Wednesday, April 10, 2013
45 Reasons for the Denying the Differences between Male and Female Sexualities
Today, for the first time on my blog I present a guest post. Walt Forest has written articles I've enjoyed for The Spearhead in the past (such as "The Hot Teacher Myth, and How it Hurts Men"), so when he submitted a piece for consideration, it was easy to accept it. This is a good list of reasons for why feminists deny the sex differences between men and women, though I might add he left out the one which irks me the most, which is how denial of sex differences is used to criminalize male sexuality further by pretending women can also be culpable for sex crimes. Hence we get what I like to call the female sex-offender charade, in which feminism sacrifices some women as factitious sexual predators in order to cater to gullible fools such as the manginas at A Voice for Men who might otherwise have seen the relentless criminalization of male sexuality for the misandry it is.
45 Reasons for the Denying the Differences between Male and Female Sexualities
by Walt Forest
We deny differences between male and female sexualities because we mistake sameness for equality (and move farther from true equality than ever).
Stephen King once wrote: women think they understand male lust, and that’s probably just as well for their sleep and peace of mind.
If we stopped denying difference, countless women would suffer sleepless nights and highly troubled minds.
We deny difference out of fear of being told we are “naïve,” “in denial,” “too pathetic to get laid,” “backwards,” “bigoted,” “prudish,” “Victorian,” etc. These terms are now more than insults. They are denunciations meant to ostracize, socially or professionally, anyone who dares to question the ideology of sameness.
Many women do not like to admit that their sexual power gives them enormous advantages over men. Therefore they deny the difference from which this power comes.
The creators of sexual harassment policies and laws deny difference and its myriad implications on the human mating ritual, making any man who tries (however timidly) for the proverbial bra strap an “offender,” and the woman who pushes his hand away (no matter how bright-eyed, no matter how she giggles) into his “victim,” who is granted with this status the power to ruin his life if she chooses. This is, of course, exactly what our man-hating society wants.
We all know those men who enjoy making other men envious by describing (in the most casual of tones) how someone’s wife or girlfriend, hot teachers, sexy female bosses, and women they have only just met routinely lead them by the hands to their beds, “no strings attached.” The credibility of these Don Juan tales depends on our denial of difference.
The woman who feels the same way a man does about sex exists only in pornographic fantasy. Many men, like modern-day Don Quixotes, like to pretend these slutty Dulcineas are real. To do so, they must deny difference.
Some women wish to avoid the responsibility that female sexual power should entail. To do so, they deny this power and the difference from which it comes.
We all know those women who stir up male interest by suggesting they want sex as badly as any man. The popularity of these teases depends on denying difference.
Women who have abused their sexual power over men naturally want to remain blameless (and go on abusing). They can get away with it, so long as we deny difference.
The myth of “the fuck buddy” depends on denying difference.
Men commit suicide at about five times the rate of women. To understand why, we must ask, What makes men different? But we don’t want to understand why. As a society (if not always as individuals) we hate men. We deny both the crisis and the difference at its root, and hasten still more men to their deaths.
We mislead young women by assuring them that the men they go out with feel the same about sex as they do. The resulting disappointment (and worse) creates a constant supply of new man-haters. In this way the denial of difference fuels our society’s already overwhelming intolerance of men.
A woman who has been used can assure herself that she only wanted sex, just as the man did, so long as we deny difference.
Men who obtain sex by falsely suggesting the possibility of commitment and love can flatter themselves by pretending that their victims only wanted sex, same as they did. It’s a simple matter of denying difference.
By pretending that women feel the same as men do, we encourage husbands to leave their wives in search of sexual freedom. As neither this sameness nor the freedom it would create exists, these husbands wind up miserable. This is exactly what our man-hating society wants, so we go on denying difference.
Men who wish to be pious can make believe they are resisting the temptations of countless women yearning to sin with them, thereby exaggerating their own virtue without suffering any of the angst real sexual opportunity would create. In this way denying difference can create an instant sense of righteousness.
A wife may imagine her husband surrounded by horny women who leave him cold because he loves her so much. This romance depends on denying difference.
Storytellers have long endowed their female characters with a male-like sex drive to provide audiences a temporary escape from the oppressive everyday reality of difference.
The great novelist Isaac B. Singer once said that a story, to be interesting, must concentrate on the exceptional. As there is little quite so exceptional as the woman who feels like a man does about sex, she is the subject of a great number of stories, all of which hinge on denying difference.
If we did not deny difference, we would have to admit that the storyteller’s art (whether in film, fiction, journalism, or oral) has been sacrificed to create today’s propaganda of correct “gender politics.” Our stories are no longer about expressing truth, whether of the sexual reality or of our hearts. They are about upholding the false ideals of sameness.
By denying difference, we can mislead generations of young men, giving them a false idea of women, causing them a great deal of disappointment and pain. This is exactly what our man-hating society wants.
When a woman and a man fall in love, it can be reassuring for both to deny the chasm of difference that separates them.
Samuel Johnson once said that the law gives woman so little power because Nature has given her so much. Now that women’s legal power meets and exceeds that of men in the West, why don’t we turn to these “natural” inequalities, consider what should be done about them?
Because we don’t have to, so long as we deny difference.
Female sexual power is non-transferable: we can no more grant it to men than we can the ability to give birth. Achieving true equality of the sexes would require taking into account many different types of power. Rather than rising to the challenge, we turn away—denying difference.
If we admitted difference, we would eventually have to acknowledge that one of the most effective ways of dealing with it is through observing the propriety and decorum which our culture developed over the centuries for this purpose, and which we now take such pride in having put behind us (even as we, hypocritically, continue to follow it). But we lack the necessary humility. Instead we deny difference.
If we admitted difference, we would also have to admit there are sound reasons for legalizing prostitution.
Men who go to prostitutes like to think these women enjoy the experience as much as they do, even though they demand money to provide it and often clearly loath their clients. The fragile illusion of mutual desire depends on denying difference.
If we admitted difference, we would have to pity the man who goes to prostitutes rather than hating him. Our society prefers to hate men, so we deny difference.
Across much of the U.S., uncover female police officers pose as prostitutes and arrest any man who offers them money in exchange for sex. The men know about these stings (they are covered by the local media) yet they risk everything—job, wife, family, respect, reputation—and, in the end, lose everything.
We can avoid confronting the deep and widespread male desperation these actions suggest, dismiss these men as “losers,” if we deny difference.
All those gay men who think they would be God’s gift to women if they were straight would have to admit they would be in the same boat as their hetero counterparts if we acknowledged difference.
If we stopped pretending that men and women feel the same about sex, many men who currently pass as bi-sexual would feel secure enough to “come out” as straight, and admit they are only taking advantage of the sexual freedom homosexuality offers. But this would suggest men suffer from sexual oppression, and that women are the oppressors—the last thing anyone wants to admit. We would prefer to blame the men themselves for all the misery we make them suffer. So we deny difference.
If we did not deny difference, all those swingers would have to start calling themselves wife swappers again.
