A left-winger's ranting on America, religion, capitalism and pie.

Updated—this proves my point that higher gender inequality worsens hypergamy, and vice versa. It’s the final nail in Eivind’s coffin, and while I’m sure he’ll write up something about refusing to accept it because it clashes with his worldview, that’s the end of the conversation for me. I also suggest Eivind Berge look into parental investment, which explains exactly why the above link would be true. Primates which are most gender equal also tend to be the most promiscuous, ie, ever male gets to mate. Next time, don’t start an argument about human nature with me when I’m in the middle of studying for an anthropology exam.

Hey, look. Pro-rape advocate Eivind Berge finally sort-of responded to my entire argument against him. He ignored a lot, either outright or by simply writing it off because it was “silly”, but let’s take the time to respond.

Apparently Yvette Lessard still thinks she has good points that I haven’t answered in her blog post EIVIND BERGE: Pro-rape advocate & pals, so I am going to finish this here. See my comments at her blog for the rest and also here.

Oh, please. You even admitted you never addressed the entire argument. Several times. Here’s an example:

“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.

It took you a while to respond.

Yvette’s reading comprehension is rather poor. I never said only women can be raped. What I have said is only men can be rapists.

She also gets my definition of rape wrong. A victim must resist to the best of her (or his) ability unless she is credibly threatened with death or serious injury. Otherwise there is no rape.

Conceded, I missed that bit. However:

Having sex with an unconscious woman is not rape unless the rapist forcibly put her in that state with the purpose of accomplishing sex with her. It might be a lesser offense, though, depending on the circumstances. If, say, a man breaks into a woman’s house and finds her unconscious by chance, sex would be theft or abuse but not rape. If a woman willingly gets intoxicated and goes home with a man and he has his way with her while she is unable to resist, then there is no offense whatsoever and the man is completely innocent, doing what most men would do.

It’s rape if there’s no consent. You’ve provided zero reasoning, and the educated world disagrees with you. Most people in the developed world disagree with you. Burden of proof is on you.

So, Yvette strongly agrees that there are circumstances where rape is justified. Undeterred by any notion of cruel and unusual punishment, she blatantly states that I deserve rape merely for expressing my opinion. Well, I am saying women deserve rape for actual violence against men enforced by cops, so my case is much stronger than hers, though one might reasonably argue that both are reprehensible.

Justified? No. Hardly. I simply don’t view you as a human being, as you must view all women. It’s not because you’ve simply expressed your opinion. It’s because you wish rape on half of the people in the world because they benefit from a policy you disagree with. You wish rape on me? Yea, sorry buddy, but don’t whine when I wish it right back.

No, I state that women have the same value as men for any equal accomplishments unrelated to sex, but women have tremendous additional value as sex objects that men lack. This fundamental inequality is the crux of the matter and why rape is equality when everything else is equal.

You only refer to women in the context of what sexual value they have to you.

Um, no, of course I knew sex was a female resource long before I read Baumeister. That fact is painfully obvious to any man trying to get laid or any honest observer of what goes on in the real world. I merely cite Baumeister for the convenience of those living under a rock or brainwashed by feminist social constructionist boilerplate, such as yourself.

Bullshit. If your goal is to get laid and you do it by going to bars and clubs, you’re going to find one kind of women. Your anecdotal evidence is hardly enough to justify rape. Let’s discuss this when you hopefully address the fact that men have sexual value to women.

So what? I am able to think for myself and have my own opinion. And he did include a disclaimer because he must have known his argument combined with egalitarian thinking leads to the conclusion that rape is justified.

How do you not get this? You’re stating that the research inherently leads one to believe that rape is justified. Obviously it doesn’t, the one person who understands it best disagrees. So obviously it isn’t inherently in your favor.

