reason to feel afraid, I'm absolutely secure because I have learned to protect myself from men (as danger can come even from close ones). A woman can protect herself by keeping distance and being selective when socializing with men. Only warm and tender men are in my vicinity whom I treat lovingly so they wouldn't hurt me. But on the street or in parties, I am extra careful now (given how the things have changed and esp. after having read the MRA sites.. which is good... now any man who approaches me will be tested extra carefully). If you attack innocent women, the law will deal with you - and rape will never be accepted in our society as normal. It's just hard to understand why you would want to damage your life when there are much easier solutions, like, making money or creating real friendships with women based on parity.

Anonymous said...

And, btw, men changed first. They abandoned their manly duties already as early as the 1960s. It has been decades now since they no longer provide and protect as a rule. Some men still do this, but many don't, they don't take care of us, women, so we take care of ourselves with all the consequences regarding our sexuality, lifestyles and mating choices. The men made their own bed.

Eivind Berge said...

You mix up cause and effect. I am hostile and aggressive because women don't want me, not the other way around. You are similarly wrong about men changing before feminism.

Even if you're poor ... with the Norwegian social system you are still much more affluent than an Asian woman (and even more affluent than most Europeans).

This is true, but you need a minimum income of 217000 kroner (and not be on welfare) the previous year as well as a suitable abode in order to import a bride. I don't see that happening anytime soon; so no, I can't get a foreign woman. It doesn't matter that I'm affluent by the standards of much of the world as long as no local women are poorer and poor foreign women can't be brought here. As a bottom feeder, female hypergamy ensures that I sleep alone. A comfortable standard of living is meaningless when you can't get pussy.

It's just hard to understand why you would want to damage your life when there are much easier solutions, like, making money or creating real friendships with women based on parity.

I already tried that, it didn't work, and now I know it can't work, because parity is not what women desire. I also tried for years to get a job and all I have is occasional work for a temporary employment agency which does not even pay enough to cover the interest on my student loans, much less making me attractive to women or qualifying for getting a foreign bride.

A life of involuntary celibacy has zero value, so of course any price is worth it. Prison is the price of pussy for a beta like myself (and increasingly for any man, really, due to feminist corruption of rape law). Norwegian women have made sure I can't even pay for sex anywhere in the world without being a criminal. I fucked 10 whores before the ban, but I won't pay for sex anymore because women don't deserve to be paid in addition to exacting punishment by the state. I fully expect to rot in jail, but I won't pay you twice.

[P]eople fuck all over the place and loose women are everywhere.

You are a gullible fool for believing this. And now we know that women are in fact designed to be so gullible. It's an inherent female bias to think other women are looser than themselves, and this explains all the talk about these mythical sluts who supposedly readily sleep with just about any man even if he is poor, but it is bullshit. As a man who has spent his whole life in mostly futile pursuit of pussy, I know how difficult women really are. Loose women are a fairy tale; a mirage I spent the better part of my life chasing until I realized they don't exist. All my youthful optimism is gone now and replaced with bitter hatred, for I have figured out the true nature of female sexuality, and the sober truth is women don't want me. They want alphas and now they can afford to hold out for them. Except they can't, because they get old, but they think they can and keep rejecting beta men. Sluts are no less discriminating. Notice Roissy quoting me there.

Anonymous said...