Women who try to be like the characters in “Sex and the City” (or whatever television show they watch now) are reluctant to admit that they are forcing themselves to play a part that does not suit them (unlike like Sarah Jessica Parker herself, who has confessed that in “real life” she is a prude). To avoid coming to terms, these women deny difference.
Countless baby boomers would have to concede their so called “sexual revolution” was a sham if we failed to deny difference. (As one would-be hippie put it: “The only ones cashing in on the free love action were the pushers and the lead singers in the more popular bands. The rest of us were lucky if we got to take part in a gang rape.”
By pretending women feel the same as men do about sex, we can keep male hope of sexual freedom at its current fever pitch, increasing women’s sexual power over men even more.
The woman who chooses a mate because of his status in a given sphere (whether social or economic) is not “natural,” as the evolutionary psychologists would have us believe, but rather a symptom of our degraded culture. By denying difference, we can avoid facing the suffering such women cause themselves and especially the men they pass up for all the wrong reasons.
Men who use their status in a given sphere to obtain sex would like to think that women are attracted to more than their success. They can convince themselves, if they deny difference.
The old chivalry involved opening doors for the ladies and letting them have the first life boats when the ship went down. The new chivalry, a perversion of the old, is far more dangerous. Observing it is simple: all you have to do is deny difference and the sexual power difference creates. In this way we allow women to enjoy all the benefits of this power, with none of the responsibility wielding it should involve, none of the penalties its abuse should incur.
Never have we placed women so high upon their pedestals as we do now that we deny difference.
If we tell men that women in other countries are “less inhibited,” men flock to those countries. If we tell men that urban women are more “sophisticated,” they will rush to the cities. I suppose if we place in men’s minds some old fashioned idea of the lusty farmer’s daughter, they will even go to the country. When we deny the universality of difference, pretend that it is only a construct of certain cultures (almost always those we wish to look down upon), we keep men running back and forth, here and there, and prevent them from realizing what is being done to them, which is the point.
Mainstream feminism owes much of its current popularity to its depiction of Everywoman as a heroine battling male oppression. If she fails, she is tragic, the victim of men. If she succeeds, her victory is all the more triumphant. We have all heard it said: “She had to work twice as hard.” Admitting difference and the female sexual power difference creates undermines this fiction by reminding us of the truth: women have many advantages that men do not. Sensing how unpopular this truth would be with its base, feminism denies difference.
Some gay men like to think their sexuality is essentially the same as women’s. (It never occurs to them to ask why we have no heterosexual equivalent of the gay bathhouse). If we admitted difference, they would lose this illusion of oneness with women.
Male masturbation fantasies often rely on denying difference.
All of the reasons for denying difference listed here (as well as many others) reinforce each other. If journalists, novelists, film makers, television people, the tease in the next cubicle, the would-be Casanova at the water cooler, all deny difference, women and men must be the same, right?
Which brings us to the biggest reason of all: we deny difference because everybody’s doing it.
Posted by Eivind Berge at 5:40 PM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
"Across much of the U.S., uncover female police officers pose as prostitutes"
should be UNDERCOVER not UNCOVER.
Sorry - Grammer Nazi Gene in me.
I have noticed that some women want to be used as "sex objects" because it makes them feel sexy.
That is, they want to feel "desired" or "desirable".
It is not so much that they enjoy the actual sex - but rather - the fact that a man wants to have sex with them.
How does that fit into the categories above?
Many people also don't understand the distinction between gender 'equality' and gender 'polarity'. Even radical feminists like Andrea Dworkin said that achieving equality alone doesn't achieve feminism: gender polarity has to be destroyed.
That's why so much of the so-called 'Mens Human Rights Movement' promoted by the gang at AVfM is really just neo-feminism. Those who promote it don't people to pay attention to sex differences; so the real objective goes unnoticed.
I find some of this surprising. 37 is arguing that hypergamy isn't natural, the opposite of what you preach, Eivind (and what I believe too). 38 extends on that point further: "Men who use their status in a given sphere to obtain sex would like to think that women are attracted to more than their success." Really? And how is the belief in hypergamy resting on denying difference? It's clearly the opposite.
While I might not necessarily agree with every detail of this list, I think you misread #37, John. I think this means hypergamy is indeed natural, but by denying differences we can pretend that high-status men getting most of the sex is just "a symptom of our degraded culture." It is not. It is a feature of evolved female psychology, not culture. I am less in agreement with #38 though. I think women are genuinely and deeply attracted to successful men, so these men don't really need to delude themselves about it. The attraction is real enough, but it remains true in a sense that it is due to their status. PUAs who mimic alpha behavior have more to worry about though, since they need to put so much effort into this act and once they drop it, women aren't attracted anymore.
Reading #37 over and over, I have given up on it - I don't know what he means. Whatever it is, I most likely won't agree. Is it rhetoric when says "...is not natural..."? Does he in fact mean it is natural?
I'm pretty sure that I'm in line with your way of thinking about it. Women are attracted to success (and various attributes that contribute to success) in the same sense that men are (much more than women anyway) attracted by physical features.
Thanks for reading the piece with such care and thanks to Eivind for posting it.
Do I believe that hypergamy is natural? Or do I believe (like many feminists) that it is the result of social conditioning, teaching girls to wait for their prince, etc.?
Neither really. What I believe is that both nature and nurture are overrated.
We are human beings (not animals ruled purely by instinct), nor are we robots created by society. We can think for ourselves. We make choices. We may cultivate our tastes (which very different from attempting to force ourselves to like something).
I see hypergamy as a problem (and a far more serious one that the tendency for men to go for good looking young women). Women are more susceptible to this problem than men (whether this is due to nature, society, or--far more likely--bad TV, doesn't matter). What does matter is facing the problem. That means telling women who have this problem that there is much more to a man than his level of success. It means pointing out to them that their standards of success are often false, distorted, and unrealistic. But instead we deny women are more susceptible--deny that women are different--and the problem gets worse.
As for #38, some men profit from the problem. They contort themselves to the meet the distorted standards of these women. I don't deny that sometimes there is a truly successful man who is attractive because of the qualities that make that success possible, but I do think he is the exception.
I don't believe that female hypergamy exists. Given the numbers of them who pursue violent thugs and metrosexual weaklings, I would say that women have a greater inclination to seek men whom they can dominate and over whom they can feel superior. And their tendency seems to be to rebel against and reject the strong, dominant male at every turn.
Unless they are constrained by civilizing factors, all human history shows that they reflexively mate with the males who are the least fit.
I think telling young women to control their hypergamy (or that it is a problem) is abuse. It's like telling a young boy that their tendency to go by looks is a problem they should control - which is what I feel I was told, among other things.
Your article was about denying difference. If women are not naturally hypergamous, what is the difference between the sexes' sexuality you think that is being denied? Because from where I'm standing, it looks as if you're the one who denies the difference (ie women being hypergamous vs men going by looks).
The fact that some women pursue violent thugs is also hypergamy: Those women *believe* that these men are high-value. And in a lawless, cynical anarchy (which is what the media and Hollywood like to portray the West as), violent thugs are actually high-value.