I already answered how a woman might give up resistance and still legitimately consider herself raped (if such resistance most likely would get her killed or seriously injured). And how rape by drugs is possible if the drugs are administered against her will. The same definition of rape applies to children, and in fact even Norwegian law is not yet so corrupt that it considers it rape simply because a child’s innocence is taken advantage of. That would be considered sexual abuse but not rape if the child went along with it.

So an infant can’t be raped because they didn’t resist?

I do indeed think it’s impossible for a woman to rape a man. The double standard is quite real and based on biology.

All that is required for a woman to rape a man is a lack of consent on the man’s part. Forgetting for a moment that not all men are as desperate as you to have sex with this, I challenge you to actually prove that 100% of heterosexual men would sleep with any woman period. I remind you that you contradicted yourself repeatedly by stating that underage women are not good enough to have sex with. You’ve conveniently ignored it in your reply. You also conveniently forget my proof that many men complain about sexual advances by their bosses. It’s vastly in their favor to accept the sexual advances, since it helps their career and gets them free vagina.

And yes, sometimes “women desire sex of their own accord and without desire for a man’s wealth,” but they do so much less often than men with a much more limited number of partners. This profound difference is the problem, and a few loose women here and there do little to improve things for men.

Sometimes? Please. See above, that proof? Showed that it increases when women have wealth of their own. If sex really was all you cared about, you would be pushing for more equal opportunities and more equal wages for women so you’d have a better chance at finally getting laid. I guess sex isn’t all you care about then.

Sexual coercion is called for if we are to have equality — and equality was the feminists’ idea, remember?

You continue to operate under the bullshit idea that women don’t want men for sex, and ignoring any evidence to the contrary.

Nope, your definition of rape is only a very recent feminist corruption of justice, and even then it is most often not accepted by juries. Common law defined rape for hundreds of years as carnal knowledge of a woman, not one’s wife, by force and against her will.

Blacks were also defined as one third of a person for quite a long time. Simply because it was tradition doesn’t prove a thing, sorry bud.

However, that coercion can now be as mild as threatening to start a rumor about a woman, reporting her for a crime she has actually committed, or even a husband threatening divorce, so the Norwegian definition is now so corrupt that women deserve real rape for this alone, in my view.

So women deserve to be raped simply because you disagree with a legal definition? How does that follow at all?

No, it isn’t a social construct. Norway is now as close to an equal or matriarchal society as any known society ever was, and the same sex differences persist, as I posted evidence of recently.

That’s a laughable claim. As pointed out before, women are not in charge of Norwegian society. If having female advocates with political power makes a society a matriarchy in your view, you’ll be happy to admit that every other country in the world is unquestionably and has always unquestionably been a patriarchy, right? If you’ll admit that, surely you can see the need for opening up the patriarchy to allow women to have power, seeing as men have consistently blocked women from power. You deny that anything has ever kept women from gaining power except their own laziness, yet by your own definition you are wrong. I’ll point out some failed reasoning in your link, and maybe you’ll have the “time” to actually address the evidence in my posts showing differently.

The problem occurs, of course, when one actually bothers to read your link, which you claim shows that “women desire as few partners and little sex after as much courtship as ever”. It’s finding is:

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.

Well, shit. All that proves is that women want long-term partners. Nobody is denying sexual differences. The problem is that you’re reading everything to justify your butthurt position, ignoring what women are telling you about their own sexuality, and that you’re grasping at straws. What little evidence you’re finding isn’t really proving your point that heterosexual women are inherently hypergamous and have no interest in men for anything but wealth. I’ve shown this isn’t true, and you’ve ignored it. I still have yet to see you address my evidence, but we’ll see if you do in the rest of your post. Moving on.

Cock is always disgusting to straight men and this isn’t a social construct.

Whoops. Psychologists disagree.

Unfortunately, most cocks are also disgusting to most women most of the time.

Yuck! Ew!

Ahem. Bullshit. Evidence, please. I wonder if you think female masturbation is a myth. Since we’re going with anecdotal evidence I suppose it’s alright if I simply reject this statement based on personal experience though?

