EIVIND BERGE: Pro-rape advocate & pals
So apparently there are pro-rape advocates in the world. I’m not talking, men and women who come up with weak excuses for this or that specific rape. I’m not talking, “well she was a slut…” or “well she was a temptress dressing that way…”. I’m talking, actually advocating that women be raped. Don’t believe me? His entire post:
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.
No, Eivind Not-A-Misogynist-Really Berge, it is not about time. I’m not going to link to his blog, if you want the URL ask me or just Google the quote above. He doesn’t deserve more attention. Looking through his blog, however, there are some things of note: Eivind Berge does not think rape can be considered rape unless the woman (and he believes only women can be raped) resists to the best of her ability (nevermind if she is unable to give consent, not in a state of mind in which she can give consent, or is being threatened or coerced). He states repeatedly on his blog that women have value as sex objects and nothing more.
The post itself is a year old, but points to a larger problem. There are quite a few people who apparently agree with our wannabe rapist, even going so far as to give him tips on picking up girls – which is tantamount to knowingly assisting with rape (since he has declared his position that all women must be raped, and he himself whines often on his blog of not getting any). He further claims that no one has proved him wrong. I find that hard to believe, after all, if you’re capable of convincing yourself that rape is not only okay but should be done, there’s really not any way to convince you otherwise.
And quick note: I sincerely hope this guy gets raped. Not by women, because he’s made it rather clear he’d take any woman because he’s so desperate, and wouldn’t view it as rape. No, I hope an entire prison worth of men takes their sexual frustration out on them. I’m sure you’ll agree with me on that one. Read on for a dissection of his argument, information about the guy and his misogynist pals, and how to help prevent this creep from taking his pro-rape views out on any women.
Why Eivind Berge is dead wrong
Eivind Berge’s entire argument basically revolves around “well this psychiatrist guy wrote this article with a title that sounds like it supports my position so I’m right”. The article he links to essentially declares this:
A heterosexual community can be analyzed as a marketplace in which men seek to acquire sex from women by offering other resources in exchange. Societies will therefore define gender roles as if women are sellers and men buyers of sex. Societies will endow female sexuality, but not male sexuality, with value (as in virginity, fidelity, chastity).
The article he links to, however, does not come to the conclusion that rape is justified—yet Eivind says that the article itself makes such a good case for rape that it must include a disclaimer. He is attempting to say that just by reading the findings, you should find rape justifiable. Yet the psychologist who wrote the article does not even find rape justifiable. This is like pointing to the Bible to say genocide is wrong then being reminded the Bible happily suggests it.
But let’s get to it. Aside from expecting that article to do all his debating for him, Eivind Berge’s entire argument is essentially:
-
A woman’s value is as a sex object, while a man’s value is in his economic power.
-
Feminism is unjustly and forcefully taking economic power from men.
-
Women do not provide sex for men whose economic worth is less than theirs, thus, men are being deprived of sex.
-
Because men (presumably) have a right to women’s bodies, and because that right is being taken forcefully due to their lowered economic status, it is only fair that they forcefully take women’s bodies.
We got all that? Let’s tackle this shit. First, a few quick notes:
-
Eivind Berge focuses entirely on heterosexual-heterosexual rape. Presumably, he thinks he also has a right to the bodies of lesbians whose “sexual worth” was never his to take. I am curious if he thinks male-male rape is rape.
-
He believes rape is only rape if the victim, a woman, is resisting to the best of her ability. He does not believe violence, coercion, drugs, childhood innocence, etc, come into the equation. Consent is not necessary in his opinion. However, he doesn’t think it’s possible for a woman to rape a man – he argues this by saying that men would consent to any sex (why hello there double standard) and apparently ignoring the possibility that a man might not consent despite being aroused (Viagra, physical arousal vs. saying NO). This is important to keep in mind when it comes to his argument that women should be raped because, in setting a double standard when it comes to what is rape for a man and what is rape for a woman, he acknowledges that women desire sex of their own accord and without desire for a man’s wealth.
Eivind Berge’s argument hinges on double standards, false assumptions, and worse, a complete and total lack of morality. As appeals to morality will do no good here, let’s focus on the argument itself. His argument also apparently rests on a false definition of rape, judging by his other posts. Rape is not sexual intercourse where the woman is resisting to the best of her ability. Rape is sexual intercourse without consent. That is the nearly universal definition, accepted by just about…everyone, and includes sexual intercourse where one party is coerced or unable to give real consent.
Gender resources are social constructs
What women have that men don’t is of course sex. If anyone doubts that sex is a female resource…
Women’s worth lying in their nether regions is, let’s make this clear, a social construct. Specifically, a social construct which was created by men, perpetuated by men, and is now being defended by men. The article which Eivind links to analyzes the current state of gender roles in most societies (Eivind happily ignores gender equal or matriarchal societies as they do not fit into his worldview), and Eivind uses the nice, authoritative sound of a psychologist’s findings to make his point sound stronger than it truly is.
Let’s get this straight: it’s not exactly a revelation that women’s bodies are traded for wealth. This is the general model for how society expects relationships to work. It is, however, just that: a model, a social construct. Male sexuality has no worth in society because those it is of no worth to those in power, ie men. Eivind, as a heterosexual male (aha! So that’s why his link specified heterosexual society) has no desire for cock. He is not willing to pay for it, or make any effort for it, and he would surely cry crocodile tears if it were forced upon him. Would he change his mind if the cock in question were attached to a wealthy business owner, and he were a single father in need of cash? Quite possibly. Does this mean Eivind’s only worth is as a sex object? After all, Eivind is just as capable of being valuable in other ways.
By equalizing economic worth, feminists are equalizing other forms of worth as well. As I’ll mention below, the slow increase of sexual harassment in the workplace with women as the perps and men as the victims greatly weakens Eivid’s argument.
Even though women filing charges makes up the bulk of the EEOC’s sexual harassment workload, men are becoming a bigger piece of the pie, with nearly 2000 filing charges last year…
It’s been well known for a while that women have begun to sexually harass men and make advances in the workplace towards men, abusing their higher economic power just as men have done the past thousand years or so. Why Eivind is not in the know remains unclear. What isn’t unclear is that when men’s economic power is reduced, women are happy to use their own economic power to get sex from men. This proves that when men women gain economic status instead of men, men are not left worthless—their social worth is simply different. In fact, if, as Eivind argues elsewhere on his blog, “men cannot not want sex, they will happily take anything”. If this is the case, perhaps Eivind should be celebrating the fact that economic equality leads to sexual equality and some insane woman might see him as worth anything.
Feminism unjustly takes wealth from men
This is probably the most clearly misogyny-driven claim in Eivind Berge’s argument. The old model (of: society only recognizes women’s value as sex objects and prevents them from having any wealth or power) is being dismantled by the feminists Eivind hates so. In freeing up positions for women, feminists are ending the system of legal prostitution (ie: marriage) in which women had no choice but to give their bodies in exchange for the ability to have food on the table. We are in a period of transition: many women and men still expect women to trade their bodies for sex because it has only been a decade or two since those ideals started being challenged. At the same time, many don’t want that at all.
Wealth represents (note: represents, not is, wealth is a social construct as well) access to resources that provide political power and a longer, happier life. Sex is an action resulting from biological lust, socially, it touches upon countless socially constructed meanings. To take wealth to the point where it harms a person is violence, but to deny wealth or power not to the point of harm is not violence. Rape is always violence.
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.
I doubt that. It seems more likely Eivind has simply ignored them. As a libertarian, he has already rejected their argument. The problem is of course, as mentioned above, that affirmative action is part of ending a system in which women were in the position men are now finding themselves getting an inkling of. Namely, men have long used affirmative action to maintain a monopoly on wealth, and thus a monopoly on women’s sexual value as well. Men’s monopoly on power and wealth means that, regardless of merit, it is more difficult for women to reach the same positions as a man. And of course it is—they are the ones doing the hiring because they were hired by men. The only way to change this is to allow women equal footing so that affirmative action is someday no longer necessary. Eivind feels affirmative action is wrong, and he has a perfectly valid stance when it comes to that. The problem is that he feels instead of using his voting power to change this, he prefers to use violence and terrorism. That is what rape is—violence. Reducing a groups’ economic status can be as well, if you are lowering wealth to the point of harm. But as men were, and are still, the most economically powerful group, affirmative action does not amount to violence. Rape will always be a very personal act of violence.