Of course women don't have a magical sense for objective value. In the end they go by what they believe in, and that's often wrong. Since they are influenced by what they social environment feeds them with, it's sometimes wrong for almost a whole generation of girls.
Hypergamy itself isn't a problem. Things in the environment/culture that amplify it, can be a problem, same way porn can make a man extremely picky and not get it up anymore for normal women. And I think certain parts of feminism is doing the same for women. But you can tell a man what porn is doing to him, and you can remove artificial forced equality, which can alter the behavior of men and women respectively. You can also tell women to try to see something nice in every man, and that way widen their horizons.
Do you understand what I mean when I say we can cultivate our tastes?
Do you see how this cultivation is different from forcing ourselves to like something?
If you do understand, what do you disagree with?
I accept difference--including that many women are attracted to status rather than the man himself, while the man is more often attracted to looks. What I do not accept is the insistence that this attraction is "natural." Nor do I think it is a result of "nurture." Both of these explanations shift the blame away from the woman, who is solely responsible for the cultivation of her own tastes.
Emma, I disagree with you on every point. We have to do far more than teach women "to try to see something nice" in every man. (I for one find the idea of a woman having to TRY to see something nice in me insulting in the extreme).
Porn is not the problem. If anything porn helps men to escape from a sexual reality that is now more oppressive than ever.
If a man can't "get it up," the problem is not porn.
Finally, hypergamy is a mega-problem. It is ruining the lives of countless women and men.
Well, whether it's insulting to you or not, it's a good exercise for women, which is not visible to any individual men anyway. It forces women to reconsider the men they dismissed out of hand, when these men could actually be good for them. And if it leads to a good result, who cares if they had to work to widen the pool of men they like? You yourself wanted more responsibility for the woman, and this is one way to do that.
As for porn, I think it can influence men in lots of ways. Some more than others. Have you seen this? http://yourbrainonporn.com/
Why do you think women's desire for status is not natural or even due to nurture? What is natural for women to desire, then?
"Why do you think women's desire for status is not natural or even due to nurture?"
Every culture has visionaries: artist, storytellers, thinkers, leaders (religious, political, etc.) who guide us (far more so than nature or nurture) by creating ideals. The daring will embrace these ideals (for better or for worse) and others will follow. Tastes and desires are shaped. They are genuine enough, not forced.
To give a negative example: the Kate Moss "heroin chic" of the mid-90s was considered to be attractive, though it went completely against nature and society both.
To give a male example: Anthony Perkins (of all people) was a sex symbol throughout the 1950's: girls and women across the country adored him. Hitchcock transformed his image by casting him against type in "Psycho": overnight the dreamboat became the ultimate creep--a cross-dressing peeping-Tom slasher (and a taxidermist to boot). The Anthony Perkins ideal--lanky, goofy, neat, even weak--faded completely by the seventies and never really came back. An artist created the ideal. Another artist destroyed it. And still other artists replaced it.
These are not anomalies: tastes are constantly in flux, morphing into all sorts of strange things (just think of today's sex symbols, how they will date). From these ideals we are free to choose. We can alter them, add to them, improve them (or ruin them). We are free. To chalk our desires up to "nature" or "nurture" is to deny this freedom. It usually means accepting the most base ideal passed down to us without question--which is what is happening today.
So to your other question: "What is natural for women to desire, then?"
What is natural for a woman to desire depends on how she cultivates her desires.
I checked out the your brain on porn link. Completely disagree. Check out my piece "Why Porn Matters" at the Spearhead: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/09/25/why-porn-matters/
When you say "including that many women are attracted to status rather than the man himself", what is this "himself"?
I point to an excerpt of Atlas Shrugged where a (hypergamous) Cherryl, who has married a wealthy but worthless freeloader, what he wishes to be loved for:
I think the piece serves well to get to the bottom of what people really think about hypergamy. Rand said "female sexuality is mostly hero-worship". Although many women, like Cherryl, misjudge men at first glance, it's not their desire for heroes that is to blame - that desire is, in and by itself, a quality I cherish.
"When you say 'including that many women are attracted to status rather than the man himself,' what is this 'himself'?"
I mean that a man's perceived status and the man himself are often two different things.
As you told Eric: "Of course women don't have a magical sense for objective value. In the end they go by what they believe in, and that's often wrong. Since they are influenced by what the social environment feeds them with, it's sometimes wrong for almost a whole generation of girls."
I would add that these girls do not have to accept "what the social environment feeds them." They can reject it, adopt other ideals, hopefully better ones.
Have you ever read Nevil Shute? Try "Ruined City." I think in the U.S. it went by the title "Kindling." He is a contemporary of Rand and deals with similar themes but handles them much better.
Sure, we have some freedom over our tastes, but not all the freedom in the world. If women could be molded into anything at all, feminists would have molded their tastes towards male jobs, and away from commitment and family, but I don't see that happening. Our tastes have a component that is fixed, or at least not changeable without considerable force.
I checked out your article about porn, but I'm not sure how it disagrees with the link I sent you. Even if porn can help us escape reality and feel better, it doesn't mean it can't have downsides.
Btw, when you say we can change ideals and they are neither natural nor due to nurture, you seem to ignore the fact that women always have a thing for celebs in the first place, and "ideal men". If you change that ideal into something virtuous and have women cultivate better tastes, it's still hypergamy. But better hypergamy.
>To chalk our desires up to "nature" or "nurture" is to deny this freedom.<
This is a very dangerous thing to say, and you've said it so often now that I don't think it's by accident.
To make it very clear what I mean, here's an exaggerated example: "You have the freedom to jump and kill yourself, to clinge to your alleged survival instinct or common decency and not to is to deny this freedom."
That's a very common trick with which a lot of people get fooled out of what they really want.
I agree with Emma's last comment and I think that's the most desirable thing to wish for, "a better hypergamy" where they don't go for thugs any more. But that's not something you fix in women: Simply make the thugs lose and you see it happen.
"You seem to ignore the fact that women always have a thing for celebs in the first place, and 'ideal men.'"
Believe it or not, I know many women who love their husbands and who would be offended by the idea of cheating on them, much less leaving them, for a man deemed by others to be "ideal" or "celeb." They take pride in this love and will defend it. History is full of such women, so I do not agree. Some women do this, yes, and even many women (especially today, which is why I included this problem in the list), but not simply "women."
"Our tastes have a component that is fixed, or at least not changeable without considerable force."
I agree. This component is like the grain of sand around which a pearl is formed. What matters more, the sand or the pearl?
"If you change that ideal into something virtuous and have women cultivate better tastes, it's still hypergamy. But better hypergamy."
I don't disagree with you so long as you mean by a better hypergamy something much, much more flexible than what is usually considered to be hypergamy today. There are many different types of success. Many of these are not now recognized.
John said: "This is a very dangerous thing to say, and you've said it so often now that I don't think it's by accident."
You are right. It is not an accident, and it is dangerous. But I believe the danger is far better than the alternative--accepting, no questions asked, what is handed to us. Freedom is always dangerous.