I would like to insist that men abandoned their responsibilities en masse decades ago (in 1960s), but let’s just agree to disagree on this point. Suffice it to say that men do not provide for women anymore (thankfully they are still expected to provide for their children), so women have altered their behaviour and do not feel obliged to submit to men anymore.
Is there a law in Norway that requires that you need to have a minimum income to import a wife? Is it not possible to simply attract a foreign woman on her own accord? It shouldn’t be that hard for a grown healthy man to acquire his own abode, should it? This is where the man should start if he wants a family – by creating a living space and traditionally this has always been the men’s responsibility. Most men seem to be able to do that, where ever they are, Scandinavian, American, Arab. You are very smart, you should be able to do this simple thing. Norway even gives ample of financial support to studying parents so that could have been extra beneficial. It seems that you just keep coming up with imaginary obstacles not to get a woman. And a healthy man who cannot hold a job really has no excuses. It is simple, you don’t work, you don’t eat – men or woman. There is a certain criteria to be fit for a serious relationship, especially, if you’re in your 30s – that is being self-sufficient, mature, being able to make one’s own living. Only then can one enter a serious partnership.
Thus I’m afraid you are not a beta, but an omega. And this is weird because with your mental capacity you could be a man with alpha characteristics.
I know that women in the West tend to be difficult. They sure do have plenty of choices. But I am also aware, as a woman, of other women’s sexual behavior (being in a very close contact with other women and discussing our sexual lives). Women who are in relationships are very sexually active. Some women have sex even when they are just dating, and others have casual sex for fun. These are all objective facts – I’m aware of them first hand. Now, when it comes to selecting a husband, yes, women are picky, especially, the educated ones. But many people live in couples/families and most men are betas. We can clearly see that most women sleep with betas. Yes, they desire alphas, but they sure know what risk that entails and women want stability in relationships. Just because you scare women away, doesn’t mean that other non-alpha men don’t get laid, sorry to say that. Very sorry that your youthful optimism is gone – but we all get jaded. I understand that you want to make a statement, but it will not make your life better spending 4 years in jail. Btw, have you tried swinger clubs? Or sex ads (that would be pretty hopeless but who knows).
And speaking of holding out… too many men these days also hold out and stay in eternal adolescence. Women hold out until they get older not just because they are picky, but because the men they date do not make them feel secure – they do not marry them, they postpone becoming fathers. Not you personally, but this is a very strong trend among Western men. But many of them shouldn’t because they don’t necessarily become more attractive as they age.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, the law says I need a minimum income in order to import a bride and permit her to stay on the basis of marriage. Sure, if she came here on her own for some other reason, that would be irrelevant, but then why would she want to marry me? Even if I had the required 217,000 the previous year (I can achieve this in 2012 at the earliest), this probably wouldn't be enough to attract a foreign woman, or any woman, when the average income here is about 400,000. And the abode -- yes, something better than student housing meant for one person is required, but this is very expensive.

Norway even gives ample of financial support to studying parents so that could have been extra beneficial.

I tried all along to find a woman to take advantage of these benefits with, but did not succeed and now I have used up my eight years of student financial aid. But I suppose we could still benefit if she was a student.

It seems that you just keep coming up with imaginary obstacles not to get a woman. And a healthy man who cannot hold a job really has no excuses.

The obstacles aren't imaginary. I could hold a job if I could get one, but unemployment is real.

It is simple, you don’t work, you don’t eat – men or woman.

I work enough to eat and pay rent now, but not much more. Not being able to have a relationship due to poverty is a strictly male problem, so don't pretend this is a gender-equal society. A survey is in the news today showing 65% of working women would rather be housewives. Norwegian women don't want equality. They want to be provided for and stay home with the kids. This is the definition of hypergamy and it means I am the last man they want.

Btw, have you tried swinger clubs? Or sex ads (that would be pretty hopeless but who knows).

Swingers' clubs don't admit single men and sex ads are indeed hopeless. I did try when I was young and naive and found out that kind of site is a joke, with 20 men for each woman. I also unsuccessfully tried regular online dating services for years.

Thus I’m afraid you are not a beta, but an omega.

I think not, because I am still a contender. An omega is totally and permanently hopeless. I have tons of aggression and have by no means given up. Also, I was able to attract some women when I lived in a less feminist place (USA), so I know it is possible. It may not be possible while staying within the law and out of harm's way anymore, but unlike an omega, I am willing to do whatever it takes.

Anonymous said...

217000kr is below subsistence level, I don’t see how anyone can survive on that income in Norway, unless they are on welfare. So you either have to be ill or really lazy. Unemployment in Norway is one of the lowest in Europe. In fact, Norway is a safe haven for many Europeans at this time – Swedes flock to Norway and find work there, even younger men than you – teenagers and men in their early 20s, as well as women. So how is it that these young inexperienced immigrants can find work and keep it, yet you as a native haven’t been able for years? I’m not trying to put you down, it’s ok not to work if you are yourself responsible for the consequences of that, but you clearly have no one else to blame but yourself here. It is indeed unusual that a healthy male in his 30s cannot get a job that pays a minimum salary, especially in a feminist country that provides extra support to youngsters and where trade unions rule to protect employees.
Yes, you could benefit if she was a student, but a student is out of your reach now (unless it is some really unusual case or a short relationship). Student girls are interested either in alpha males or hot boys their own age. At this point you can only look for women on your own level. Before that you were able to attract more women, because you were still in your 20s – this is the romantic period of life and connections come much easier.
Of course, women want to be take care of! It is very hard to simultaneously go to work, make money and raise children. Even in Scandinavia. Women do the double burden everywhere. Women work two shifts, men only one. Thankfully, in Scandinavia men tend to help out as well. But it is very harsh for women still, no wonder they desire to stay at home. It is a tough choice. I doubt however that most Norwegian women would choose to be a housewife, they are just way too liberated and secular. I also often have moments when I am exhausted or do not wish to go to work in the morning, when I wish that there was a man who took care of me. It is hard to make a good living and everything is very expensive. Sure, I do think that once in a while… but I also understand that this is not realistic, no superman will come and rescue me from hardships, and in the end of the day, equality and independence is still better. Thankfully, for the kids they have the welfare state (our own tax money which we can later use).
Like I said you do have some alpha features, so it is weird that you are an omega. You are certainly not a beta, that’s for sure.  It is attractive that you are brave to speak up, but not when you are too enraged. Mere aggressiveness will not help you. It will repel (normal) women instead of attracting them.

