Study Finds That Sexual Competition Causes Jealousy and Envy More to Women than to Men

Featured

Well, whaddya know?  Looks like the boffins are finally catching up with sexual trade union theory, as well as basic common sense.  No, really, cultural marxism explains everything about feminism (sarcasm).

http://www.counselheal.com/articles/1762/20120503/sexual-competition-causes-jealousy-envy-more-women.htm

Sexual competition affects women more than men in raising jealousy and envy in a work environment, according to a recent study.

The study of analyzing the differences between men and women in feeling jealous and envious was published in the journal Revista de Psicología Sociai by a group of researchers from universities in Valencia, Spain, Groningen, Netherlands, and Palermo, Argentina. Women are more likely to feel jealous and envy in a sexual competition than men, while social skills provoked men and women equally.


“Women with a high level of intrasexual competition are more jealous if the rival is more attractive and more envious if the rival is more powerful and dominating. They did not get any results in men, as no rival characteristics that provoke jealousy or envy predicted intrasexual competition,” co-author Rosario Zurriaga at University of Valencia told Servico de Información y Noticias Científicas (SINC).

Intrasexual competition, as the study defined, is a competition between same sex people trying to keep access to the opposite sex. The group of researchers distributed questionnaires to around 200 people and chose 114 as the sample for the exploratory study. The sample was 50 percent men and 50 percent women, and they had an average age of 36 years and spent 11 years in their current employment.

The studied defined jealously as “a threat or loss of success in a relationship due to interference from a rival and implies a loss or threat of loss of what they had” and envy as “a response to another person who has success, skills, or qualities that they desire and involves a lack in comparison to the envied person”.

Sexual competition made women feel jealous and envious more so than men. Rival’s social skills, however, provoked both men and women equally.

“Our research intends to clarify the role of emotions like envy and jealousy at work. These feelings have not been studied in working contexts and can cause stress in workers and negatively affect the quality of working life,” said the researcher.

“This is one of the first studies that examines rivals’ characteristics in this environment and contributes to a better understanding of conflicts and problems that can occur in working relationships,” they said.

The study implied that in order to prevent the negative effects, they should modify aspects such as the perception of threat, loss, or comparison with others at work.

Human Stupidity Comment On Feminist Defined Male Sexuality

Featured

This comment appeared underneath JohnTheOther’s excellent reply to CNN’s ‘Are Men Stupid’ article :

Great article. It is also great to see that you attack feminist defined male sexuality.

I arrived at the men’s movement through interest in male sexual liberty and its restriction, be it age of consent issue (access to post-pubertal women), prostitution and simply sexual freedom.

Then I found out about father’s rights and the absurd enslavement of “good” family men. Really shocking. Did not know about it though I probably unconsciously avoided getting kids because of such laws. I had women that wanted my kids, no strings attached, just for their nice green eyes. I knew better and emptied out my condoms after use and checked if the condom wrappers still had air in them before use.

What still takes me aback is the great rift between the conservative father’s movement, that wants to make sure the perverts preying on their 17 year old daughters go to prison, and the sexual liberation anti-feminists.

It is very sad that the feminists disagree on prostitution and sexual liberty, but still invite SCUM authors and still don’t get a serious rift between the sexual liberation feminists and the main stream sex repressors. They agree but unite against men on all other issues they agree on.

On the other hand I am still dismayed that some great mens rights blogs got shut down because of a well known and very serious argument with well known writers of this great site. That rift could have ended in serious legal trouble, court and prison.

Men don’t need feminists to disturb their liberation movement, they destroy each other. This is very sad, and an issue that needs to be addressed.

While some people here would support lowering the age of consent to 16, very few would just support getting government out of adolescent’s bed rooms and scrape age of consent altogether or get it to protect only pre-pubertal children.

I keep repeating that that does not mean that people are free to prey on your daughters, it means that it should not be the government’s problem how you EDUCATE and CONTROL your daughter.