I don't understand your example about suicide.
Walt, I think there is a strong possibility that porn really is harmful and can cause a range of sexual dysfunctions up to and including impotence. If not, then how do you explain all the thousands of men at http://yourbrainonporn.com/ and elsewhere who report that they had this problem, and it improved when they quit porn and masturbation? Here is a thread with 2738 comments from men reporting the same symptoms and cure:
I find it hard to believe this is all coincidence and placebo effect. I am pretty much convinced that using porn is a maladaptive behavior for men and it is best to avoid it (masturbating without porn is less harmful but also best avoided entirely, I think). At the very least, porn is a waste because you should be spending your time and energy chasing real women, but the evidence suggests it is actually much worse than that because it makes you less able to be intimate with real women when you find them. Contrary to a common misconception, heavy porn use isn't some sort of "sex addiction" (which I also think is a bullshit concept) -- it is quite the opposite. The trouble with porn is it makes you downright asexual. It hijacks your sex drive into a delusion while preventing you from fully enjoying real sex with real women. Note that the reasons for why we should shun porn are precisely the opposite of why feminists say porn is bad. Far from causing rape, porn is a great pacifier. I believe abstaining from porn will make men behave more aggressively towards women at every level including rape (but this will also make you more attractive to women, so rape will be less necessary as long as lots of other men are disadvantaging themselves by porn and masturbation).
Of course I didn't mean to say women are hard-wired to cheat on men with celebrities. I was just saying this is what they are attracted to (like men are attracted to hot young women, despite being married), and would pick a more status-rich guy in the first place... If they can. Althought status is not the only thing they want.
"I don't disagree with you so long as you mean by a better hypergamy something much, much more flexible than what is usually considered to be hypergamy today. There are many different types of success. Many of these are not now recognized. "
What do you understand by "hypergamy"? Perhaps we don't disagree at all, but using different definitions. The way I understand it, hypergamy is rather flexible, and seems to show itself differently in different countries. I don't 100% understand it, but I see it's affected by the environment and culture. A sick culture will produce sick individuals (of both genders), and that will be a problem.
You also suggest (if I got it right) we change a few people's minds, who will then change the culture and make everyone else follow. This sounds like a doable goal to me. But it isn't the same as women choosing to remove their hypergamy in a vacuum. From some of the things you said, it almost sounds like you want the latter to happen. Is that right?.. But if so, do we really need that, if we can just change the culture and make people follow?
In the paragraph you start with "believe it or not", you argue against cheating and imply that this cheating is a part of the definition of hypergamy, which is, of course, untrue.
If you take the cheating element out of the paragraph, it stops being anything bad - hence you need it, making it a strawman.
If you're arguing for commitment, argue for commitment. Don't bring hypergamy into it. It has nothing to do with it.
Of course it's not far-fetched to assume that you did that on purpose. That you actually mean to attack some natural female trait, calling it unnatural (which is abuse) and, since the trait itself is actually admirable, need to strawman it as lack of commitment to make it look bad.
Or perhaps you're actually under the impression that hypergamy means: "cheating with celebs". I find that hard to believe though.
When I read those comments, I feel the problem is not porn (which I believe is just fantasy) but our culture, which is presently so harsh towards men and their sexuality that it drives masses of them to escape into this fantasy with obsessive frequency. I feel bad for these men, but I believe they are treating a symptom, not the disease. I hope they get better. But the disease--our culture's attitude toward men and their sexuality--remains.
Emma and John, I want to make sure I understand what you two are saying. You both believe (tell me if I'm wrong) that women are "hard wired"--designed by Nature--to prefer men with status. And John, you seem to believe, more so than Emma (again tell me if I'm wrong) that there is an absolute hierarchy of male status, and that women who are in touch with their True Nature will recognize a man's place in this hierarchy and judge him accordingly--preferring him if the status is high, shunning him if it is low. A woman who has been corrupted by society--that is, taught to see something other than her True Nature--will not see the eternal hierarchy so clearly, and will mistake a Thug (to use John's example) as high status, when he is actually low. Those who cloud these women's view of the true hierarchy (people like me, with my insistence that we can cultivate and shape our tastes) are "abusive" for steering them away from their True Nature.
And Emma, you seem to believe (again, please tell me if I have misunderstood you) that a while a wife may be faithful to her husband in body, she sins in her heart, as it were, secretly longing for men of Status, celebs, etc. refusing to act on her Natural desires for the sake of morality. (Do you and John pity this woman for self repression? Or do you admire her for her virtue? Some combo? I'm trying to imagine how you see her).
As for men, you both believe--correct me if I'm wrong--that we are "hard wired"--designed by nature--to pursue absolute beauty, youth, and, I suppose, fertility. Emma suggests that a husband may be faithful to his wife, but secretly lusts for pretty young women. (Again, how to you see him? "Bad" for denying his Nature? Or "good" for being true to his wife? Or just torn?). If I nudge a male friend, nod in the direction of the hottest woman in the room, and she happens to be fifty-eight, and surrounded by younger women who others think hot but I don't particularly care for, am I "abusing" him by suggesting the possibility of such an "unnatural" attraction? And what if I tell him that she'll probably be a lot better in bed?
I don't think there is an absolute hierarchy fo status. Alpha is situational. Both defined by the types of women he meets, and by the environment. It's not that women get corrupted by society. Rather, culture and nurture affects how women grow up and what they prefer later. I think it's closely related to evolutionary psychology. For example, lack of a father figure causes one tendency, and a good father figure causes another. Women have to get the best man they can get for the environment they are in, which is a different man in different environments. In some environments and for some women, the thug is the high status hero man. It's not a corruption of a woman's nature, it's an expression of a nature that's good, in an unhelpful environment. An analogy: some bacteria we have in our bodies help us live. But in unhelpful environments, they can act up and make us sick. Does it mean they are bad and we must remove them? No. We should bring the body back to the right state, so they again resume their healthy behavior.
But that still means we can make a "better hypergamy" by changing the environment. That means "making the thug lose".
I'm going to leave the discussion at this point. I believe we both understood each other.
@Emma Yes, that's what I meant. In a healthy society, hypergamy is not something bad at all, because women will only "be into" what's objectively good anyhow.
Both men and women think about sex with other people, even when married. Especially men. I don't see anything wrong with it, it's natural. However, it's not an excuse to cheat and people can control their actions just fine. So, I think of faithful spouses as good and admirable. It's not repression when the person took that choice and knew what they were doing.
No, you aren't abusing your friend by telling him you find an old woman more attractive than the young ones. It just means you're an outlier. But what is the point you are trying to make with these questions?
