A small victory

On Wednesday evening policeman Olav Kildal thought he was going on a routine mission in Mo i Rana, Norway, to kidnap another victim of psychiatry for forcible "treatment." But this time, the victim was prepared to fight back. After 34 years on the beat as a fascist pig, Olav Kildal finally had his comeuppance. Kildal was stabbed to death as he tried to enter the victim's house. His female porcine partner meanwhile got scared and ran away, leaving Kildal to bleed to death by the time the thugs returned with plenty of reinforcements, riot gear, automatic weapons, and tear gas but nonetheless took all night, until 6 in the morning to capture this hero of the people (whose name the newspapers won't mention, so all we know is he is 62 years old).

Good news for men is rare in this hateful feminist utopia that is Norway, but today is a joyous day! Today I feel schadenfreude in my heart along with all the hate that feminism and resultant mate deprivation have instilled in me. One blue thug less on the streets. One less feminist enforcer. And as this story so beautifully illustrates, the pigs enforce psychiatry as well. This hero's knife attack on Kildal can only be characterized as self-defense. Forcible psychiatric "treatment" is fundamentally wrong and of course anyone subjected to it has the moral right to defend himself with deadly force.

Update: It has come to light that Kildal apparently broke into the victim's home without the requisite warrants. So it wasn't just morally wrong and based on laws I disagree with; it was probably illegal, too, and defending oneself from such abuses of power is justified in every way. Killdal wasn't just doing his job. He was a criminal thug who got his just deserts.

Dead swine now burning in hell.

Lady Raine, thanks for promoting my blog

The same crazy lady who tried to bring down Roissy is now reporting my "rape blog" to the "Vice President" of my university.

Don’t worry, Denise I already reported him, his IP address, his physical address, and his blog to the Vice President of his campus (at Bergen University in Norway). I sent her proof that the he is currently posting his rape blog FROM the campus, using their network, and is likely to be selecting a victim as we speak.

I provided her with all his IP information, user info, net stats, full name, photo, and everything else she needs to send to the Norwegian Police or use as one of the Heads of the University (since I have no idea what the laws are in Norway) but I warned her that there is a dangerous man who is encouraging and planning rape and possibly murder typing all that from her campus as we speak.

I will continue to send her any and all information on his geographical location each time he so much as takes a breath, moves from his spot, or posts something new.

I am quite certain that she would be concerned about a student on campus using their network to blog about raping women….especially being on a college campus where rape is very rampant. No school would overlook a student like him or his comments and blog that he stupidly posted his name and his picture right next to, to remove any doubt at all.

Bye, bye asshole. Hope you get the help you need.

Lady Raine is so dense it took her a year to figure out my location even though it was right there in my profile the whole time, and now she thinks she can hurt me by reporting my blog. Well, the whole reason for blogging is to be read. I stand by every word of what I have written (except the typos). It is not, however, criminal and her paraphrase is a distortion of what I am saying. To accuse me of planning rape and murder is nothing but calumny. For example, I said that in the hypothetical situation of rapists being assured the death penalty, this would likely lead to more rapists killing their victims as well, and so imposing the death penalty for rape would make the world a more dangerous place for women. Her reading comprehension is such that next she accuses me of planning to murder women. And that is representative for everything she writes. I appreciate my blog being promoted, but anyone should take everything Lady Raine says with a grain of salt and read what I actually write before jumping to conclusions.

Feminists believe women can rape men

Feminists, the abuse industry and even some misguided MRAs sometimes claim that women can be rapists. It is really too ridiculous to even consider, but since some people apparently say it with a straight face, I took the time to explain what is wrong with the notion of the female rapist. Feminists don't tolerate much dissent, however, so when I posted my views on this in a thread titled Can Women Rape Men? over at the Feminist Critics blog, my comments were deleted. So I shall post them here instead:

It is my unconditional opinion that women can never rape men, for the simple reason that sex is a female resource. Sex is obviously something women have and men want, and any man claiming to be raped by a woman is not a reasonable person and cannot be taken seriously. It is the height of arrogance to claim a woman raped you and as a man whose life has been ruined by involuntary celibacy I find it incredibly offensive. Nobody who takes the concept of the female rapist seriously is a friend of mine.