Also I don’t need to stress that age of consent draconian laws with absurd punishments (it should be a misdemeanor to err by 1-2 years) make women 5 years above the age of consent too dangerous to deal with (to be on the safe side don’t mess with anyone under 25. Even if you are only 20)

 

Notice this rather less perfect comment from the usually excellent ‘STU’ underneath the same article :

Hating on men for their sexuality, sex lives etc is one of the main tools feminists use to bring men down. Even men get on the bandwagon hating on other men for this. They should just shrug and say, so what. It’s all manginarism though, pretending to be horrified at the sex life of another man who has earned the wrath of the feminists. It’s all about…..yes……I’m not like that….I am……The One Good Man…….now…..how about a blow job.

We should just shrug and say so what, at any and all men’s sexual activity, apart from sexual activity with minors, or actual forced rape of course. In fact, we should have the same attitude for women to. Fuck as many men as you like, play on both sides of the fence, have all the fetishes and perversion that take your fancy……..fine by us….it’s only a problem when a woman uses her sexual activity to hurt men, cry victim, sexually out others to do harm, or make profit. I would put slutwalkers into that category as well.

 

“apart from sexual activity with minors, or actual forced rape of course”.

Now that’s odd, because STU here is putting having sex with minors (under 18) on the same level as forced rape, even though in bar a handful of Islamic medieval states, nowhere on Earth is it yet illegal to simply have sex with a consenting 17 year old.  Even in the US of A, the age of consent is 16 in most states.  In Europe, the average age of consent is 14.

Furthermore, despite being an experienced MRA, who appears to ‘get it’ as far as the understanding of feminist control of male sexuality is concerned, STU appears unaware or oblivious to the fact that it was feminists who created statutory rape laws in the late 19th and early 20th century.

Unfortunately, for some MRAs, feminist self-interested control of male sexuality is actually a good thing when it happens to agree with a conservative father’s desire for sexual control over his teenage daughter.

Cameron gets tough on raunchy pop videos

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/9192366/Cameron-gets-tough-on-raunchy-videos.html

Explicit music videos made by stars such as Rihanna, Beyoncé and Madonna would be given 18 certificates and subject to greater restrictions to protect children, under plans being looked at by David Cameron.

NSPCC Claims 60 British Children a Day Are Sexually Abused

It’s collection tin rattling time again for the radical feminist ‘child protection’ group known as the NSPCC, so what better than to throw out a shock statistic that every tabloid will lap up?

One child is being sexually abused every 20 minutes (or 60 a day)

A child was sexually attacked every 20 minutes last year and more than 400 offences reported each week.

The scale of sex crimes against children emerged yesterday after a Freedom of Information request by the NSPCC.

The statistics also revealed how only one in 10 accused were convicted, the charity said.
More than a fifth of the 23,097 victims were of primary school age and almost 1,500 were five or under.

The NSPCC published the figures yesterday after sending FOI requests to the 43 police forces of England and Wales.

A total of 14,819 offences were committed against 11 to 17-year-olds and girls were six times more likely to be abused than boys.

Jon Brown, head of the charity’s Sexual Abuse programme, said: “A concentrated effort has to be made if we are to start reducing this distressing level of offences.

“When you have a situation where more than 60 children are being sexually abused every day, something is very wrong.”

The poor conviction rate was particularly worrying, added Mr Brown.

Although every child sexually abused in the UK represents an individual tragedy, it remains prudent whenever dealing with a radical feminist lobby group, especially the NSPCC, to subject their collection tin rattling hysteria to a degree of healthy scepticism.

60 children a day are not being sexually abused according to these statistics – 60 children a day are reported to the police as being sexually abused.  Only 10% of these reports are sufficiently serious or credible to result in convictions.  Naturally, it is beyond any radical feminist hate group to admit to the possibility that thousands of men are being falsely accused of child sexual abuse, or that the majority of these reports are simply mistaken or the result of overzealous concerns.  In fact, a recent NSPCC ‘don’t wait until you’re certain‘ campaign will only increase the numbers of falsely accused men.