Walt, I think the problem is availability of all this porn and lack of awareness that it is harmful. If the theory presented at Your Brain On Porn is right, then porn addiction and associated impotence is an idiopathic medical condition, not something caused by cultural norms. I mean, impotence is symptomatic of porn use but porn use is mostly NOT a symptom of anything else. Just like nicotine will get you addicted and cigarettes have adverse health effects regardless of what status smoking has, masturbating to porn is intrinsically harmful to at least some susceptible men. Blaming the culture is mostly not helpful. While I think you are right to some extent that our culture drives some men and boys to porn rather than having a healthy sexual outlet with real women, I think it is also very important to acknowledge that porn is harmful in and of itself. But yes, you have a point there. The most perverse, bizarre and malicious cultural driver of porn addiction is age of consent laws, which ensure that some boys are stuck with porn and masturbation who could have gotten lucky with real women (who are now incarcerated or afraid of feminist sex laws), thus developing porn-related impotence. This is another reason why I maintain that the female sex offender charade is the ne plus ultra of human stupidity. But feminist sex laws are only a minor influence because of natural female choosiness and hypergamy anyway; most boys would not get lucky at a young age even in the best of times. I think most men who suffer from porn addiction got there simply because they didn't know better because nobody told them it's maladaptive. And who can blame them when all they've heard about porn is lies? Feminists told them porn is degrading to women and religious fanatics told them it's sinful -- nobody told them the truth that porn is maladaptive to the men themselves and that they should avert their eyes from porn for selfish reasons. Their porn use is not a symptom of anything else -- it is simply a toxic part of their environment that they react to adversely because of their nature. I certainly don't want to ban any kind of pornography (I am a militant activist against child porn laws, for example, and never condoned any censorship), but it behooves us to make the truth known about how harmful porn can be. Natural selection did not take into account the availability of endless porn, so it didn't bother to immunize men against wasting energy on pixels. If you saw a naked nubile woman in our ancestral environment, it was probably a good idea to jump on her because she'd most likely represent a real reproductive opportunity. Male arousal is so crude it can be activated by images, and for eons this was perfectly serviceable. Now, unfortunately it has all sorts of maladaptive results when images of naked women proliferate in evolutionarily novel ways. Each man is fooled into acting like he has a whole harem of phony women to fertilize, and while this is just a fantasy, there is very real harm -- harm which would NOT occur with promiscuous sex with real women; that is the crucial distinction that a lot of people don't grasp. In the most severe cases, it leads to copulatory impotence so severe that the porn addict would ironically not even be able to get it up with his favorite porn star in real life! According to thousands of testimonials, these men are completely detached from human sexuality and only able to have an erection stimulated by porn. I think the solution is education and for individual men to make a decision not to engage in maladaptive behaviors, and yes, of course we also need to demolish the perverse cultural barriers to healthy sexuality such as age of consent laws.
"The fact that women pursue violent thugs is also hypergamy."
More accurately, I would say that a culture that indoctrinates women to loathe and despise men is going to create such an artificial attraction. But if women are taught that they are superior to men (as under feminism), how can they be hypergamous? IOW, they don't value these violent thugs, but they choose them precisely because of their LACK of value.
Emma is correct that women are more socially influenced in sexual choices than men: but there is a biological and natural basis for this. Since men lead civilization and civilized society is evolving; it's a biological necessity that women's sexual tastes be more flexible and socially influenced. But that also makes them easy prey for demogogues---which is why only men should lead any culture.
Eivind & Emma:
I don't think that porn by itself is harmful to men; in some ways it can actually solidify the ideals that Emma mentioned. True, it can be abused as an escape from reality. However, when this kind of escapism is practiced on a wide scale, I see that more as a symptom of a social decline than its actual cause.
Another danger that's often overlooked is that the same media leaders who are corrupting society with various agendas are also in control of the porn industry. Since the sex drive is very strong, the incentive for unscrupulous political and social interest groups to encourage escapism and discourage personal relationships (as a form of control) is very high. Much the same way that US media uses sex scandals and celebrity gossip to distract the public from more serious elements of a failing society.
Porn addiction is a byproduct of technology, really, along with a sex-hostile feminist culture. Porn is just information and information cannot be curtailed at this point even if we wanted to. These images are so naturally compelling that boys will seek them out as long as they are available and they don't know of a strong reason not to. Many can't help but overuse them. We perversely pretend real, healthy sex is incredibly harmful to minors while trivializing the importance of porn. The worst is to have high-speed Internet porn but no women during adolescence. It wires some extremely untoward arousal pathways that later will tend to make real sex disappointing. Apparently it is not uncommon now for men to become impotent from porn while still in their teens! We do boys a disservice, then, by neglecting to inform them that porn use and masturbation are some powerfully maladaptive behaviors. I respect the rights of individuals to engage in maladaptive behaviors, but I would also like to promote enlightenment of the facts.
I agree that in a sex-negative culture, the problems with porn are amplified considerably, and have enormous potential for abuse. However, in a more sex-positive culture (or among sex-positive individuals), it might serve a purpose as an educational or exploratory means for young or single men to enhance sexual experiences.
Part of the paradox is what to do in cultures as highly sex-negative as, for example, the United States. Teen impotence IS going on here (and in all other male age demographics: it's nearly epidemic). But I'm doubtful that porn and masturbation is causing this so much as that American men are losing sexual interest just out of sheer lack of available females.
Emma asked: "But what is the point you are trying to make with these questions?"
To try to understand your point of view, and John's.
Eivind, I doubt we can ever know the truth of this issue. Science requires objective observation. But our sex lives are private, often secret. We cannot observe what goes on behind closed doors with these men, and even if we could I doubt scientists could achieve the necessary objectivity. Sex is emotionally charged, politicized, a raw nerve for so many people. . We can question these men, but how to we know that their answers are truthful? They may not be truthful even with themselves, sex involves such strong emotion. And how do we know our interpretations of what they tell us are not colored by our own feelings? Any number of things may be going on here.
There is a tendency today to "clinicalize" seemingly every sphere of experience. So-called "sex addiction," which you mentioned earlier (and which I also think is bullshit), is a good example. I feel that these men are trying to present their problem (a personal problem, a social problem, a problem of culture)as a sort of disease. And in a way, I cannot blame them, because it is the disease that most people tend to take most seriously nowadays. I think a better approach would be to show these men that the personal or cultural problem can be just as serious as the disease--even more so. I think its good they are talking about it, trying to do something. But I can't help but to feel they are constraining themselves, forcing a complex problem into a clinical mold.
To resort to porn with such frequency, these guys must be terribly unsatisfied with their lives. And I cannot blame them. It is very hard to be a man today.I just don't believe thinking in terms of diseases is going to help them as much as simply talking with them, persuading them to share their experiences, feelings. But again, I feel they resort to the language of disease because this is the only way of communicating that is generally deemed legitimate.
Medicine is not an exact science. Everyone is a little bit (or a lot) different. We don't all react the same way to potentially toxic stimuli. But look at the epidemiological evidence. How else to explain all these thousands of case studies who are convinced porn makes them impotent? Granted, it is all anecdotal at this point. They are a self-selected group out of billions on the Internet, so it is possible it is all coincidental and they are wrong about the porn connection. But it is also possible the problem is very much underreported and sexual dysfunctions are usually wrongly attributed to something else. It is hard to study this because there is no control group. Porn is ubiquitous now, so it is difficult to pinpoint what would be normal. But it seems so many young men didn't have problems with impotence before. The medical establishment has regularly been spectacularly wrong about many things, and almost certainly still is. Think Semmelweis and hand washing, or how long it took to prove the connection between smoking and lung cancer. It is possible porn is in a similar position today, and in a few years or decades everyone will realize how harmful it is. In the meantime, I think the evidence is sufficient to be very afraid of porn for our own good.