While women are extremely valuable sex objects, male sexuality is worthless or (usually) worse, having a negative value; there is no intrinsic value in the male body, unfortunately. Most men are sexually invisible or disgusting to most women while most men find most women at least somewhat attractive. Sex is the transfer of value from a woman to a man; it is the woman giving something precious to the man in all cases. Female-on-male “rape” would thus be like a reverse robbery, analogous to someone forcing money into your pockets or breaking into your home to leave a pile of money. I used to compare it to the stealing of garbage, but the reverse robbery analogy is more apt, as the man is always getting something objectively valuable. A man getting sex from a woman is lucky, period, even if he was forced, and I categorically condemn anyone who thinks he is a victim of a woman’s sexual acts. Sympathy is the last thing such a man would get; the normal reaction is jealousy and then hate if he tries to pass himself off as a victim and get the woman prosecuted. I categorically refuse to see it any other way.

I also very much disagree with the feminist redefinition of rape condoned in this thread. Only this is actually rape: “Human copulation resisted by the victim to the best of her ability unless such resistance would probably result in death or serious injury to her or others she commonly protects.” This is the definition used by Thornhill and Palmer in A Natural History of Rape. Feminists and the law now use a corrupted, vastly more inclusive definition. For instance, here in Norway it is sufficient to threaten with starting a rumor about a woman; then it is legally rape if she has sex to avoid it, and it is rape if a husband threatens divorce to obtain sex from his wife.

Daran said: “It’s not the severity of the threat which is the issue, but it’s nature as something that does or does not lie within your discretion to do.” If the threat is not about death or serious injury, then it is not true rape but a lesser form of sexual coercion. Feminists, of course, call everything rape to demonize men maximally, with the inevitable result that the whole concept gets trivialized. Here in Norway, since the latest feminist corruption of the legal concept of rape in 2000, the threat can most assuredly lie within your discretion to do, such as reporting the woman for a crime she has committed, such as theft. The threat can be about something perfectly legal and honorable; that’s how far the feminists have succeeded against men. They also removed mens rea for rape that year, so now a man can be a rapist without realizing it or intending to. Women mostly use this to get men convicted when they regret consensual sex while intoxicated (women are not responsible for their actions because they are drunk, men are responsible despite being drunk — so the asymmetry goes), as I have gone to court and seen with my own eyes, engendering profound antifeminist hatred in my heart. We can also thank feminism for corrupting the concept to allow for male victims of women, which is a red herring introduced to obfuscate the fact that the all-inclusive, ostensibly gender-neutral rape law is all about hurting men and empowering women. I can’t believe you guys fall for it.

The common-law definition of rape was a good one that we should return to: “Carnal knowledge of a woman not one’s wife by force and without consent.” The sex has to be accomplished by violence; lack of consent is not enough, so the woman has to resist to the best of her ability (unless this would likely get her killed). As a man, this is the only definition of rape I can accept, and I cannot ever accept that sexual coercion by women on boys or men can qualify as rape or any kind of crime.

[Now some people thought I was trolling and even a misandrist, to which I replied:]

I just expressed my sincere opinion and am assuredly not a troll.

Schala, men can be raped, but only by other men. And I am an MRA, not a misandrist. A gender-neutral concept of rape hurts men because it gives feminists a red herring as I explained above and because it makes a mockery of male sexuality and insults most men, who have the opposite and real problem of not enough sexual attention from women.

[The Feminist Critics uphold James Landrith as an example of a man who was supposedly raped by a woman. She threatened him with accusing him of rape if he didn't have sex with her.]

James Landrith had a luxury problem. I and most men would only be delighted to wake up and find a woman straddling me and demand sex. There is no way I can take that situation seriously as rape.

Now the ease with which women can destroy men's lives with false accusations of rape is a serious problem, but acknowledging female rapists is not the solution. It only makes it worse because then gullible men won't see the feminist-corrupted justice system where everything is rape and anyone can be a victim as the pure misandry it is. Landrith is barking up the wrong tree. He should instead focus on reversing feminist rape reform to where allegations of rape backed by nothing but the woman's word and no corroborating evidence will go nowhere. Then he could just ignore the woman's threat if he really didn't want the free sex.

Feminists think they are smart, but expanding the concept of rape to include female rapists will backfire and hurt women in the long run. If being forced to have heterosexual sex is similar for men and women, then men are compelled to conclude that raping women, too, is a trivial crime. The only way I can maintain the belief that rape for a woman is a horrible experience is to accept that women's experience of it is radically different than mine, as the thought of any woman forcing herself on me is sweet or neutral at worst if she is really ugly. Homosexual rape is another matter, of course, but we are talking about being raped by a person of the opposite sex here. So be careful what you wish for. If you want real rape victims to be taken seriously, then trivializing the crime like this is a bad move.