I do not take sexual harassment seriously at all (it was invented by feminists as a tool to empower women and oppress men, criminalizing normal male behavior), and as I have made abundantly clear, women can never be “perps” in any kind of sex crime including forcible rape, because female sexuality is a good thing and any male recipient of a woman’s sexual attention is only lucky. However, if the system rewards allegations of sexual harassment and, absurdly, takes men accusing women seriously as well, then it is hardly surprising that some men will try to exploit the system. In any case, only feminists and morons take them seriously as victims. The rest of us see through the bullshit and understand that these men are not alleging harassment because they feel sexually victimized by women.

First and foremost: regardless of whether or not women can be perpetrators of sexual harassment, you are ignoring what this shows. It shows a trend in which women who are economically self-sufficient continue to desire sex and desire it of men of lower economic status of themselves, no less!

Second, I fail to see any evidence provided on your part for why sexual harassment shouldn’t be taken seriously, of course you don’t take it seriously, because it clashes with your worldview. Really, great argument there. You have not made it “abundantly clear”, you’ve provided no evidence that men will fully accept any sex from women. Making a statement and proving it are not the same thing, sorry to break it to you. How are you not getting that this is evidence which is contradictory to your unsupported claim? Seriously, how difficult is that? By the way, you’ve contradicted yourself. You know, again. You’ve already stated that women hate cock and don’t want sex, and reject it automatically unless it’s attached to someone who is wealthy. Yet here you are claiming that sexual harassment doesn’t exist! Pick an opinion and stick with it. Either women are capable of rejecting sex or they are not. I swear to god you have the most inconsistent worldview I’ve ever seen.

This is simply gibberish. Women do not try to use their power to get sex from men. They use their power to reject more men than ever, and this is the problem. Economic equality leads to sexual inequality.

I just provided you a link to proof that they do! You cannot simply reject it on the basis that it conflicts with your worldview. I suppose everyone’s just faking it, right?

As the Kennair study shows, we are not in a period of transition. Liberated women will use their power to reject men. Either women must be economically disempowered again so they have to get married, or sexual coercion is necessary. Otherwise there will be a lot of frustrated and dangerous men.

I’ve already debunked your use of this source. All your source proves is that women prefer longer-term relationships. I don’t see how it shows that we aren’t in a transitional stage. Not even a generation ago women had hardly any rights or power, now women are just starting to get it. We are still dealing with old, patriarchal culture, we have not transitioned to gender equality. As for your statement, it’s silly. Read below where I talk about marriage.

Taking wealth from men is worse than rape reproductively speaking for all the men becoming evolutionary dead ends as a result. And when equality is enforced at gunpoint by the police, it is also quite literally violence. Of course, the threat of violence usually suffices, but such a threat is also all the violence you need for rape. Even more so by the feminist definition, which requires no violence at all and any kind of threat will do no matter how light. You really get hoist by your own petard here. If you want rape to be so loosely defined and still call it “always violence,” then it doesn’t take much for affirmative action to amount to violence, either.

I’m sorry, but bureaucracy is not “enforced at gunpoint by the police”. Your exaggerations are ludicrous. And you know what? If you disagree with the law, vote against it. It isn’t violence to require schoolchildren to go to school, it is not violence to require business owners to not rape their employees.