"How else to explain all these thousands of case studies who are convinced porn makes them impotent?"
Again, there are all sorts of possible explanations. Many of these men may be depressed (a man today often has every reason to be depressed), and impotence could be partly the result of that. If a man goes to a psychotherapist for his depression, he will be prescribed an anti-depressant, a side effect of which is sexual dysfunction.
Many older men would not admit it if they had an impotence problem because they would consider it unmanly. We now encourage men to be more open, and the internet allows for anonymity, making it much easier to talk of these things. So it may seem there is a greater problem now only because men are speaking up when they stayed silent before.
The main reason for my skepticism is that there is a long tradition of blaming porn for social ills, and it is easier to blame porn than to face much more complex problems.
I also question the idea that porn is a recent problem (assuming it is a problem at all). Most boys I knew growing up (in the 70s and 80s) had easy access to it. When I research newspapers from the 50s, there are constant stories of men being arrested for buying or possessing porn. The Victorians had a massive porn market, both visual (illustrations) and especially in books: the poorest street kid would have had some access to "dirty" pictures or stories (though he would have sometimes had to have a literate friend read them to him) and a wealthy man could (and often did) build up vast collections.
The internet certainly makes it easier though.
Back when all we had were magazines, it would take great effort to develop impotence from porn. It seems possible that porn was always potentially harmful, but it was very hard to be exposed to enough of it to really cause damage. Also, the medical establishment used to actually warn against masturbation centuries ago, and I think they were right, albeit for the wrong reasons. Now we have a very harmful environment for boys to grow up in with endless easily accessible porn and no one to even tell them masturbation is bad for them. Many of these impotent men don't seem to have been otherwise depressed either, judging from the comments, and they have frequently ruled out other medical conditions or drugs that can produce impotence. And then they happened to hear the problem could be porn and quit that, which pretty much solved the problem (after an initial "flatline" period lasting a few weeks in which libido drops). How do you explain all the success stories? If porn isn't problematic, then staying away from porn shouldn't be an effective treatment for impotence either, should it?
@Eric - I heard that the majority of impotence is psychological in nature - usually caused from emotional issues, and not sexual issues.
This would make sense - if the majority of young men are having incredibly bad experiences with women.
It would also make sense that such young men would turn to porn and stop pursuing women.
Said "crabby women" would then try to illegalize porn.
Eivind & Emma:
The Scarecrow made a good point. While I don't discount that there are potential dangers to 'ersatz' sex like porn, masturbation, virtual sex &c.---consider this:
The US Center for Disease Control reported last week that nearly 1/4 US women over the age of 12 are taking prescription psychiatric antidepressants. They didn't how many were using other drugs, but it's high. So is the rate of addiction to alcohol and illegal drugs.
Previously, this same government agency reported that female obesity here is at 36%; and that nearly 1/4 of US women have contracted an STD before the age of 25.
It's also known that 1/3 of US kids live in homes without fathers, 1/2 of pregnancies end in abortion and 1/6 US pre-teen children are diagnosed with ADHD, bipolar disorder, depression, and other psychiatric illness such as autism (which has now become epidemic like obesity).
When you balance these numbers against our high divorce rate; our women's well-deserved reputations for anti-social behaviors and slutting around with dysfunctional thugs, my question is this:
What do you propose as an alternative to things like porn, masturbation, and virtual sex? When I see things like I described above (and on a regular basis) I must admit that I have little desire even to associate with women, let alone have sex with them.
Oppgjør med PK-feminismen på en langt mer saklig måte enn Eivind Berge.
the dark net
Dårlig nytt for eivind berge og hans sterke tro på juryordningen.
"Hele ni av ti er enige i at oppfordringer til vold og trusler mot enkeltpersoner eller grupper bør kunne straffes."
Hva betyr "oppfordringer til vold og trusler mot enkeltpersoner eller grupper"? Det virker som de blander sammen oppvigling og trusler der. Jeg tviler på at 90% støtter kriminalisering av ren oppfordring til vold, og enda mindre i en konkret sak som min. Forøvrig er jeg fullt klar over at folk er drittsekker som kan finne på å lynsje hvem som helst for hva som helst -- poenget er at profesjonelle maktmennesker er enda større drittsekker, så juryen er viktig.
"Ni av ti er enige i at trusler om vold mot enkeltpersoner eller grupper bør kunne straffes"... hvilket pr. i dag vitterlig er straffbart(uansett medium).
"Det norske folk" er altså enige i at noe som pr. i dag vitterlig er straffbart, bør bli straffbart!?!
De kunne like godt spurt om folket mener væpnet ran burde kunne straffes.
Er det undersøkelsen det er noe alvorlig galt med eller det norske folk?
Eivinds tidligere skriverier rammes uansett ikke av straffeloven(og bra er det) - verken den nye eller den gamle - da de aktuelle ytringene ikke var fremsatt offentlig men ikke minst også fordi ytringen ikke oppfordret til iverksettelse av en straffbar handling. Dette så jeg ble poengtert i anken til lagmannsretten over den inkompetente tingrettens fengslingskjennelse. Anken ble tatt til følge og politi/påtalemyndighet tapte fullstendig og deres argumentasjon ble ikke hørt på et eneste punkt av retten. Politiet bedrev juridisk tullball og evnet ikke en gang å forstå lovens ganske så enkle ordlyd.
Senere er det blitt ivret etter ikraftsettelse av den nye straffeloven(av 2005)da noen har vrangforestillinger om at Eivind ytringer da angivelig kunne bli straffbare. Nei! Straffeloven av 2005 har fjernet handlingsalterntivet "forherligelseav straffbare handlinger", hvilket i realiteten var det eneste Eivind eventuelt kunne ha blitt straffet for(om det ikke var for den nye loven, som gjør det lovlig, også pr. i dag, om de så hadde vært skrevet i BT).
Forøvrig er det jo litt pinlig at både tingrettsdommeren og politiadvokaten, nå statsadvokat, er såpass juridisk-faglig elendige som den aktuelle saken påviste at de jo faktisk er.
Her bedriver siste innskriver sitatfusk. Sitatet omhandlet oppfordring til vold.
Med uttalelsene: "politidrap er etisk og taktisk riktig", og "angrep på politiet harmonerer 100 prosent med alt jeg står for", og noe slikt som: "politidrap er den edleste form for mannsaktivisme"(fritt etter hukommelsen)
...er det ikke urimelig å tolke dette som en oppfordring til vold. Riktignok har Berge aldri bedrevet trusler i ordets rette forstand. Det er også verdt å merke seg at høyesterett oppfattet utallelsene som straffverdige dog ikke straffbare pga en utilstrekkelig lovgivning.