Anonymous said...

To add about the article: it is wrong to conclude from it that women don’t want equality. The study simply states that six out of ten women who have TWO or MORE CHILDREN wish the man took care of the family. This is completely normal, because it is incredibly hard to raise small children and still have a full time job. It is only fair that these women want the fathers to support their families – that would be equal in itself. In cases where a mother still works, there is de facto inequality – she ends up doing more than the man. So for these women to actually stay at home would not be hypergamy but that would be the actual equality. This is what women want. It is only hypergamy in so far as the man has to work to make money so technically he is „richer” to support the woman.
Besides, the remaining four out of ten women would still not prefer to stay at home. Much younger women without kids or older women with grown kids would still want their own independence and money.
The analyst in the article makes a few good points. Especially, about the divorce rate (there is a high chance of losing the provider anyway) and that they also have to be careful about this as they can end up having smaller pensions if they decide to stay at home. Possibly, the best option would be either for the woman or man to stay at home while the children are small or to have a part time job for 2-5 years, but not longer.
And by the way… did you notice this part that said that women „who have successful careers are more likely to be married and have more children on the average”. This category of couples highlights the phenomena of true gender equality – where the woman has both the career and children AND a man who helps her achieve both of these. This is why Norway has relatively ok birthrates. Namely, the man and the woman both work equally in all spheres of life. This is real gender equality, this is where we come close to the epitome of progress and very close to real gender equality (probably like nowhere else in the world). But even in Norway, only a segment of couples are like that, so only one segment of society enjoys true gender equality (that which is the most educated and emancipated and where the woman is particularly driven and the man is also hard working, flexible and supportive).

Eurosabra said...

One of the things that bothers me is that the Israeli law treats "but-for" preferences neutrally, meaning that the key deception might have been his allowing her to believe he was single, but the anti-Israel feminists argue that the "racial" (really religio-communal belonging) "but-for" preference is not grounds for their preferred type of rape by deception conviction. It's not rape when it's an Israeli Jewish woman, suddenly. The other thing is that plenty of sand-cock-hungry Israeli-Jewish women sleep with Arab men all the time, despite the men's often lower social status, so the remarkable thing is that this woman had any sense of "racial" loyalty at all.

One of the interesting intersectionality issues is that in poor neighborhoods of Jews, Arab men do not have to go into the army and often have a lot more money as a result of going into their family businesses in their late teens as a result. This often means that a Jewish teen loses out (his job is the army, for bad pay) to the "rich" Arab in the battle for Jewish women, leading to "modesty patrols", beatings, and other forms of communal woman-hoarding, whereas the urban structure of terrorism protects Arab women from Jewish men's attentions.

Eurosabra said...

The encounter had all the marks of modern urban sexual life: speed, anonymity, rootlessness, non-relational sex (they had sex in her office building, apparently in a utility area), and the gentleman made the mistake of rendering himself traceable via taking her cell phone number and then calling her from his. I am aware to the extent which everyone "passes" in Jerusalem to make the intersection of various communities palatable (non-religious Jews dressing more modestly in the context of business relations with more religious people, whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Druze or Bahai, or Palestinian Israelis or West Bankers speaking Hebrew, or Eastern Jews speaking native Arabic) and the modus vivendi of "I will speak your language and use your people's language's version of my name, although you are not fooled" of East Jerusalem merchants. He lied in order to get his leg over like many a Jewish-Israeli man, and he got caught like the few who wound up in case law. Painting this as anti-colonial resistance is just plain wrong.