Clarence asked, "I also wonder what he’d consider it if a really really unattractive woman put a gun to his head and made him have sex with her?" I would consider it neutral or a mild nuisance at worst, but I could never consider it rape or even think about pressing charges. Clarence also brought up cases where "men have been unconscious and women have had sex acts with them that resulted in children and they’ve had to pay up." I agree this is wrong, but the problem is not "rape" but child support. Of course these men should not have to pay, but they were lucky to get sex.

Apparently I have been banned, so I guess I will have to post these comments to my own blog instead. What is the point of even asking the question "Can women rape men?" if you can't handle arguments to the contrary?

I also find it unreasonable to delete comments based on something else I have written elsewhere. I have not said anything to the effect that "men should be free to rape" here and my argument that rape is equality is a little bit more nuanced than that. But I guess that is the kind of moderation one should expect from feminists so extreme they believe getting sex by threatening to end a relationship is rape.

***

Even a woman at that blog, Ana, worries that she raped her boyfriend by threatening to end their relationship:

I had a situation when I was 16 and wanted my virginity removed, where I threatened to break up with my (17 year old) boyfriend if he would not have sex with me. We did it, but some months later he told me that he believed I had raped him.

It bothers me deeply to this day, because I did not think that it was rape.

I don’t know whether the situation could have been prevented with better education, although the concept of females raping males was certainly nothing I had ever heard before. I still don’t know how to talk to him about it, so I just don’t talk to him anymore. I still don’t understand why it was rape.

Could someone address these concerns for me? I promise I’m not trolling.

This has got to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my life. This was indeed rape by the feminist definition, to ensure that men can be imprisoned in the more typical cases where the roles are reversed. The solution to this corruption of justice is not to apply this absurd definition to men as well, but to reverse feminist rape law reform, and I hope most sane men can see this. The last thing we need is protection from having to take the virginity of 16-year-old girls, whereas being convicted of rape ourselves on the basis of the flimsiest threat is a very real possibility with feminist justice.

***

Norwegian readers might want to check out me discussing this with a feminist bitch, Rannveig Svendby, here. She is straight out of women's studies and has been well trained to promote the feminist agenda by pretending women can rape men. Don't fall for it, gentlemen, or you will be useful idiots for the feminists.

Never trust a cop

The police force in Norway and other Occidental countries is basically a special interest group for the feminists. They enforce the feminist definition of rape, age of consent and all the other misandrist feminist laws that make my blood boil with hatred. Now Norwegian cops are even empowered by the feminists to arrest me for being a john (while the whores of course are innocent) and this applies anywhere in the world. For this reason, I viscerally despise cops and wish them the worst. Whenever the pigs try to interrogate you, keep this in mind:

Abstract:
The police routinely rely on deception when questioning criminal suspects. Because the United States Supreme Court has placed so few limits on the use of deception, the variety of deceptive techniques is limited chiefly by the ingenuity of the interrogator. Interrogators still rely on the classic "Mutt and Jeff," or "good cop, bad cop" routine. They tell suspects that non-existent eyewitnesses have identified them, or that still at-large accomplices have given statements against them. Occasionally, an interrogator will create a fake lab report purporting to link the suspect to forensic evidence. Most often, interrogators lie to create rapport with a suspect. Thus, an officer with feelings of revulsion toward a suspect accused of a horrible crime may speak in a kindly, solicitous voice and profess to feel compassion for the suspect. The officer may suggest that the victim, even if a child, should share the blame for the crime. In the end, virtually all interrogations involve some deception. At the very least, the successful interrogator deceives the suspect by allowing him to believe that, somehow, it will be in his best interest to undertake the usually self-defeating course of making an uncounseled confession.

Because most deception is employed only after the suspect executes a valid waiver of Miranda rights, Miranda imposes few limits on the use of deceptive interrogation techniques. Thus, commentators have increasingly looked to the voluntariness requirement of the Due Process Clause as a basis for urging drastic limitation on these techniques. Commentators who focused on due process rationales such as equality, trust, morality, and dignity have not been able to mount persuasive arguments for limitation. Reliability, however, as the chief rationale for the voluntariness requirement, is an appropriate concern in setting limits on deceptive interrogation techniques. Deception should not be permitted when it creates an unreasonable risk that an innocent person would falsely confess.