Like fullt, det er ikke rettsystemet denne artikkelen tar opp, men folkets meninger. Jeg merker meg også mange som har ment at Berges uttalelser burde være straffbare. Og for ordens skyld også de som mener det motsatte.
Det skulle vært interessant å se folkets faktiske oppfatning av Berges uttalelser. Og om en folkejury hadde hatt vært nevneverdig til gunst for siktede.
Personlig er jeg en ytringsfrihetsfundmentalist, men jeg har ikke like sterk tro på et liberalt folkeferd som det Berge trolig har(?)
Ja, det er ikke kontroversielt at trusler trusler om vold mot enkeltpersoner eller grupper bør kunne straffes (og allerede er straffbart i Straffelov av 1902). Det har jeg ikke tatt til orde mot selv heller. Så når man blander det sammen med forslag om nye lovendringer, så er det ikke rart det blir merkelige resultater på meningsmålinger.
Det stemmer at jeg ikke hadde oppfordret til iverksettelse, og derfor var spørsmålet om offentlighet egentlig overflødig. Så selv om vi hadde tapt på det punktet, så skulle politiet slitt med å bevise at jeg har oppfordret til iverksettelse av kriminelle handlinger, som er det oppviglerparagrafen faktisk går på. Forherligelse av kriminelle handlinger er også helt riktig tatt ut av den nye straffeloven, og det betyr at forherligelse allerede i dag ikke kan straffes. Det enda en av mange ting som politiadvokaten ikke hadde fått med seg, men min advokat var helt klar på at når en lovendring er vedtatt til fordel for borgerne, så kan ikke den gamle loven brukes til å straffe dem heller, selv om den nye loven ikke er trådt i kraft enda.
Til siste anonym over her, det er forskjell på oppfordring til vold og oppfordring til iverksettelse av vold. Å si at politidrap er etisk og taktisk riktig er ikke det samme som å oppfordre noen til å iverksette det. Iallefall er det langt fra klart at loven kan ramme det jeg har sagt. Dette går under ytringer om nytten av revolusjonære handlinger, som det er presedens for at oppviglerparagrafen ikke rammer.
Om det er stor forskjell på oppfordring til, og oppfordring til iverksettelse av noe? Tja... hva mener du er den store forskjellen rent konkret?
Personlig synes jeg slike spissfindigheter nettopp avslører absurditeten av selve lovregelen. Man kan med letthet finne politisk korrekte meninger som nettopp oppfordrer til iverksettelse av vold, blant annet ved å gi støtte til militære operasjoner. Altså når vold har statlig signatur er det greit, når noen oppfordrer til vold mot den samme staten er det ikke greit, osv...
Men altså tilbake til utgangspunktet, spørsmålet er hvor dypt forankret ytringsfriheten er forankret i folkesjelen når det kommer til stykket. Men som du presiserte, du vil heller dømmes av "likeverdige" drittsekker enn profesjonelle drittsekker. Point taken.
Enig i at hele oppviglerparagrafen er høyst tvilsom og jeg mener den bør fjernes helt, men det er faktisk forskjell på oppfordring til iverksettelse av og ytringer om etikken i straffbare handlinger. Hvis du for eksempel står på gaten med en ropert og oppfordrer en folkemengde til å demonstrere ulovlig og angripe politiet eller noe slikt, så er det en oppfordring til iverksettelse. Det er et typisk scenario som §140 er ment å ramme. På den annen side har vi ytringer som plakatene til Tjen Folket som sier "Det er rett å gjøre opprør." En kommunistisk revolusjon vil nødvendigvis omfatte enda mer vold inkludert politidrap enn jeg har oppfordret til, så begge deler er helt klart i realiteten oppfordringer til vold. Men vil det siste eksemplet kunne rammes av oppviglerparagrafen? Jeg tror ikke den type ytringer er ment å rammes, kan ikke forestille meg at dem som står bak den kampanjen ville blitt dømt, og jeg mener at min blogging er mye nærmere plakatene til Tjen Folket enn stereotypisk straffbar oppvigling. Det ville i hvert fall vært urettferdig om jeg skulle blitt straffet mens kommunistene går fri, og det tror jeg en jury ville ment også.
"Å si at politidrap er etisk og taktisk riktig er ikke det samme som å oppfordre noen til å iverksette det."
Nå er det vel ingen forutsetning i lovregelen at man skal oppfordre noen konkret til iverksettelse?
Forskjellen må vel heller bli, "man bør drepe politiet" "Man bør drepe politiet på youngstorget i morgen klokken 12" ?
Loven sier iverksettelse, og dette ordet er vel tatt med av en grunn?
"Den, som offentlig opfordrer eller tilskynder til Iværksettelsen af en strafbar Handling..."
Hvis du spesifiserer tid og sted, så vil man kunne kalle det en oppfordring til iverksettelse, ja. Men det har jeg altså ikke gjort.
For å ta det også, at et ord som "iverksettelse" skal være det springende punktet som skiller om et menneske må tilbringe de neste åtte år bak lås og slå eller gå fri er rent vannvidd. Ordet er forresten ikke nevnt i regjeringens generelle omtale av oppvigler-regelen.
Det hele denne saken burde ført til var en avskaffelse av paragrafen, men det var ikke slik det ble respondert, tvert imot man gjorde det man kunne for å få den oppdaterte paragrafen rettskraftig så raskt man evnet
Til sist, det er vel ganske betenkelig at lovtolkning slik som fremkommer her, finnest knappest i vanlig media i tilknynting til saken. Det meste dreier seg om at du ikke ble dømt fordi ytringene ikke var offentlige.
At høyesterett fant ytringene straffverdige er jo også besynderlig med tanke på det med iverksettelse.
Altså en høyst tvilsom sak, som jeg likevel tror flertallet av det norske folk ønsket å se deg straffet for.
Selvsagt er vilkåret om 'iverksettelse' sentralt i forståelse av oppviglerparagrafen. Om ikke hadde ikke lovgiver funnet grunn til å ha det med i lovteksten, så enkelt er det.
Ellers kan nevnes at sist oppviglerparagrafen ble benyttet var det straffbare forholdet som den påståtte oppfordringen gikk ut på, vitterlig faktisk blitt iverksatt(Blitz).
Iverksettelse er altså et helt vesentlig og sentralt element i lovparagrafen.
Høyesteretts uttalelse om påstått "straffverdighet" var et obiter dictum, altså noe som nevnes i forbifarten, uten forutgående grundige vurderinger. Et obiter dictum har en svært begrenset vekt som rettskilde, spesielt når den er så mangelfull som i aktuelle avgjørelse.
Ved en reell straffesak etter tiltale, tror jeg høyesterett ville vært mye klarere på at uttalelsene uansett ikke ville være straffbare, uavhengig av offentlighetsspørsmålet.
Politiets sak var grunnløs og idiotisk. Et makkverk satt i verk av en begredelig svak jalla-"jurist".
Det var ikke rettsprosessen i særdeleshet jeg ønsket å kommentere i utgangspunktet, derimot folkemeningen. Som jeg tolker slik at man ønsker å straffe ekstreme/ytterliggående (kall det hva du vil) uttalelser.