Anonymous said...

Raped anyone lately?

Eurosabra said...

Incidentally, the release of the testimony in Hebrew appears to indicate that the woman was brutally raped, beaten, left naked and senseless etc. but that the prosecutor was afraid her "fragile mental state" would make it a rough prosecution and so he let Kashour plead it down to "rape by deception."

Another tragedy of Western Feminism's illiteracy in Hebrew.

Anonymous said...

Ok, I take that back. 217000NOK is not below subsistence level, but it is the minimal salary if you live on your own and don't benefit from any welfare programs. This is around 2200EUR per month. In Norway, that only allows for half decent rent, the food and some minor necessities. Not much more.

Most students are in their early 20s, at latest. One can cut a 18 year old boy some slack, but a 30 year old man is definitely expected to be able to stand on his own feet.


Eivind Berge said...

217000 NOK is well above subsistence level anywhere in the world, even for two people. It is you who are high maintenance. My current living expenses are less than 100k. Students get about 80k for ten months, which I know is possible to subsist on since I have done so for many years. Students don't qualify for any additional welfare except in the summer if they can't get a job. After eight years students get nothing, but I work some and earn enough to have at least as much as a typical student. I am poor relative to the average person my age, but not in an absolute sense. Nobody in Norway is truly poor. Some whine because they have less than others, but this is simply jealousy, and hypergamy is what makes me unattractive to women. I certainly stand on my own feet, but this is not enough.

Anonymous said...

Well, we're talking about adults here, not students who are 18-22. A self-sufficient adult person in Norway needs at least those 2200 eu after taxes. One needs at least 600eu per month for rent and utilities. That is the very minimum. The food and transport is also very expensive. There is not much left after a month from those 2000eu, so one cannot save much (and saving is very, very important). But that is compensated by the social security system, just in case something happens. So generally, no, this is not a big sum, unless you live with your parents or in student housing. Or if you are partly supported by the partner or can pool resources in a single household. But if you want an independent life, this is the bare minimum in Norway.

Anonymous said...

And, no, I’m absolutely not high maintenance. A man does not have to spend a single cent on me – I don’t mind picking up half of the cheque for dinners and that’s how it is most of the time, except when a man insists that he pay (which happens where I live but not in Norway). And I don’t expect the man to buy me stuff, so, no, I’m absolutely zero maintenance financially. In fact, I’m an asset in material sense because I could actually offer wealth and comfort to the man who wants to be with me.

Eurosabra said...

Basically sex became biologically and socially non-risky, through the development of the pill, abortion, condoms, and the death of social shame. So theoretically women should be having sex with plenty of men on an equal social footing, yet the CDC reports that 10% of hetero American men 15-44 y.o. are virgins and 37% have not had sex in a year, while 18% have had 3 or more female sex partners in a year. Theoretically, we should have stable pair-bonding. What has not changed is the barter value of sex and the tendency of women to reserve sex for that special subset of men, and men will notice this and feel what they naturally feel and act appropriately to deal with it.

up your baltic backside said...

Why this insistence from borderline balty that students are in the age range of 18 - 22? Why does she insist on writing stupid and irrelevant things on a Norwegian blog, when she knows little or nothing about Norway, very obviously??

Last time I checked, average age of students in Norway enrolled in law school, was around 27 years old. About 1/3 of all enrolled students in Oslo are above 30.

Most people going to university in Norway did NOT start their studies when they were 18 - most start when they are 19 or 20. Then you add about 5-6 years on average from there, for completion.

I don't care if the environment borderline balty comes from in Balticum are fascists about studies, and try to stigmatize anyone above 22 who studies, but I think it would be expected of someone from the outside commenting to respect the culture and guidelines of the nationality of the blogger, and not go on and on about her own preferences, or those of a narrow and irrelevant corner of the world (Balticum) as nauseam. But this baltic bitch is personality disordered, and megalomania is part of that, I'm sure. So her tooting her own horn about how fantastic she is as a woman, is part of that package, as is her insistence on telling us who deserves to be fucked and who doesn't.

If anything, borderline balty is adding to the danger that some unstable guys reading here, goes all the way and rapes someone - because of the obnoxiousness this female representative displays. I'm sure that would not bother borderline balty one ioat - after all, she's personality disordered, and so only cares about what gratifies herself, and disregards entirely the effect her verbal vomit may have on others..

The real Balty said...

I have never disrespected Norway (have been there many times and really love this country), I just listed how expensive it is.