Some commentators have asserted that there is a significant problem with false confessions. In fact, the evidence of false confessions, both in the academic literature and in the popular press, is entirely anecdotal. Statistically sound research on a random sample of confession cases should be conducted. At this point, however, drastic limits on the use of deceptive interrogation techniques are not justified. Such limits would impose substantial costs on society in terms of lost confessions from guilty persons. When guilty persons do not confess, additional resources must be expended to obtain convictions, some guilty persons are able to plead to lesser charges, and some guilty persons simply go free and have the opportunity to commit new crimes.

Although the wrongful conviction of any innocent person is a terrible failing of the criminal justice system, it does matter whether such occurrences constitute rare tragedies or an epidemic.

Laurie Magid is on the feminist side, but thanks for telling it as it is.

Citation

Magid, Laurie. "Deceptive Police Interrogation Practices: How Far is Too Far?" (March 2001). Michigan Law Review, Vol. 99, 2001. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=272659 or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.272659

Rape is equality

When men have something women have less of, such as money or power, women simply take it by force. It's called affirmative action and feminists believe it's right. I am not going to argue against that. I accept that as a lost cause. So instead I am going to embrace forced equality and demand it for men as well.

What women have that men don't is of course sex. If anyone doubts that sex is a female resource, go here and request the PDF file Baumeister, R.F. & Vohs, K.D. (2004). Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 339-363.

In light of feminism, or if you believe in equality, this article makes such a compelling case for rape that Baumeister felt obliged to include the otiose disclaimer, "Our analysis should in no way be construed as excusing sexual coercion and we roundly condemn any such acts."

So let us give women equality if that's what they really want. Remember that due to the hypergamous nature of women, men get less sex as women get more money and power. Women are generally incapable of feeling attraction for men who are not better than they are, and soon men are no better than equal. So it is about time men in feminist countries such as Norway stop thinking of rape as wrong. I have previously argued this point e.g. here as Arpagus, and no one has been able to justify why affirmative action is right when it benefits women and hurts men but is wrong when it helps men and hurts women.

Is the peacock a sex object? I don't think so

The second footnote of this article made me think.

Kanazawa and Still claim, in all likelihood correctly, that females are the choosers in all species where they invest more parentally than males. In these species it is the male that is the object of sexual attraction. However, it is well known that in humans this pattern has been reversed so that it is the female rather than the male who is the primary object of sexual attraction. For this reason, Kanazawa and Still's attempt to draw a parallel between humans and other animals in the mode of mate choice does not succeed.

What has Sanderson been smoking? The male is the primary object of sexual attraction in most species? Surely when the female gets to chose and the male must display, that means the female is the sex object. Being the selective sex equals being the object of sexual attraction as I understand it. Peahens (say) may look drab to us, but it is they who are the attractive ones. They are the sexy sex. The peacock isn't attractive; he is desperately trying to attract females with a pathetic and costly display. Most males are unworthy of most females and it would be ludicrous to call an average peacock who may well fail to attract any female at all the primary object of sexual attraction while every female is desirable by default. This has not been "reversed" in humans. It is precisely the same. Some women are more desirable than others of course and able to get men of higher status, and they do things like boob jobs and wear makeup to enhance their attractiveness which peahens don't bother with, but fundamentally it is the same. If the peacock's display makes him a sex object, then men must be termed sex objects by virtue of our desperate and largely futile attempts to seduce women, and clearly that is preposterous.

We all know that women are sex objects (and the bodies of men are worthless, in other words sex is a female resource, universally understood as something women have and men want as Baumeister makes abundantly clear), and I believe that is the case in other species as well where the female invests more parentally. The only true male sex objects (besides homosexuals, of course) are found in the few species where the male invests more in parenting, e.g. the bird Centropus grillii, where the males care for the young while the females spend a large proportion of their time calling from conspicuous perches. It would be nice to be a sex object, but the downside is the parenting burden. You have to work hard either way, but the choosy sex has the bonus of being sexy -- they have intrinsic value unlike men and an extra unlimited resource at their disposal -- so in the aggregate women have it easier. Females of most species are also virtually assured reproductive success, but on the other hand men can succeed spectacularly when they do succeed, like Djengis Khan.

By the way I found Sanderson's explanation of monogamy somewhat compelling. Male choice may in fact have a hand in polygyny -- not everything is completely driven by women.

Works Cited

Baumeister, R.F. & Vohs, K.D. (2004). "Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions." Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 339-363.

Wolfgang Goymann, Andrea Wittenzellner & John C. Wingfield. "Competing Females and Caring Males. Polyandry and Sex-Role Reversal in African Black Coucals, Centropus grillii." Ethology, Volume 110 Issue 10, pp. 807 - 823.