As said, every real case of child sexual abuse is an awful tragedy, but the only real statistic to be garnered here is that ‘only’ 6 British children a day are proven (through the courts) to have been sexually abused.  Compare this statistic to the fact that around 15 British children each day are killed or seriously injured simply crossing the road.

Furthermore, whilst this site has always condemned unreservedly any illegal activity involving underage children, the majority of those 6 sex abuse cases each day involve teenagers – and a sizeable percentage of those cases likely involve willing participation on the part of the ‘victims’, and in fact, will have only been legally defined as ‘sexual abuse’ as a result of campaigns by feminist groups themselves, including the NSPCC :

More than a fifth of the 23,097 victims were of primary school age and almost 1,500 were five or under.

This is meant to be shocking enough for you to reach for your credit card and make a donation.  However, one fifth of the victims being primary school age means that 4/5 weren’t.

The number of under 18′s (children under feminist legal definitions) in the UK is around 12 million.

6 children sexually abused a day = around 1,800 a year.   That means the chances of an individual child being sexually abused in a given year (and leading to a conviction) is around 1 in 6500.

Of course, not all of the non-convictions resulting from reports to the police about sexual abuse will be false accusations, and not all real incidents of sexual abuse will even be reported to the police.  So for the sake of argument, let’s suppose that the NSPCC might even be close to the mark and 60 children a day are being sexually abused in the UK.

That would mean that the odds for an individual child being sexually abused in an individual year are around 1 in 650.

Over 5,000 British children a year are killed or seriously injured crossing the road.  That equates to around a 1 in 2400 chance each year.  As indicated earlier, just as some cases of rape are worse than others, whatever feminists say, some cases of child abuse are worse than others.  A 5 year old being raped is worse than a 15 year old having a 25 year old boyfriend, or a 15 year old and her friends giggling at being flashed at in the park (or online) by an old man with a small willy.  Arguably, those latter two cases of sexual abuse are far less serious and damaging than a child losing a leg in a road accident.

Even granting the NSPCC’s spurious statistic, and even equivalating all ‘child sexual abuse’ with the seriousness of being killed or maimed, the fact remains that a child is slightly less than 4 times more likely to be sexually abused than she or he is to be killed or seriously injured crossing the road.  I cannot recall the NSPCC ever launching a campaign on road safety for children, or even mentioning the importance of improving road safety for children. Saving the lives of the thousands of children killed or maimed in road accidents simply doesn’t fall within its radical feminist sexual trade union lobbying agenda.

In a perfect world, no child would be killed or injured crossing the road, and no child would be sexually abused.  We seem able to accept the sad truth that beyond a few sensible laws relating to drink driving, the introduction of measures such as speed bumps to roads etc, and a certain level of education for children regarding road safety, we can never hope to completely ensure that no child will die in a road accident. Yet we seem completely unable to accept that, unfortunately, some children will always be sexually abused, no matter how much fear and hysteria we instill in their young minds, and no matter how many men we lock up, criminalize, or falsely accuse.

Accepting that the world is imperfect, and that the possibility of evil and harm will always be present within it, is the price we pay for having a functioning society.  Just as roads and traffic are essential to the infrastructure of a healthy society, so too are features of human existence such as the family, schools, and interaction between the young and the old.  Allowing feminists to exaggerate the scale of child sexual abuse, to inflate the definitions of child sexual abuse, and to pretend that (if only you give the NSPCC a little more money) that the sexual abuse of children can ever hope to be stopped completely, is undermining the very fabric of society, and doing more damage to children themselves than all the paedophiles in the world could ever do.


Other statistics concerning the dangers that children face :

Nearly 1 in 2 children in the UK is bullied, with 10% saying they had been bullied in the last 6 months according to a 1999 study (it is acknowledged by the handful of genuine child protection charities in existance that the problem of bullying has increased since then).

1500 children in the UK are diagnosed with cancer each year.  That’s over half the number of children involved in a sexual abuse crime resulting in a conviction.