Når man likevel har penslet det inn på jussen har jeg følgende kommentarer.
Om "straffverdig" betyr at Berge ville ha blitt domfelt om uttalelsene var å regne som offentlige etter lovens forstand, kan jeg vanskelig se dem som et obiter dictum. Men, samtidig er det verdt å påpeke at Berge aldri ble tiltalt. Forhandlingene dreide seg ikke om Berge var skyldig eller ikke, men om det var grunnlag for fortsatt varetektsfengsling. Han har aldri hatt annet en status som siktet, Dette bør vel i seg selv gi en pekepinn på hvor svak saken har vært.
Jeg er personlig forundret over hvorfor politiet gikk så hardt ut. Det ville vel vært mer rimelig å gå for bøter i saker som dette, eventuelt betinget fengsel. Lovregler med strafferamme på 8 år skal det tross alt noe til å bli domfelt etter. Men hovedmålet deres var vel å få Berge i varetekt tenker jeg.
Det kjekke og rettskafne bergenspolitiet har vært på ferde igjen. De drepte nesten et uskyldig menneske, eller i verste fall fordi vedkommende har brutt vegtrafikklovens paragraf tre. Og alle i dette jævla drittlandet synes dette er helt i orden. Hadde det vært andra land hadde det blitt masseopprør.
I Norge går man til storaksjon mot mennesker som skriver at politiet burde bli drept. Mens man lar politimenn som forsøker å drepe folk, gå fri. Politiet er mordere og drittsekker, og jeg hater hett og inderlig hver eneste politibetjent i dette landet. Saken er anmeldt til spesialenheten og kommer til å bli henlagt, det kan du banne på.
Fy faen at man ikke skulle samle seg i masseprotest foran politihuset. Om hver eneste rettskaffen bergenser hadde samlet seg i protest hadde det skjedd noe, men pga dette autoritetselskende folkeslaget får politiet begå overgrep akkurat som de vil
Politiet i Bergen kjører som narko-rusede ungdommer som ikke har klart oppkjøringen til sertifikat. Ikke rart den rare lille gjengen der borte også har problemer med elementær jus.
Politiet nekter etterforskning i voldtektssak!!!
D.v.s; politiet nekter å etterforske momenter som beviser at ingen voldtekt har funnet sted og at anklagen er falsk.
interesting list of sex differences. The whole idea of equality is just wrong.
With the exception of occasional Tom boy, girls behave different from boys.
Now about porn being harmful and causing impotence, I have not heard anything about that. Maybe you write a post about that (I gladly publish this or other stuff you want to say, on human-stupidity.com)
Consider this: in the last 50 000 years, 60% of men did not have offspring, which means that they probably never got laid.
Getting solace in porn might be a good thing for the 40 year old virgin.
It is interesting that nobody has any pity with male losers. I want to write a post about them.
Addiction to porn is a waste of time. But so is hanging out in bars pursuing women and never succeeding.
And non-procreative sex is also anti-natural.
Porn consumption might be comforting if you don't get laid. And no man gets laid as much as he wants, so he engages in porn.
Countries where prostitution is common usually consume less porn. Ridiculous perverted porn like diapering, peeing etc seem frequent in the US, where prostitution is prohibited and normal sexual outlets locked down.
Er det noen her inne som er kjent med saken om Tor Holger Bertelsen? Dommeren som retten vil avsette fordi han er "kvinnefiendlig"? Med dette forståes det altså at han har gitt menn medhold i barnefordelingssaker. Blant annet en mann som var siktet for incest mot sin sønn. Saken ble henlagt, men mannen ble nektet samvær. Tingrettens kjennelse om samvær ble omgjort i lagmannsretten. Men menneskerettighetsdomstolen i Strasbourg omgjorde imidlertif lagmannsrettens kjennelse. Bertelsen er blitt omtalt som gal av sine kolleger. Har han gjort noe virkelig graverende, eller er han kort og godt bare ikke feministisk nok?
Mister han dommerjobben fordi han er antifeminist?
(folk som ikke aksepterer feministiske dogmer er jo automatisk kvinnefiendlig, ifølge PK-landet Norge)
There is definitely a difference between men and women which go beyond where on our bodies we have extremities, however one can not claim as the article you have posted more or less do that no women ever want sex and no man ever want anything else than sex from a woman. Yes for the most part men have a greater sexual dive than women have and often woman have other things they want with the sex than the in out in out, but that do not mean that women in general do not enjoy sex or enjoy casual sexual relations.
I am a woman and while I have not had many relationships and are with the same man I first fell in love with, I have had a play partner who I only met for sex, with my hubby's knowledge and consent, and several of my female friends do actually have fuck buddies who they only meet for no strings attached sex.
Now is there a sexual economics that is in the favor of women, yes there is, but your presentation of men as just wanting sex, constantly and nothing else and women as not wanting sex ever for it's own sake but just using it to hold men by the balls so to speak is false. Sex is enjoyable for both genders.
Now one thing you also seam to do allot is over generalize, all men are like this and all women are like this and that is not how it works in real life, there is a huge difference between individuals so while the average man is more sexual than the average woman, there is individual men with little sex drive and individual women with allot of it.
Also remember that society treat promiscuity in men as something positive, look he is a stud, a ladies man, look at James Bond he have at least half a dozen new conquests each movie and that is presented as positive and cool. A promiscuous woman however is seen as a slut, someone you can not rely on or down right evil, in fact I can not think of one single promiscuous woman in any piece of fiction for example who have not been a villain, or where her sleeping around have not lead to regret for her. You speak of society corrupting women well yes I agree but I think that the corruption is in the way of telling women from an early age that wanting sex is bad.
In short off course there is a difference between how men and women view sexuality, but that difference is not that women are frigid and men are sexual, both genders are made to want sex though how we view that sex is somewhat different.
"Lærer dømt for å fortelle om fiktive overgrep" :p
Er det barnepornoloven disse fiktive overgrepene rammes av? Loven er i hvert fall syk nok til å ramme fiktive skildringer, så det skulle ikke forundre meg.
Anja, I never claimed women don't enjoy sex. I never said women are always frigid. But the group differences in sexual mentality between men and women are far more profound than recognized by political correctness. That is all, and it does give rise to an economy where men are the buyers of sex and women are the providers even if women often enjoy sex too and sometimes promiscuously. I think you are wrong about fictional depictions of promiscuity too. At least I can think of one counterexample. The heroine of _Atlas Shrugged_ sleeps around and this is positively portrayed. But only with the alpha tycoons, and that's the main difference between the sexes which leads to so many frustrated men.
Politihat sprer seg i Stockholm blant menn som ikke har noe å tape....
"Har ikke noe å tape"? Ja, det er jo en måte å si det på. Innvandrerpakket kan jo ikke tape trygden, friheten, statsborgerskapet, goodwillen eller noe annet som et fornuftig samfunn hadde tatt fra dem i en tilsvarende situasjon, så de har jo på en måte ingenting å tape på den søplete oppførselen sin.
Post a Comment