Sanderson, Stephen K. "Explaining Monogamy and Polygyny in Human Societies: Comment on Kanazawa and Still." Social Forces, Volume 80, Number 1, September 2001, pp. 329-335.

Sexual Utopia in Power

"Sexual Utopia in Power" (The Occidental Quarterly Vol. 6, No. 2) is possibly the best article I have ever read. My blogging against feminism is almost redundant after F. Roger Devlin has put it so well. This is what I have been thinking ever since growing up in the hateful climate of feminism -- and hate breeds hate, resulting in the angry man I am today. These are my views exactly on everything from sexual harassment to divorce. The Occidental Quarterly is clearly a great, paleoconservative journal. It is heartening to see some sanity in this age of feminist terror. I am especially thankful for Devlin's recognition of "the forgotten men" -- the losers -- "of the sexual revolution" (p. 29). I am one of them and it is indeed time for us to speak up. Perhaps we really ought to form gangs which engage in antisocial behavior, as Devlin suggests, to increase our chances with women. It is perplexing and dispiriting that this has not already happened. Where is someone like Catiline when we need him? Or perhaps Spartacus would be a better analogy. We have to do something. Individually, we can improve our lot somewhat by working on our game, studying the material of David DeAngelo, Neil Strauss and the other pickup gurus, but that can only change the order of the hierarchy while the fundamental scarcity of women remains. We can't all be alpha males, by definition. It does not seem to me that the gurus realize this, as evinced by this line from The Game: "By socializing guys like Sasha, Mystery and I were making the world a better place" (p. 87). No, Style, you are not making the world a better place. If Sasha gets lucky, it means some other man will be frustrated instead, and that is just as dangerous. I doubt that there exists a large reservoir of untapped female promiscuity ready to materialize once we all become pickup artists. Perhaps a few spinsters could be converted, but all of us improving will mostly just raise the bar and there will be about the same number of losers as before. To improve the overall situation of men, we have to assault feminism at its core. We must destroy the independence of women which permits them to be so choosy. Of course this means ending welfare and affirmative action, but serial monogamy, which is just as bad as polygamy and has led to a record number of childless men, must also somehow be discouraged by making divorce more difficult. Women will still be hypergamous and men will seek promiscuity, but a kind of sexual egalitarianism will have been brought back when no woman can afford to price herself out of the market. Another strategy is to improve the sex ratio, as Angry Harry is advocating, and that appeals to me even more than restoring monogamy. And why stop at 15%? Let us breed women like cattle! Meanwile, we do still have the option of foreign brides, and that is probably what I will resort to as soon as I can afford it.

I disagree with Devlin's optimism about the tipping point being at hand, that "we have reached the historical moment when we men have the upper hand in the battle of the sexes" (p. 33). The way I see it, we are still in stage two of the sexual revolution -- the reign of terror -- and I think it must get even worse before it can get better. Most men still don't realize what has hit them and many even consider themselves feminists. There has been some reaction, yes -- or you wouldn't be reading this -- but men's activists are still far between and mostly ignored. The men's movement has yet to make the transition into a mass movement, though I concede it could happen at any time and am reasonably confident that it is inevitable. The feminists are still able to pass any law they wish without significant outcry from men. The persecution of men is currently only limited by the imagination of the feminists, as we shall see.

While the other evils of feminism of course also deserve attention, the number one priority of the men's movement should be to fight the feminist definition of rape, in my view. At least this is what enrages me the most, along with their constant assaults on the justice system to bring juries into line with the corrupt laws already passed (Norwegian feminists are even lobbying for abolishing the jury in rape trials in order to boost convictions). In the latest further corruption of British justice, video recordings of statements made to police by alleged rape victims can now be used as their main evidence in court. The feminists at the BBC censored out my comment to this article, so I shall publish it here instead:

This further corruption of justice may help to increase the conviction rate for a while, but it will also help to increase the amount of hostility towards not just feminists (who deserve it) but all women, and hopefully there will be a devastating backlash sooner or later. There is a limit to how far you can go before men will fight back. Personally, I lost sympathy for "rape" victims long ago. It is impossible to take rape seriously the way the feminists have redefined it, and the "justice" system is now clearly just a special interest group for the feminists, or it would be concerned with getting at the truth rather than simply finding ways to convict as many men as possible based on the assumption that everyone accused is guilty, and probably all the rest of us too.

Eivind Berge
Bergen, Norway