Women desire sex, too
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.
This is the most obviously ludicrous claim, and where the argument truly falls apart. “Men get less sex as women get more money and power” is not only entirely unsupported by Eivind, only claimed, it’s obvious bullshit. Women have a sex drive. That is a fact, and one so unquestioned I’m shocked Eivind chose to link to an already established fact and not to something which supports this assumption of his. Eivind admits to having little experience with women, so it’s no wonder. But I guess he’s never heard of that whole sexual harassment by women thing. You know, that destroyed his whole Or maybe he has and just ignores it, after all he’s of the opinion that no man could ever not want a woman. Men, I know that isn’t true.
And whoops—it looks like Eivind’s slyly admitting something isn’t quite right with his argument. Women are generally incapable of feeling attraction for men who are not better (misogyny much? I think you meant wealthier), he says. Yet he advocates rape against all women, and admits in saying this that it is not in fact in women’s nature to be hypergamous at all. Yes, Eivind—what you are in fact referring to is not only the fact that women’s personalities differ but that the times, they are a-changin’.
Even if men did have a right to women’s bodies, Eivind acts as if women have no sex drive of their own and must in fact have their clitorises stroked with $100 bills to have any interest in a man at all. While many women still seek out wealthy partners (and why not? society both denies them and does not expect them to provide for themselves, and expects them to sell themselves—and research has time and time again proven that human beings act as they are expected to. So stop pressuring us!) and marriage is certainly an economic arrangement, the reasons are social.
The idea that women won’t put out at all as a result of their newfound wealth, however, is downright stupid. Feminism has resulted in the ability for women to have freer sexual lives – if anything, Eivind should be kissing the feet of women’s equality for allowing women to have premarital sex with creeps such as himself. Note this: Marriage is an economic arrangement. Even dating is a form of prostitution if it is performed in the same old, patriarchal system of man-provides-money-woman-puts-out. Yet this is so often not the case, and women continue to have sex outside of economic arrangements, without desiring marriage
Oh, look—the very psychologist Eivind’s argument depends on notes that female sexuality is culturally malleable. Meaning, that if society stopped acting like women’s worth lay in their vaginas and men’s worth lay in their pocketbooks, Eivind’s problem would be a non-problem.
Responding to controversies about the balance between nature and culture in determining human sexuality, the author proposes that the female sex drive is more malleable than the male in response to socio-cultural and situational factors. A large assortment of evidence supports 3 predictions based on the hypothesis of female erotic plasticity: (a) Individual women will exhibit more variation across time than men in sexual behavior, (b) female sexuality will exhibit larger effects than male in response to most specific sociocultural variables, and (c) sexual attitude-behavior consistency will be lower for women than men.
So what does that mean? If women are economically equal to men, and as a result are no longer forced to barter the only thing men feel they need from them, women will no longer barter their sexuality. The day men stop treating us as sexual objects is the day women stop treating men as blank checks. But men seem to be in no hurry to do so. It is feminists who are giving men increased social worth by making them more than a checkbook. But leave it to a libertarian to think only in terms of monetary value.
If taken to it’s logical end…a conclusion
If his logic is taken further, this means force is a fair and just solution to discrimination. While Eivind only wants to apply this one way (because he assumes that the power given to white, able-bodied men is deserved), he is in fact making a case for (his view of) affirmative action, which he claims is the reason for his pro-rape position in the first place. If he views forcefully taking something from another person as a justifiable reaction to having one’s economic status and power kept low, then surely he can see the reason those who are not white males feel justified in using (what he sees as) force to gain economic power. It is not that women or minorities are incapable or undeserving of the positions men currently hold. Men have consistently used force to prevent women from having any power, economic or political. By his own admission, force to undo that effect is entirely justified. I’m curious is Eivind feels violence against those who caused the recession—thus lowering men’s economic status, and even moreso women’s—should be violently punished. That wouldn’t be very libertarian of him, would it?
Pals? What pals?
Yes, there are sick bastards who agree with Eivind and even give him tips on meeting women. You need only look, though I suggest you not give him the rise in visits.
And we’re almost done…it’s just, censorship’s a bad idea
So apparently the folks at Jezebel or some such want to have this creep’s blog shut down and have him censored. This is a very, very, very bad idea imo. As pointed out below, this guy is a rape waiting to happen. Making sure future employers/women in his life are aware of his pro-rape position is important—those willing to agree with him already exist and will do so regardless of whether or not he’s shut down. If anything, he does more to help the feminist cause than hurt it, and keeping his site up only serves to harm him.
Taking action
Eivind Berge advocates rape and believes that men have an inherent right to women’s bodies. Further, he believes that rape is not rape unless the woman is resisting to the best of her ability—meaning, he does not feel using coercion, physical violence, drugs, childhood innocence, etc, amounts to rape. He’s made it clear he’s actively looking for sex. Even more insane is that several readers of his blog want to help him. This is a rape waiting to happen, so I have no problem posting his face, full name, information, and words in Norwegian to prevent any women from having to experience his pro-rape position personally. Googling his name does lead to his blog, however, it’s all in English – which is rather convenient for this son of a bitch. Because of this, I’ve posted his words in Norwegian below, and would appreciate spreading the link to get it further up Google. Eivind Berge (it’s unclear if that’s his actual name or a reference to the place he lives in, but I’m going with what I’ve got here as Amazon.com declares it is in fact his real name) lives in Bergen, Norway, and goes under the pseudonyms easyei and Arpagus. He tweets, goes to the University of Bergen, and has a FaceBook profile. And I sure hope he doesn’t mind this – after all, he’s advocating I be fucking raped.
EIVIND BERGE:Voldtekt er likestilling
Når menn har noe kvinner har mindre av, for eksempel penger eller makt, kvinner bare ta det med makt. Det kalles likestilling og feminister tror det er riktig. Jeg har ikke tenkt å argumentere mot det. Jeg aksepterer det som en tapt sak. Så i stedet skal jeg omfavne tvunget likestilling og krever det for menn også. Hva kvinner har som menn ikke er selvfølgelig sex. Hvis noen tviler på at sex er en kvinnelig ressurs, gå hit og be om PDF-filen Baumeister, RF & Vohs, K.D. (2004). Seksuell Økonomi: Sex som Kvinne Ressurssenter for Exchange i Heterosexual interaksjoner. Personlighet og sosial psykologi Review, 8, 339-363. I lys av feminisme, eller hvis du tror på likestilling, gjør denne saken så overbevisende sak for voldtekt som Baumeister følte seg forpliktet til å inkludere otiose forbehold, "Vår analyse bør på ingen måte tolkes som unnskylde seksuel
l tvang og vi roundly fordømmer en slik handlinger." Så la oss gi kvinner likestilling hvis det er det de virkelig ønsker. Husk at på grunn av hypergamous natur kvinner, menn får mindre sex som kvinner får mer penger og makt. Kvinner er generelt ute av stand til å f øle tiltrekning til menn som ikke er bedre enn de er, og snart menn er ikke bedre enn like. Så det er på tide menn i feministisk land som Norge slutte å tenke på voldtekt som galt. Jeg har tidligere argumentert for dette punktet e.g. her som Arpagus, og ingen har vært i stand til å begrunne hvorfor kvotering er rett når det fordeler kvinner og menn gjør vondt, men er galt når den hjelper menn og kvinner gjør vondt.
No! You can’t wish rape on anyone no matter how much of an asshole the person is. That’s pretty much saying some people deserve to get raped. No one deserves that. Just saying.
I’m…speechless.
It’s not that he’s an asshole, it’s that he’s advocating all women be raped and likely will himself commit rape. That goes so far beyond asshole.
Ok so asshole is an understatement. But, if you wish rape on someone because they are an awful person, isn’t that admitting some people deserved to be raped? It’s like the actions of that person doesn’t determine whether or not that person is raped…Get me? It’s the same kind of logic people use when they try to justify the rape of women. Plenty of men are raped in jail and they do horrific things too, should we disregard the violence that occurs in prison because these people are already bad? I sound a little redundant but you get what I’m saying.