Of course women have a sex drive, but it is normally very different than the male sex drive. The average man gets less sex as women get more money and power, because women prefer to reject betas and go for alphas when they are in a position to do so. I am not arguing in terms of absolutes, and admit exceptions, which is a concept you don’t seem to understand:

I’ve already shown you’re wrong, and you’re insulting my intelligence? Provide evidence for your rejection of my evidence and maybe you can talk. Never mind that in years passed women had to marry and could only be sexually available to those they were married to. Now, women don’t need to be married and can be sexually available to more than one person. I’ve already established that women want sex, I’ve given you proof of a trend that women who can be self-sufficient make sexual advances on men who are not economically advantageous for them to make advances on. Women are no longer forced to barter their bodies for the right to eat and have shelter, you are right. The difference which you ignore is that they are now able to have sex with who they like instead of just one person. You should be celebrating that. Again: women are hypergamous when, a) they have to be or b) their culture raises them to be. From birth girls are told by male-dominated media to marry princes, told by their parents to find a man with a good job, and you honestly think it has nothing to do with that? You’ve never heard of expectation confirmation? Those expectations still exist in every society even if they no longer are forced into meeting them. You’re bitching and crying because nobody likes you at the bar? Try 100 years ago when you’d have to marry a woman to have sex with her.

They put out less for men who are average and below, and that is where I am coming from.

Except I’ve already debunked this claim, and you’ve ignored it and kept on repeating it.

This is a complete non sequitur. Feminism takes away much of the leverage we had to obtain sex. You are either intellectually dishonest or very stupid if you think this gives men increased worth. We don’t like to pay for sex and would prefer not to, but receptive women are just such a scarce resource that we often have to. Feminism makes female sexuality even scarcer because women can afford to be pickier and never have to sell sex out of necessity. Only the most desirable men get more sex under feminism, but they always had easy access to women. Everyone else gets less.

Oh boo-hoo. I repeat: women who don’t have to marry to be able to eat are no longer forced to just sleep with one man and women who have higher economic power are able to sleep with whoever they want. I provided evidence, you disregarded it with no counter-evidence provided, simply because it conflicted with your pre-existing opinion.

The quote about Thornhill is a lie. For one thing, the sample size was 790, not 27.

You’re doing that thing again where you attack one part of an argument and assume the entire argument is debunked. That is not the only issue with the book.

The political sphere is not “overwhelmingly controlled by men” just because most senators are men. Whoever votes for these men has the power, and women are the majority of the electorate.

Because politicians are known for being of the people, right?

Sure smell is important, but the study you link to also confirms female hypergamy: “These findings support previous results showing that body odor is a critical signal in female mate choice (Herz & Cahill, 1997). Also in accord with previous studies (Buss; Buss; Buss and Landolt), women gave higher ratings than men did to variables related to status and resource potential and men gave higher ratings to good looks (Buss, D.M., 1989. Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12, pp. 1–49.). For men, the only factor to outrank good looks was the social factor, pleasantness.”

I’ve already addressed this. Things like smell, attractiveness, etc, are inherent and biological. Hypergamy is need-based, as in the evidence I provided which you wrote off without reasoning it it is reduced or disappeared when women are self-sufficient.

Eivind Berge, you quoted this but never actually addressed it beyond whether you’d take the cock.

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.

The problem of course is that your own primary source in your original “rape is equality” post shows that it is a model, it is a social construct. As I pointed out in my original post (and you’ve conveniently ignored this), the source”justifying” your sick beliefs said 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).

Well, shit. Your own source disagrees with you about the cause of female hypergamy.

Eivind, you simply write off anything that disagrees with your worldview as feminist and thus inherently wrong. Such a stance shows how intellectually dishonest you are and how invested you are in defending your male privilege. To go so far as to deny that men have systematically controlled resources over the years and prevented female access to resources except through sex, and to instead pretend as if it is an inherently female thing when your own primary source states that it is not, is to be delusional. I encourage you to one day have the guts to actually present evidence for why my evidence is invalid aside from it’s conflicting with your worldview. I encourage you to consider the female sex drive and that, while usually different from a male’s, exists and is inherently attracted to aspects of men completely unrelated to their wealth. You’ve written this fact off, simply saying “there are exceptions” or wealth is the “primary” factor, yet you cannot explain why women do not need a gold chain around a cock to be turned on. You assert many things, like the ludicrous notion that women are disgusted by cocks, which shows how little you really know about female sexuality.