According to statistics quoted by the NSPCC themselves, 7% of children suffer physical abuse.  A child therefore has a 1 in 14 chance of being physically abused by one or both of their parents, compared to a 1 in 650 chance of being sexually abused by anyone in a given year according to the NSPCC (and a 1 in 6500 chance of being sexually abused later proven by a conviction).  The NSPCC itself admits that mothers are equally or more likely than fathers to physically abuse their chilren.  Despite this, on the minority of occasions when the NSPCC decides to campaign against physical abuse (rather than more lucrative sexual abuse anti-paedo campaigns), the father is invariably depicted as the abuser.

To put the last statistic another way.  According to the NSPCC themselves, a child is anywhere between 20 and 200 times more likely to be violently physically abused by their own mother than to be sexually abused by anyone inside or outside of the family in a given year.  This is even more striking given the fact that the majority of laws and definitions relating to child sexual abuse have been set by radical feminists (such as the policy makers of the NSPCC) themselves.

See also :

(Angry Harry) The NSPCC Shatters Child Abuse Myths – Its Own Myths!

 

 

Five Feminists On Board The Titanic – Four Survived…The Other Was A Male Feminist

Interesting article from TheScotsman reveals that five prominent feminists were on board the Titanic, and all of them survived bar one – William Thomas Stead, the only male feminist amongst them. A noted women’s rights campaigner, Stead was most famous for his ‘tabloid’ style expose of child prostitution in late Victorian London, which was largely responsible for persuading the British parliament to accede to feminist demands, against the wishes of early men’s rights campaigners, and raise the age of consent from 13 to 16.

The article seems to be stressing the bravery of the female feminists. One of them ‘helped other women and children into the lifeboats’. Another, ‘broke her ankle boarding the lifeboat but survived’. Poor dear. William T Stead, meanwhile, exemplified Victorian chivalry with a stiff upper lip.

William T Stead – a British newspaper reporter who paved the way for tabloid journalism – was a social reformer and ardent advocate of women’s rights. While editor of the Pall Mall Gazette in 1885, he “bought” a 13-year-old girl for £5 in an attempt to expose the scale of child prostitution. Although he was jailed for unlawfully kidnapping a minor, the publicity the case generated led to the passing of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, which raised he age of consent from 13 to 16. A friend of suffragette Millicent Garrett Fawcett, Stead was proud of being the first editor to employ women on the same wages as men. After all the lifeboats on the Titanic had been filled, Stead, who had been travelling to a peace conference, is said to have gone to the First Class smoking room where he was last seen sitting in a leather chair reading a book.

 

Underage Models Risk Creating ‘Hyper-Sexualised French Lolitas’

The Telegraph prints an article on a subject I was alerted to and posted on recently : the bid by feminists in France to ban beauty pageants, child models, and ‘adult’ clothing for children (children being defined as under 18 or 16).

The French report suggests restricting beauty pageants to girls aged over 16 or 18, banning advertisers from dressing under age models in adult attire or using them as brand figureheads. It also advocates the return of uniforms in primary schools phased out in 1968 and considered a curious British anachronism by many.

Titled ‘Against hyper-sexualisation, a new fight for equality’, the report was triggered by international outrage over a French Vogue magazine cover featuring a heavily made-up 10-year-old model.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9126568/Under-age-models-risk-creating-hyper-sexualised-French-lolitas.html

I’ve added a comment below the article – please add your own :

Whilst concerns over the sexualisation of 8 year olds might have some validity, we all know this is about feminists exploiting such concerns to artificially ‘de-sexualise’ teenage girls.

First you legally define children as anyone under 18 (when throughout history, adulthood began at puberty).

Then, when most people still associate ‘childhood’ with pre-pubescents, you create a hysteria over the ‘sexualisation of childhood’.

Finally, you legally ban 17 year olds from wearing thongs or mini-skirts as part of a legislative package supposedly to protect pre-teens, which no politician chasing the female vote (every politician in a modern democracy), the family values vote, and the muslim vote,  dare challenge.

This way, 40 year old feminists (not to mention 40 year old male Islamists) don’t have to be wracked with pain everytime they walk down the street, having to pass girls at the peak of their beauty displaying their flawless skin.