Yup, I get what you mean, and I don’t think people deserve rape or violence just for being bad. I just have a point at which I stop feeling sympathy for a person getting what they do to others, and this guy has gotten past that point. Logical? Not really, but when someone says that I, personally, should be raped, as he is saying about all women, I really can’t find myself caring.
How the hell do you find these people? Damn, this guy is a sick fuck.
Yes, I hope he get’s himself in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison and meets all the nice young lads in there.
Fuckin’ eh.
I don’t know how, Doug. There’s too many of them. :(
One has to wonder how so many right-libertarians end up being misogynists of a monumental scale. And then they wonder why there’s so few women in their movement.
Cheers for this post. So many great quotes.
I’m curious as well. There are certainly libertarians I respect who I know would find this abhorrent. I guess libertarianism holds a special attraction to white men who feel oppressed, which is going to include any misogynist.
The core principle of libertarianism is called the non-aggression principle — that it’s always wrong to initiate force or fraud. So what this schmuck is saying is completely antithetical to libertarianism. And as a libertarian, I disagree that it’s a movement given to misogyny. That’s not my direct observation, and as evidence, consider that the first electoral vote ever received by a woman was for Toni Nathan, the Libertarian Party VP candidate in 1972.
Female sexuality is more malleable than male sexuality, but it isn’t so malleable that women can be like men in their sexual mentality. And men will hardly change at all. Of course women often enjoy sex too, but women are by nature so profoundly less eager to have sex than men, and with so many fewer partners, that sex will always be a female resource. The double standard is based on reality. It is not a social construct. All of this has been confirmed once again in a recent study:
http://tinyurl.com/interpersona
Abstract
Despite highly replicable predictable differences between the sexes on various sexual desires and attitudes, critics of evolutionary perspectives argue against the biological origins of such differences, highlighting cultural explanations. Critics suggest that there are no cross-cultural evolutionary predictable, systematic differences. Eagly and Wood (1999) suggest that in egalitarian cultures sex differences will be small or disappear. We tested whether Trivers’ (1972) Parental Investment Theory and Buss and Schmitt’s (1993) Sexual Strategies Theory predicted sex differences in sexuality within samples of students (N=1072) in egalitarian Norway. We expected similar interest in long-term relationships, but that females seek short-term partners less than males. Furthermore, males were expected to have less restricted sociosexuality, fantasize more, take more initiative to sex and be less satisfied with frequency of sex. The predictions were supported in the evolutionarily-predicted directions. Clinical consequences of claiming there are no sex differences in sexuality, when indeed they exist, are discussed.
Ah, the wannabe rapist himself. I’m curious why you narrowed your response down to one offhand quote instead of any of the larger points being made.
“Female sexuality is more malleable than male sexuality, but it isn’t so malleable that women can be like men in their sexual mentality. And men will hardly change at all.”
Oh, really? You seem to be content to pull assumptions out of your ass. I’ve pointed to examples of role reversal in which women want to provide economic status in exchange for male sexuality. Examples of women being like men in their sexual mentality. And men resisting being violated, as women have for centuries.
“Of course women often enjoy sex too, but women are by nature so profoundly less eager to have sex than men…”
Bullshit.
“…and with so many fewer partners, that sex will always be a female resource. The double standard is based on reality.”
Also bullshit.
Let’s get this straight: You are not a woman. As you’ve made it clear, you (thankfully) have little experience with women.
“It is not a social construct.”
I realize as a libertarian you view the social construct of economics, for example, as being just as real as anything you can touch. Value, rights, meaning, roles, expectations, symbolism, systems, all of these are social constructs. If women’s sexuality is based on culture, their sexuality is part of a (male-created) social construct.
“All of this has been confirmed once again in a recent study…”
You fail to show where in the study it actually confirms what you’re saying. Just as you did in the other study. The entire point of linking to a study shouldn’t be to name drop and make your position look stronger, it’s to provide real evidence–I’m finding none in said study. Perhaps you are relying on the fact that no one is going to go through a nine-thousand word study and will instead take your word for it. No luck. You can go ahead and pull out the quotes that prove your point and then we can talk.
I wonder if his blog was protected before you posted this article ;)
No wait, that’s a different blog. Does he have two of them?
I don’t have time to reply to all your points now, but will say that men resisting women sexually or alleging sexual harassment are not fit to be called men. It is not surprising that men will also sometimes try to exploit a system that rewards claims of sexual harassment, but that does not mean it can be taken seriously. Any man who complains of too much sexual attention from women, even forcible “rape,” needs to be mocked and ridiculed and I would personally spit in his face. Sex is a female resource, and any male getting it from a woman is categorically lucky, period.
Yea, sure you don’t have time. You do have time to zero in on all the most irrelevant/weakest of points to the argument, I notice.
So, I’m guessing you’d totally do these girls.
http://www.google.com/images?q=ugliest+woman+alive&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=MhAETLbbHI-MNuPJ_Ts&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQsAQwAA
Shall I give them a call and send them your way?
You are aware that retorting to the “that’s not masculine” strategy just really shows your own insecurity with your own gender identity?
Is this manly?
http://goodjobbb.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/6a00d834527ec969e200e5523608128834-800wi.jpg
Or this?
http://backseatcuddler.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/brad-pitt-beach.jpg
Or this?
http://images.starpulse.com/Photos/Previews/Tokio-Hotel-m08.jpg
Or this?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v422/neitaro/hyde/hyde96.jpg
Or this?
http://hannamalmsten.blogg.se/images/2009/bodybuilder_48253792.jpg
Or this?
http://www.metal-archives.com/images/1/4/6/146_photo.jpg
These are all MEN and HOW THEY PERCEIVE MASCULINITY.
It should be noted that 2, 3 and 4 are characterized as ATTRACTIVE in the eyes of women. Since you seem to reject to being characterized as beautiful, no wonder you are having problem finding any woman to like you. But on the other hand, I also find it hard to see how a woman could like a man who claims that all women deserve to be raped. You’re kind of stuck in a descending circle there, since if no woman would like to be with you, which I can quite understand why they wouldn’t, then it must mean that all women are asexual and the only way for you to get sex in your head, is when you would force yourself upon one. Which in turn means that no woman will ever want to be with you. You seriously need to see a shrink.
But really. You just got a problem with how patriarchy is being questioned, because it makes you lose your sense of stability in your life. I bet that you are going to classify all the men I just linked as unamnly in one or another way, except the last picture. If you would even bothered to look at them, which I doubt.
I guess what masculinity is, is such a sure thing that it must be constantly policed and reinforced by society, eh?
Sanna, you’re my new favorite person. Will you have my babies?
Eivind’s made it kind of obvious that he’s rather desperate as far as women goes, so I guess his desire to have sex with any woman and claim that rape is alright is his way of lashing out. I suggest he watch “Tough Guise”.
Great debunking. I do object to ONE thing, namely when you say that sex is based on sexual drive. You keep talking about social constructs but yet you assume that sexual drive is unproblematic (you mention nothing about it, at least). But I’d argue that sexual drive is a social construct too. Let me explain. The Western/European society has developed to justify many social constructs based on science and even more so, evolution and biology. When we talk about sex, sexual needs, sexual pleasure, they are all incorporated into our views of gender. I therefore see no reason to separate sex and gender because sex, sexual pleasure and sex drive are also a part of our gender constructs. I find it highly questionable whether we can truly say that it is natural for humans to sexually desire. What I mean here is that there are examples of tribes where couples abstain from sex during several years, and I also wish to bring up the fact that I’d consider our (i.e., Euro-American/Western) society hypersexual, in that we should all actively seek sexual pleasure and have sexual desires ALL THE TIME (up to a certain age point at least, but now that seems to be changing too). This is based on an assumption that humans are inherently craving and needing sex for pleasure.
Furthermore, sex appeal comes with social status, and social status increases with economic status. I mean, just look at such shows as Sex and the City. What I am trying to say is that humans (women) are not devalued as sex objects as their economic status increases which in turn would make them equal to men (although they are undoubtly more equal now), what I mean is that women are still valued as sex objects and valued even more so the higher social status they got (and they always have had). Same applies to men as well. Cinderella anyone? So in reality I see nothing being changed in terms of women being viewed as sex objects, sadly. And it probably won’t as long as our society will argue that hypersexualization is a good thing. So what I was really trying to say with all this is that I doubt whether sexual desire is really that natural as we’d like to think. I of course do believe that scientists who study biology are very much victims of these cultural assumptions as well, so of course I also question their findings whether it is truly natural. It’s just that humans are so different all over the planet and it’s always possible to find some kind of deviation I just highly question everything when people state it as something “natural”. By the way, I can strongly recommend you trying to get ahold of Iida Yumiko’s article “Beyond the feminization of masculinity”: Transforming patriarchy with the “feminine” in contemporary Japanese youth culture. It discusses how both men and women are turned into objects in great detail.
Thanks for the comment! You make a good point, and I’ll definitely check out that link. What you say makes sense and declaring certain traits as natural–when it is so difficult to see the lines between biological and cultural causes–is true enough. Sexuality is a lot more cultural than I’ve given it credit. An example I’ve read about jumps to mind, in that Chinese men (I’m unsure if they still do and doubt it) had what we would probably consider a fetish for tiny (still wrapped) feet, down to incorporating it into sex and finding it erotic. Male sexuality is malleable, too, then. But anyway–thanks for correcting me, you’re completely right.
Rape would probably just make him more of a bitter sociopath. It would be better for him to be locked up for life so he wouldn’t be a threat to anybody. Of course if he could be re-educated there might be a chance for him, especially considering how young he is…
It is interesting you bring up Chinese men as an example of sexual desire, because it makes me think back of one of my very first anthropology classes about this very topic. You are however absolutely right in that it was a fetish among men which cannot be directly linked to phsyical needs, since the custom has more or less been banned as physical abuse. It might happen in some very rural areas of China still, but since the feet were bound on women who were mostly of a high social status (again, status and sex appeal come together) and these women are usually living in the urban city areas now, I’d say the chance it is still going on is nil. And it’s also a great example of how humans also CONSCIOUSLY CHOOSE to change what we find attractive (plenty of examples here in the West, too, like how thin women are preferred now over chubby ones). Speaking more about this subject, you ought to check out Don Kulick’s ethnography of the travesti, http://www.amazon.com/Travesti-Brazilian-Transgendered-Prostitutes-Sexuality/dp/0226461009/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275337991&sr=8-1 The most interesting part to note with them are their boyfrinds who DO NOT perceive themselves as homosexual. Yet these people would clearly be defined as homosexual outside the South-American context.
Ohhhh curse you, I’m going to have a hell of a time resisting the temptation to buy that. :P
When you get down to it, the examples are countless, including Ancient Greece. I’ve read about societies where homosexuality is the norm for most of the year, etc…which makes me curious. If Eivind claims to not care who he’s getting sex from, why does he care that it be a woman? If appearance has nothing to do with it, does he draw a line when there are male genitals attached to the woman? What about age? Clearly he does not view taking advantage of a child as rape, so I can see no reason he could find that could explain why (I am sure) he would find intercourse with a child objectionable. After all, he’s a real man.
Depends on in what shapes and colors they come in! Because you know, I’d prefer the kind of blue round type, if you know what I’m sayin’?
More on topic, you might want to be interested to check out more about “the crisis of masculinity”. There’s some information written on the topic. I have a fetish for masculinity studies, actually. Could be because of my part queerness.
Yes, I would totally do those girls. Or at least, I would never accuse any of them of rape if they forced me.
As to the pictures of masculinity that Sanna posted, what does that have to do with it? Masculinity can be expressed in diverse ways, but human nature is more of a coloring book than a blank slate. Certain things are pretty much fixed for the culture as a whole. There are no societies where women are eager to sleep with just about anyone like men are, or where sex is a male resource and men worry about being raped by women, and it isn’t possible. You say I probably won’t get laid because my views are so revolting. But if even a tiny minority of women could be anywhere near as slutty as the average man, I would have no problem. I never heard of a man refusing to sleep with a woman because of her opinions. All we care about are women’s bodies, at least for casual sex, and I can’t even get that.
This is where I got that coloring book analogy:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-murder-and-the-meaning-life/200911/the-mind-coloring-book
Be sure to read part two for the answer. Men preferring old widows over young nubile women is another thing that won’t happen, because sex is not a social construct.
If you do not think that there are women desperate and/or slutty enough to sleep with any man, you have not dropped your standards enough. Similarly, there’s a lot of men (including me) who would definitely NOT sleep with anything that breathes and has a vagina.
Seriously dude, your worldview is completely unrealistic.
(Still don’t have enough time to actually respond to the post, but can keep commenting, hm?)
I don’t think anyone here disputes the ‘coloring book’ thing — obviously biology plays a huge role. Yet you’ve just gone and essentially admitted that it is not so simple. It is not set in stone and, if you’ll read the various examples brought up in the comments log, and in my post…but I guess you don’t have enough time for that.
Still curious where you draw the line for who and what you’d fuck. I know there’s a line, but I wonder how honest you’re being.
“Yes, I would totally do those girls. Or at least, I would never accuse any of them of rape if they forced me.”
I smell a bit of a contradiction here. First you say would have sex with them. Then you change your mind and say that you wouldn’t necessarily have sex with them, but you wouldn’t accuse them of rape if they slept with you. As in, you wouldn’t really sleep with them, you just said so so you would appear as more open-minded than you are.
“As to the pictures of masculinity that Sanna posted, what does that have to do with it?”
Because YOU said that you would SPIT ON ANY MAN who would make claims that he would use the rape card. Which very much questions that man’s masculinity and sexuality.
“Certain things are pretty much fixed for the culture as a whole.”
No, certain things aren’t fixed. IDEAS OF THINGS are fixed in some peoples’ minds. The fact that culture is everchanging is proof of no idea being entirely fixed.
“There are no societies where women are eager to sleep with just about anyone like men are, or where sex is a male resource and men worry about being raped by women, and it isn’t possible.”
Bullshit. Of course there are matriarchal societies. Like the one in Thailand where MEN are EXCHANGED FOR PROPERTY WHEN THEY MARRY A WOMAN.
“You say I probably won’t get laid because my views are so revolting. But if even a tiny minority of women could be anywhere near as slutty as the average man, I would have no problem.”
Of course you wouldn’t, since it benefits you. But anyway, our own culture is very good at producing of what you chose to call, slutty women: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_Rehab_With_Dr._Drew
“I never heard of a man refusing to sleep with a woman because of her opinions.”
I have. So what does your comment prove? Nothing.
“All we care about are women’s bodies, at least for casual sex, and I can’t even get that.”
We? Who we? All other men on this planet? I wouldn’t be so quick to speak for every man out there, if I were you.
“Be sure to read part two for the answer. Men preferring old widows over young nubile women is another thing that won’t happen, because sex is not a social construct.”
Yep, like the article you linked yourself? Or like the African tribe where the older the woman, the MORE attractive she is considered?
My Latin teacher told me that homosexuality was quite widespread in Ancient Rome and linked it to that men actually had to be naked while they participated in the Olympic Games and triathlon. Rather speculative though.
And why limit yourself to children, even infants? I mean, elderly women got the experience. So what their breasts may appear more wrinkled and saggy than busty? Plus, since they got lower estrogen levels, that must mean they are more aggressive in bed, right?! And I mean, animals are very viable too:
Because I am heterosexual and find men viscerally disgusting sexually. this is not a choice and not a social construct for me either.
I am not attracted to prepubescent children, but other than that I have no age limits. I wouldn’t marry a postmenopausal woman, however, though casual sex would still be nice.
Why aren’t you attracted to prepubescent children? After all, you’ve made it clear appearance doesn’t matter at all to you, and so long as it has a vagina it’s fair game. Smells like dishonesty – sounds like appearance does actually matter to you, or you may have some morals somewhere that you’re not admitting to.
Yes it is a social construct, because you were not born in Ancient Greece or something comparable.
Apparently. That’s not the one my post was referring to, though.
My WordPress blog is empty. I just set it up in case the Jezebellers succeed in shutting me down, so I can go on blogging. WordPress is better, anyway.
Another example of why you need to get out more. I’m sure I’m not the only one here who knows this isn’t true.
“At least for casual sex” – oh? Are you admitting that outside of casual sex, women bring more to the table than their vaginas?
“And I can’t even get that.” – are we supposed to feel sorry for you?
You can probably find a woman so old and ugly and/or deformed that I wouldn’t actively pursue her. But from there to conclude that I must consider it possible for women to rape men is bullshit. Men may resist occasionally, but they are not victims and only feminists and idiots acknowledge them as such. There is not any real contradiction here. And my standards for what I would jump on are very, very low. 80-year-old woman? No problem.
No, in fact it is very common in Thailand for men to pay for prostitutes. Local men, not just tourists. They wouldn’t need to do that if sex wasn’t a female resource there as everywhere else. What is better about Thailand is that sex is cheaper there because women don’t have so much equality.
Not good enough so I can have regular sex. I had to pay to lose my virginity at 21 and right now it has been a year since I had sex. In the past six years I have only had three one-night stands and that is all. This could NEVER happen to a woman if she had as low standards as I do.
Except this is not actually the case:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-murder-and-the-meaning-life/200912/the-mind-coloring-book-2
Yet: you admit you have standards. No matter how low they are, even with women, you admit you have standards.
You still can’t find the time to respond, hm…?
Weird.
I honestly have to LoL at this. You’re saying that because you’re so fucking bad at charming up women, even desperate ones, it must the fault of all those feminists which therefore gives you a license to rape?
It couldn’t be something about the common denominator here would it? Nah. You’re perfect, but all those women are after your money afterall.
My, what a very sad little human you are. Grow some fucking introspection.
So now you bring the “but I didn’t get to choose so feel bad about me” argument? If I didn’t know better, I’d thought I would be arguing with a homosexual why they have to justify their homosexuality. Except you aren’t homosexual. Your sexual orientation is normative. The fact that it is normative makes it a social construct, because it posits a sexual relationship between man and woman. It may so be that you may not have chosen to be heterosexual, but your heterosexual orientation and what you think heterosexuality is and what it means, is very much a social construct. There’s nothing inherent in the word heterosexual that it must include a (sexual) relationship between man and woman. In reality heterosexual is just a useless amount of syllables strung together, so what makes heterosexuality heterosexuality is the MEANING YOU ATTACH TO IT. Hence, a social construct.
Are you dense? Little girls don’t have the attributes that make women attractive. They don’t have breasts and curves or a vagina that can accommodate a penis. Not being a pedophile is not “dishonesty.”
I really don’t have time to answer much more for a couple of days. Not because I don’t want to, but because I have to write a paper.
Are you dense? Little girls don’t have the attributes that make women attractive. They don’t have breasts and curves or a vagina that can accommodate a penis. Not being a pedophile is not “dishonesty.”
> Oh, of course. Yet you’ve stated elsewhere that appearance doesn’t matter to you and that you’ll take anything female. You’ve stated that sex from any female is valuable, period. Women with the bodies of ten-year-old girls exist and are common, yet you only care when they’re actually younger? Yea, I’m sorry, but you’re full of crap.
I really don’t have time to answer much more for a couple of days. Not because I don’t want to, but because I have to write a paper.
> Sure.
The reason I’m making a big fuss of this of course is that your claim that appearance doesn’t matter because female sexual worth is always worth something is obviously bullshit. You claim appearance has nothing to do with it, yet it does – you just used it to justify not wanting young females.
Make up your mind.
There is, because first you say you would gladly fuck any of those women on the pictures, then you say you wouldn’t, and even say that those women must force themselves upon you for you to even be remotely close in fucking them. Stop creating strawmen. The question was whether you would be willing to fuck them, not whether they would rape you, whether you would call it rape or whether others would.
Another strawman. I didn’t say Thailand was matriarchal, I said that there is an example of a tribe in Thailand that is. And they still exchange men for property during marriage just like men usually are in other societies. You trying to talk away things doesn’t make it less true.
Which seems to either indicate to a) you live in such an area where there is no local gathering of men and women b) you fail to get in touch in women in such a way they would find you attractive (and you have shown little success so far) or c) you don’t know where to find gathering places where men and women meet.
You also seem more eager to whine about your situation than actively doing anything about it, which isn’t helping you either.
Again, perfect strawman example. I wasn’t referring to the Tiwi tribe, I was referring to the tribe in Africa. Come again with a psychological study of the construction of family and social organization of that tribe and then I will reconsider.
Plus, what does “height of fertility” mean? Clearly this doesn’t stop many pedophiles to sexually abuse children who aren’t even remotely close to be fertile, sometimes including infants and 2-3 year olds.
I would like to add that I even if you claim to be honest, everything you’ve said so far indicates you’re not. In fact, I do honestly believe that if you would engage in a serious relationship you are quite a nice guy, but somehow you insist on this particular persona which will quite literary scare most women miles away.
So really, you just got these “anti-feminist” sentiments because in reality you got issues with something greater in the system that feminists might express which to me seems very similar to the “crisis of masculinity”. There are plenty of examples that constantly speak against you and your assumption that your views of masculinity would be normative. Stop pretending like you’re a victim. It’s not like Norway is becoming matriarchal or even matrilineal.
Adding something – I’ve already called out Eivind’s claim that women are only attracted to men’s wealth and power. I’d like to go into detail past “women have sex drives”.
First, as a woman I know that’s bull. How good of a mate a man appears is influenced by his power and economic status, yes, to a certain degree, though this varies individually and culturally.
You can’t deny the existence of porn for women, as well as women’s consistent attraction to men in spite of or even because of their lower economic status. Female audience’s attraction to Jack in Titanic, the existence of porn for women, etc. Women consistently get all hot and bothered over just a picture of an anonymous, bare-chested man. (You’d know this if you actually spoke to women more).
It’s well-acknowledged, for example, that many white women have a race-based sexual attraction to the image of black men specifically (in addition to normal attraction) in America, despite American black men being regarded (and actually) at significant economic disadvantages. Part of the attraction also has to do with perceptions of black men as hyper-masculine, despite the economic disadvantages.
To women, male sexuality does have value. To a woman who has nothing, being able to eat and survive is more important than her sex drive. To a woman who has some wealth, economic power can be a substitute for sexual value, or it can complement sexual value.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
If a woman trades her sexual body so she can economically sustain herself and get food on the table, it doesn’t mean that she may in fact enjoy the sexual intercourse.
Appearance matters to most men in the minimum requirement of only sexually developed women being acceptable sex partners, and in the sense that not all women are equally desirable. Some command a higher price for their sexuality than others, of course, but all women have a resource in their bodies than men lack. I never said women don’t have a sex drive, but as long as it is much weaker than the male sex drive, there will be a scarcity of female sexuality on the market and sex will be a female resource. The evidence for women’s weaker sex drive is overwhelming. See:
Baumeister, R.F., Catanese, K.R., & Vohs, K.D. (2001). “Is There a Gender Difference in Strength of Sex Drive? Theoretical Views, Conceptual Distinctions, and a Review of Relevant Evidence.” Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 242-273.
http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/pdfmail.php
This is a meta-analysis of thousands of studies, and they all point the same direction. The female sex drive is weaker in every measurable way. This isn’t some cultural accident. Sadly it is real.
“Appearance matters to most men in the minimum requirement of only sexually developed women being acceptable sex partners, and in the sense that not all women are equally desirable.”
Nice dodge, there! It almost looks like you actually address my point, except, you don’t. You still haven’t addressed the disconnect between what you’re saying about all women having SOME sexual value, and little girls not having any (because of how they look). You’re also still ignoring that women are attracted to men for reasons outside of economic power.
“The evidence for women’s weaker sex drive is overwhelming”
So overwhelming you have one example from the same guy who provides all your other examples. What your article doesn’t provide, however, is evidence for your central argument – that women provide less sex in general based on economic power. You also apparently don’t feel the need to account for women who marry or sleep with men of lower economic ranks than themselves.
“You still haven’t addressed the disconnect between what you’re saying about all women having SOME sexual value, and little girls not having any (because of how they look).”
Sure, little girls have SOME sexual value, mostly to a small minority of deviants. I know exceptions and paraphilias exist, but that does not change the fact that the mating market is ruled by women.
“You’re also still ignoring that women are attracted to men for reasons outside of economic power.”
No, just saying economic power and social status are most important by far for most women.
“What your article doesn’t provide, however, is evidence for your central argument – that women provide less sex in general based on economic power.”
To see that women provide less sex as they get more equality, all you have to do is look at how difficult it is to get laid in different countries for men with limited resources. Here in Norway women are so equal that I can only get laid once every two years on average. I have spent some years in the USA, which is less feminist, and women were much less difficult. Most of my sexual experience is from there and in the six years since I returned I have only had sex on three occasions. Similarly the price of prostitutes is much higher here because feminists drive up the cost of sex by giving women so much economic power. In the US I regularly had sex for as little as $30, or even down to $20 on occasion, while here you have to pay at least ten times as much for the cheapest hooker.
Sure, little girls have SOME sexual value, mostly to a small minority of deviants. I know exceptions and paraphilias exist, but that does not change the fact that the mating market is ruled by women.
> So you’re admitting finally that you think young girls have sexual value. Presumably then you advocate they be raped as well. By your logic, parents have the right to rape their children as punishment for their lowered economic status as a result. Presumably, too, you think minorities (and women) and any group which has been forcibly kept from attaining economic and legal power has the right to use violence against their oppressors. I am sorry but by advocating violence as a response to legal oppression, you are advocating the forceful feminism you hate. The only difference is what side you find yourself on. I imagine if you were a white American you would be entirely willing to have minorities use violence against you?
I have spent some years in the USA, which is less feminist, and women were much less difficult.
> Correlation does not equal causation.
Still holding to your claim that you don’t have enough time for the entire argument? You’ve made it clear you have it.
Similarly the price of prostitutes is much higher here because feminists drive up the cost of sex by giving women so much economic power. In the US I regularly had sex for as little as $30, or even down to $20 on occasion, while here you have to pay at least ten times as much for the cheapest hooker.
> First, prove that feminism directly affects the price women are willing to sell their bodies for. It could just as easily be that women in America are more desperate due to poverty or (as has been proven to be fully tied into American prostitution) drug addiction. Women in America are more likely to be desperate single mothers, etc. Second, the price of prostitution, because it operates in it’s own system (and, as pointed out above, has many factors), is barely comparable to the willing and less wealth-based dating game. As also pointed out (which you’ve conveniently ignored) women are attracted to men whose wealth they are not even aware of. When it comes to just sex and not partnership, women are far less interested in a man’s economic status. As pointed out in numerous examples previously which you’ve ignored.
And honestly, will you stop whining about not getting any? The reason women aren’t into you is you’re a dweeby looking guy with the personality of a rock, who obviously doesn’t care about anything but getting laid. It’s not that difficult to pick up on that trait in a guy, trust me.
“By your logic, parents have the right to rape their children as punishment for their lowered economic status as a result.”
Not at all. That would be absurd and does not follow from my logic at all. In fact, by my logic women don’t deserve to be raped until they are 18, because they can’t vote until then, so they bear no responsibility for feminism.
“First, prove that feminism directly affects the price women are willing to sell their bodies for.”
For one thing, I have witnessed a doubling of the minimum price they demand here since feminists criminalized johns (but not whores) two years ago. Secondly, it follows from women being poorer without feminism as you admit yourself. Of course it is also related to other factors like drugs, but feminism is a huge factor. (Not having crack culture makes sex more expensive here, unfortunately. We have a lot of whores addicted to heroin, but that won’t make them so desperate as crack because unlike crack the dose they crave each day is rather limited and can be satiated. A crack whore will be ready to fuck again after smoking all her crack in just a few minutes, while a junkie satisfies her habit with one or two customers each day. This I know all about because I used to have crack whores knocking on my door all the time offering cheap sex, and I loved it.)
“Second, the price of prostitution, because it operates in it’s own system (and, as pointed out above, has many factors), is barely comparable to the willing and less wealth-based dating game.”
No, the price of prostitution is intimately tied to the rest of the mating game, and that is precisely why women tend to be against prostitution and try to criminalize it, as Baumeister has shown. When you limit a cheap substitute, all women can demand a higher price for their services. It trickles up and does not affect just official johns, but even married men. Women can be more difficult when they know men have limited alternative options. In my experience, Norwegian women are ten times more difficult than American women just like the whores are ten times more expensive — a perfect correlation.
“When it comes to just sex and not partnership, women are far less interested in a man’s economic status.”
No, they tend to be even more picky for just sex, requiring the man to be good looking in addition to having high status.
“Still holding to your claim that you don’t have enough time for the entire argument? You’ve made it clear you have it.”
I don’t have time, and now I need to stop procrastinating. I might get back to it on Wednesday, though.
Not at all. That would be absurd and does not follow from my logic at all. In fact, by my logic women don’t deserve to be raped until they are 18, because they can’t vote until then, so they bear no responsibility for feminism.
> Yes, it does follow from your logic. You’re going back on your own argument by saying only women of voting age (convenient) should be punished for what the majority things. Yet that is the exact logic used for affirmative action. You’re agreeing with it. Since YOU benefit from male privilege, as have men in the past, why shouldn’t you be punished? You’re saying women should be punished for benefiting from feminism after all. You don’t get it, do you? Your entire argument validates affirmative action. Good job. Feel free to deal with that problem any time now.
For one thing, I have witnessed a doubling of the minimum price they demand here since feminists criminalized johns (but not whores) two years ago.
> Again, how is that causation and not correlation? Autism’s gone up since vaccines, that hardly means they’re related.
Secondly, it follows from women being poorer without feminism as you admit yourself.
> Cute, but I said poverty, you added the bit about it being feminism with nothing to back it up. Female poverty in America is tied to race, background, single parenthood (I imagine Norway has better policies on birth control, abortion, sex ed, etc) education and drug use, as well as male privilege. I doubt Norway has the racial, capitalist, sex ed, drug, and male privilege problems that we have here.
Not having crack culture makes sex more expensive here, unfortunately.
> Oh look, you admitted I’m right.
No, the price of prostitution is intimately tied to the rest of the mating game, and that is precisely why women tend to be against prostitution and try to criminalize it, as Baumeister has shown.
> This would be less doubtful if many feminists were not FOR the legalization and humane treatment of prostitutes, including myself.
In my experience, Norwegian women are ten times more difficult than American women just like the whores are ten times more expensive — a perfect correlation.
> Except that it’s in your experience only and you admit to having terrible trouble with women (and it’s clear to everyone why). And yes, it is a convenient correlation, except that we’ve established a large number of other reasons for lower prices for prostitution.
Just one more quick comment:
“This would be less doubtful if many feminists were not FOR the legalization and humane treatment of prostitutes, including myself.”
Before the purchase of sex was criminalized here in 2008, we had a very public debate where it was blatantly clear that women and feminists in particular supported this law and made it pass, while men opposed it. And conveniently for women, whores can still legally sell while Norwegian men are criminalized not just in Norway, but abroad too, even in countries where prostitution is legal. At the moment, there is no way I can have sex without being a criminal even in theory, and that means I have that much less to lose be being a rapist instead. Perhaps this will make it clearer where my hatred is coming from. Our feminists don’t even pretend to be doing anything else than oppressing men and driving up the price of sex.
The increased price following the new law is decidedly not just correlation. It was blatantly due to the law and even the feminist media reported this gleefully.
You seriously are one sad of a being. We keep showing the fallacies in your assumptions, yet you keep coming back at it. It is not the women who are faulty, YOU ARE. A normal person would start to consider why no one likes him or her, but with you, if no one likes you, then it’s suddenly the world’s fault for not seeing how awesome you are instead of realizing that well, maybe the reason why no one likes you is because of HOW you are.
And guess what, everything to being a man does not come down to sex. If you think the only way to express your manliness is through heterosexual sex, fine, but don’t make claims others will and don’t blame others for your own fault of finding any.
As for male sexuality always being more prevalent in powerful, no there’s nothing that indicates so would be.
Among many conservative Muslims, it is the WOMAN who is SO DANGEROUS TO HERSELF because of her sexuality, SHE MUST BE SEPARATED FROM OTHER MEN or bad things such as adultery can happen. This is also the most common argument why women should wear veils. A woman will not be able to control herself in the presence of a man, so by covering her whole body it will be harder for her to sexually seduce him. Since the woman’s sexual power of the man is so powerful because of her oversexualized nature, a man will not be able to resist her no matter how much he tries.
Or let’s look at the Edo in Papua New Guinea where couples abstain from sex between 4-6 years. It is not a universal fact that men would have a sexual drive than women or that men or women would be sexually driven at all.
I like how you consistently find the least relevant and weakest part of an argument and zero in on it, and claim you don’t have time for the rest. Very nice. :)
As for criminalizing it for one group and not the other, that is indeed wrong, but I think we both know it does not begin to justify violence.
Yes, clearly if the mainstream media says it’s true, that makes it true. You must agree with everything else they say, then.
Addendum:
It is clear that you possess little to no knowledge about what you are talking about and much of the “knowledge” you do possess you have either derived from a) questionable sources that support your opinions or b) interpreted sources that seem to support your opinion in such a manner that they do support your opinions. You also show a clear lack of insight of the feminist and women’s movements, which undermines your argumentation even more because in reality the only thing you are doing is SPREADING PROPAGANDA, as in misinformed and biased information based on opinions, not facts.
If you would actually be bothered to read about the women’s movements, to study what feminists do and why, then maybe this “discussion” would be far more fruitful for all parties involved. As it is, you keep spouting out completely unrelated and biased comments about how you perceive reality and then make the general and broad assumption that just because I am like this, then all men are like this. Get a grip of yourself. Yes, you do have the right to express your opinions, but to moan like a 17-year-old that you don’t get enough sex on a regular basis is not sound for someone who is closer to the double of that age. All it shows a serious and deep insecurity with who yourself and your own gender identity, but instead of doing something constructive about it like an actual man, you just keep coming back to moan about it since finally, someone is actually giving your moaning some kind of attention, negative or not! Since someone is giving you attention, it must work, right? Correlation is not causation. There may be women out there who find the most attractive thing being a man complaining about how little sex he gets on a regular basis, but I know most women don’t. So grow up please. If you don’t get enough sex, then it is YOUR problem, not anyone elses.
This is me, pointing upwards and then clapping.
Bravo Eivind Berge,
These nut case feminists have to be exposed. They are promoting rapes of men to fulfill their fantasies. Thats this author. You have exposed their mind.
It is time men speak their mind. Some women who like men to be raped deserve rapes! If you are abusive to men, why shouldn’t you get abused! Thats the point Berge made , very relevant in feminist societies.
By that logic then you yourself think Eivind Berge should be raped. Bravo indeed! ;)
Very cute, by the way. I’m pretty sure subs don’t fantasize about men being raped. Iunno…
I liked the rebuttal (although I think no rebuttal is really needed to Berge’s crackpot theories), but I don’t think Berge or the author of this post know what a libertarian is, or they have confined themselves to the American aberration of it (American “libertarians” are just classical liberals with a new sticker).
You cannot argue against rape and then advocate that someone else get raped. This is not something that you can just through around and as a rape survivor I am appalled. I agree that his statements were heinous but then so were yours. You are either against rape in every and all situations or your support it. This is not something you can equivocate on.
Feel that way if you must, Renee, but perhaps you need to think long and hard about what’s really heinous–not even calling this person out on encouraging rape and likely being a rapist himself, or wishing the oppressor get a taste of his own medicine? The world is not black and white–life is more complex than that, sorry.
You could do a little more being appalled at the guy advocating all women be raped and a little less being appalled at the person actively trying to prevent him from being able to rape anyone.
I feel like you’re missing the point. It doesn’t seem to me to be literally supporting rape, but playing devil’s advocate by saying “If X justifies Y, then why not in this case of X and Y?”
Hi
Like Eivind, I am also an anti-feminist from Norway (my English is not as good as Eivind’s as you’ll see).
First of all, like all normal men, I disagree with his views regarding our right to rape women. The moral aspects of this have been discussed a lot in varius forums, som much that he have changed his views on the issue, so I am not going into these.
I also must say that I find Eivind’s pro-rape statements as a tragedy for the anti-feminist movement, because he is a very useful idiot for the feminists. We’ve already seen many examples of femininsts who is using him as an example of a typical anti-feminist, which he most definitly is not. He may become our (the anti-feminists) Valerie Solanas.
But although I think Eivind is too categoric, he has some good points about male vs female sexdrives. Your views on this seem almost religious, in terms of how all quality science, speek against you.
In every specie in the world, the gender which bears the biggest reproductional burdens (usually women), is the pickiest ones. Why
should humans be the only animal that is different from this? And when you look at the crotches of men and women, you’ll see that we are so different that a man’s crotch has more in common with a monkey’s crotch than with a woman’s crotch, and vice versa. Do you really beleive that this doesn’t effect our sexual preferences at all?
I also find it funny that you and your swedish femininst friend critisizes Eivind for using questinable sources that support his views, when you don’t ask one critical question about gender studies by feminists.
Feminist =/= someone who supports gender theories. I am such a person, who would not like to call myself a feminist at all for many different reasons, but I am very interested in gender studies. Furthermore, Eivind DOES use questionable sources when he links to sources solely on the basis of him believing that they support his stance, when they really do not. Furthermore, I do not believe that Eivind is representative of anything more than himself. I have in fact also defended his right to express them in one of my blog posts. I know what the true anti-feminists are like. It just so happened that Eivind seems to agree with some of their opinions.
I would also love to know what you mean when you speak of “quality science”. What is that? Studies showing men to have a naturally higher sex drive? Then why does other just as qualified studies show (such as the anthropological fieldwork done among the Edo) say otherwise? If anything, that proves that it is not right to assume that ALL MEN have a naturally higher sex drive than women. You might be surprised that I am actually quite open-minded about when nature starts and culture takes over, as I often try to update myself of what is going in the field of neuroscience, because it is there we are finding the most cutting edge studies when it comes to our understanding of gender and sex. I am not dismissing biological differences between genders at all, as you seem to assume, and same goes for Yvette. Just because we do not know what is nature and what is culture does not mean that we dismiss nature completely. It just means we do not know. However, compared to other pack animals, humans can CONTROL their behavior beyond what we find to be instincts. If the basis of the argument that men have a stronger sex drive lies on the idea that men cannot control their sex drive as well as women, then the Edo study does show that this argument is faulty.
Also, what do you mean by “pickiest”? That women choose men more carefully than men choose women? Then why is our society so centered about how a woman should look and act like in our modern society? Why is it that women are disqualified if they do not fit this standard?
If anything, it just shows that you do not seem to be up to date with all the studies done when it comes to finding a partner. The most given is that we try to find a partner which will make the gene pool of the offspring as diverse as possible, as to reduce different diseases. What we prefer is thus partially biological. We are born to prefer a person who may for example have grey teeth over white or yellow (if we are ourselves born with white or yellow teeth), because it means a more diverse gene pool. But there are also plenty of studies showing how we pick or partners, and we also possess a preference to pick partners that are similar to our parents of the opposite sex as ourselves. So if a woman is looking for a partner, she will most likely try to find a partner who resembles her father both in terms of personality and/or looks. We also have a tendency to pick partners that look like ourselves. Other biological mechanisms such as smell also play a role, as Yvette showed in the study she linked about pheromones. We also have a tendency to prefer people who release a certain smell over others, which is also biologically determined. Of course, it is also possible to choose a partner completely out of social reasons, such as marrying someone with great wealth (or lack thereof), because of social benefits. To say that either sex would be pickier than the other and ignoring all factors that determine what we find attractive in a partner is least to say, naïve. Just because humans got biological mechanisms controlling us, it does not mean we can reduce human behavior to the biological mechanisms WE SEE FIT. The human psyche and the development of culture are also part of human biological mechanisms. We would not develop a human psyche or culture if we were not biologically determined to do so.
Furthermore, different preferences do not make the other sex necessarily pickier; it just means that we look for different things in a partner.
I do not understand your analogy to chimpanzees. Are you saying that just because male chimpanzees got different reproductive organs than the female ones, and that these organs are more similar to that of a man’s than a woman’s, it must indicate that humans behave exactly the same way chimpanzees do? Yes, you are right in that we probably DID, when there was little to no difference between the early human species and chimpanzees, but compared to chimpanzees, humans have come to develop very complex cultural expressions. I am not saying that chimpanzees do not possess some kind of culture, they do, but it is simply not as complex as humans’. Masturbating in public is not something chimpanzees generally are ashamed of, for example. Because of humans having such complex cultures, it is quite naïve to assume that one can draw an exact analogy between chimpanzee behavior and human behavior without solid and rigorous studies of both races. Even though there is only a mere 2% genetic difference, that genetic difference is so huge that it should not be dismissed, because when it comes to human DNA, it means hundreds of genes that are different to chimpanzees. This means that while the study of chimpanzees can say a lot about humans, it cannot say ALL THERE IS TO HUMAN BEHAVIOR. Only a PART of it. To understand humans we must primarily study humans.
Lastly, I do not dismiss critique raised against gender studies, and it should be noted that the anti-feminists are good at raising any valid ones that don’t border beyond ridicule. When anti-feminists claim that failure to live up to heteronormativity means a decline in the study results of children with no studies to back it up, then I WILL laugh. On the contrary, a recent American study has now shown that children to lesbian (and other well-planned families, such as children to adoptive parents) actually perform better in school than their peers. I am much more willing to listen to the neuroscientists who at least got some evidence behind their claims, so again, stop drawing false assumptions. Just because I support a theory it does not mean that I am not aware of its weaknesses.
So stop assume things about me and Yvette which are not true. Instead maybe you should spend that energy on learning how to debate properly, as you are even worse than Eivind are.
I typo’d in my 7th paragraph. It should be “Lastly, I do not miss critique raised against gender studies, but it should be noted that the anti-feminists are very good at raising valid ones that do not border to the ridicule”.
I have now answered the rest of your points here: http://eivindberge.blogspot.com/2010/06/reply-to-yvette-lessard.html
It took him nearly a month and a prompt, but Eivind Berge has finally replied on his blog to Yvette’s original post.
http://eivindberge.blogspot.com/2010/06/reply-to-yvette-lessard.html
Sample quote: “Having sex with an unconscious woman is not rape unless the rapist forcibly put her in that state with the purpose of accomplishing sex with her.”
hello, my name is john halder.
might as well throw my 2 cents in.
firstly,i GOTTA get to thailand.apparently, $200 usd and youre good to go for a a month. wow, i knew norway is expensive, but oslo, currently #2,tokyo#1 most expensive cities in the world and 2 more norwegian cities are in the the top 30 most expensive.
$43 for lunch in oslo. wow. no wonder the whores are so expensive. jesus
eivind, i had no idea you had spent years here in the u.s and you say it’s better than norway concerning the feminist madness?
wow.i just assumed the u.s was the worst in THAT category,the u.s being the birthplace of it. looks like norwegian women have ran with it.
isnt rape the #1 female sexual fantasy? that’s what i’ve heard, read for decades.
i have not so great news for you gals,
sex is a mans BIRTHRIGHT.
deal with it, that’s not ‘opinion’ that is fact.
yep, even in the west. SOME things are actual fact.
were HERE to fuck and eat. hate to dissapoint you ladies, but there it is.
it’s UNNATURAL to not have sex.
what has civilization and america taught me? us?
you TAKE what you want.
in fact, the greedy wall street rats have proven the MORE you take, the better,
here’s the thing. you women have NO idea,apparently, what damage you are doing to men
and what have you got in response?
it’s YOUR fault.feminist shaming language i’ve endured all my life.
your misandry bubble will bust, eventually.
in the meantime, the cops, who have to listen to all your false rape fables will also protect you from real rapes, in that i wont rape you females, because:
a. youre not worth the energy
b. youre not worth me doing a DAY in jail
c. now if the cops would look the other way… ahh fuckit, i’ll just book my thailand trip.but go on believing it’s just a few ‘crazies’ out there.
nope. its merely 100′s of millions of men very unhappy with this radical feminist agenda.
indian men, are getting hit with this crap now. on twitter they are large in number and angry.
you demand ‘proof’ and credible stats from eivind, yet you believe rainn, now, feministing’s totally made up. patently ridiculous long ago debunked ‘rape’ and dv stats. 1 in 4? ha
and you of, course, swallow hook and sinker the lie that rape is NOT about sex, but about violence and control?
wrong again. i rape one of you, it’s to bust a nut, period.i’ll only hit you if you ask me too, being that rape is your #1 sexual fantasy.
in the meantime, you gals need to calm down
hell those heroic marines arent just killing babie sand pregnant women every hour in iraq and afghanistan, they are also raping like wild! and they get medals for this stuff.meanwhile, im seriously hoping van der sloot gets out soon. i know you women love him and i want you to be happy.
xoxoxo john
it’s also pretty damn pathetic and ridiculous that men even have to pay for sex!
and worse. i have friends of mine who BEG their girlfriends for sex.!
they admit to me they have to beg them for it.
women dont want it.
women dont need it.
and i know a shitload of them that are asexual.
i have 1 of 2 choices in the u.$
1. live and die alone.i refuse to pay for it.
2. go to the philippines to find a woman that will treat me as an equal.
it should be damn obvious what american/western women want.
just look at men with fame/money/power.
ALL of em with young hotties
the list is endless, hugh hefner, whats he? 88 yrs old?
tiger woods? o.j?
and if you women are SO repulsed by rapists.
then WHY did/does ted bundy, scott peterson, drew peterson, van der sloot,(even that maniac rapist/ killer in california, richard ramirez, got married! in prison!) etc etc,ad nauseum, get tens of THOUSANDS of love letters and marriage proposals?
i’m not a convicted rapist or killer, and i’ve never gotten so much as one love letter!
the FIRST thing EVERY american woman has always said to me: ‘what do you do’? FIRST THING.
they dont ask me my name.
the real question here is when/ how will this misandry bubble pop?
us men need to get organized.waiting for this to end naturally, could take a WHILE.
as i’ve previously mentioned in eivind’s blog i’ve checked out the other petitions.
why isn’t there a ‘stop false rape accusations’ petition?
hmmm,
‘stop dog meat consumption in s. korea’.
is a more pressing issue?
you might wanna check out the news, false rape accusations are a nationwide epidemic, as reported on my blog, especially lately in orlando fl, and fake rape claims in panama city beach.
for more on this go to: falserapesociety.blogspot.com.
its very disturbing to read the conclusions of several, independent, unbiased, researchers that at least 50% of ALL rape claims are false!
the links to this data can be found there, or on my blog, under thread ‘wave of false accusations in orlando, fla
SLIGHTLY more important issue than dog meat consumption in s. korea.
and i completely concur with eivind. getting wasted, getting high, getting naked, putting yourselves in risky situations like that, ARE YOUR responsibility!
hard to believe , but it is!
if it wasnt enough that we have a false rape epidemic on our(mens)hands.oh no, the sickening stench of yet ANOTHER gold digging twat has surfaced.
a few days ago, it was the bullshit ‘mel gibson punched my teeth out
gold digging liar.
now, its the the lying masseusse.
yea. al gore. she says is a SEXUAL PREDATOR, and A PERVERT.
RIIGGGHT.
this doo doo gets deeper. she tried, and failed to get the enquirer to give her $1 million for her ‘story’.
i smell something AWFUL.
you ‘women’ are nasty, seriously making me ILL.
have you ANY shame?
oops. i ALMOST forgot! al gore’s ‘victim’? ADMITS she was NOT raped!
but, had to go through, get this, haha, months of physical rehab
because of the ‘injuries’ she sustained from the deadly dangerous al gore.
he didnt even rape her?!
that makes him a complete FAILURE as a supposed ‘sexual predator’ then.
mining for gold.
I don’t get why one minute he says that affirmative action is wrong, and the next minute he advocates (a rather extreme (and unjustified) form of) affirmative action.
you wouldnt
“You’re also still ignoring that women are attracted to men for reasons outside of economic power.”
Noone will ever become attracted to that ugly and sad persona Eivind Berge, even though he should win a million bucks in the lottery or get the money elsewhere. He is the most goddmaned ugly guy I’ve ever seen. So there goes his “theory” tight there; out the window.
Men nowadays are having plastic surgery almost as much as women. Men are being judged by their appearence almost as much as women. The times are changing, you sad misogynist loser. Get your ugly nose fixed, and while you’re at it, get a face transplant! Then perhaps a woman will look at you. PERHAPS!
Someone just sent me a link to his blog, and it’s unbelievably bad, I’m so appalled. As well as the post you have highlighted above, he also declares he is happy to have sex with any girl who is ‘pubescent’, it doesn’t matter their age as long as they are pubescent. So, 12 and 13 year old girls presumably?
I’m tempted by your approach of exposing him for what he is, but also torn that it would just give him and his attitudes more publicity.
Bastard! He’s an utter bastard.