This is how third wave feminism operates, increasingly in conjunction with the Islamisation of society.  Feminists can’t honour kill their younger sexual rivals, but they do have the power and spurious moral authority to forcibly victimise 17 year old ‘children’.

 

In the same newspaper, and on a closely related Islamo-feminist slut shaming theme, a British girl has become the first white victim of honour killing by the muslim community :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9149929/Teenager-is-first-white-victim-of-honour-killing.html

Father Who Accidently Downloaded Child Porn and Reported It Now Banned from Being Alone with Daughter

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2110921/Council-bans-daughter-contact-Nigel-Robinson-child-porn-images.html

A father has been banned from being alone with his eight-year-old daughter after telling police he accidentally accessed child porn while attempting to download music from the internet.

Nigel Robinson says his life has been plunged into a nightmare since he reported himself to authorities as an act of good citizenship.

When the 43-year-old plumber told police he had inadvertently downloaded shocking pictures of ‘young girls’, officers contacted social services.

His laptop was seized and – because of lengthy waiting times for police analysis of computers in non-urgent cases – the investigation could mean he is not allowed to be alone with his daughter for a year. Mr Robinson claims he is being treated like a criminal for trying to do the right thing.

Sexual Trade Union Seeks to Ban ‘Child Models’ from the Fashion Industry

***WARNING – GRAPHIC IMAGES BELOW.  DISCRETION ADVISED

One of my two loyal and esteemed readers from across the channel has alerted us to the attempts of the French sexual trade union to stop the ‘sexualisation of children’. In fact, the aging women of France aren’t content with calling it the ‘sexualisation of children’ – teenage girls who like to wear strings are now being described as the victims of ‘hypersexualisation’.  Amongst other things, under 16s will be banned from child modelling and beauty pagents, as well as discouraged from buying sexy clothing.

The government report is titled : ‘Contre l’hypersexualisation, un nouveau combat pour l’égalité. Rapport de Chantal Jouanno‘.  Apparently, if my limited capacity to understand French got it right, they are even admitting that this is an attempt at ‘equality’.  It sure is.  Forcing ripe teenagers into burqas is the only way these middle-aged hags stand an equal chance of getting any sexual attention from men.

Roselyne Bachelot

Why won't anybody sexualise me!

As I’ve reported here several times, feminists in the UK are likewise manipulating hysterias over ‘child sexualisation’ as a pretext to removing teenage girls from the free sexual market altogether.  Their latest wheeze is to call for restrictions on child models :

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/lifestyle/underfed-and-overworked-child-models-to-get-legal-protections/story-e6frg8k6-1226268892369 (note that the link is Australian, and confusingly doesn’t make clear that the story relates to the UK ).

The campaign over teenage models is led by Jo Swinson, the Liberal Democrat MP who chairs the parliamentary group on body image, and Claire Perry, Tory MP for Devizes, who modelled as a teenager after being spotted in Bristol at 15.

Perry, who is 6ft tall and gave up modelling after being ordered to lose weight, said: “Although I am not one for regulation, this is an area where something ought to be done.

“I was told I was grotesquely overweight although I was 5ft 11in and size 10. I was told I was a niche model. Thirty-two per cent of teenage girls want to be models. It’s seen as this impossibly glamorous career. You are just a clotheshorse – a clothes hanger. You would be doing two or three shows a day. I thought ‘sod that’ and I went to university.”

 

Here’s a couple of pics of former ‘model’ Clair Perry. ‘Niche’ model indeed…

claire perryclaire perry 5

Claire Perry, femiservative, has also been leading calls for ALL porn to be blocked in the UK : http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/372013/government-tones-down-porn-blocking-rhetoric

And here’s her partner in crime, Liberal Democrat Jo Swinson :

Jo Swinson

For some reason – well for a bleedin obvious reason that requires no 10,000 word treatise on the origins of Cultural Marxism from a men’s rights perspective – these middle-aged women with power don’t appear to have any objection at all to 13 year old girls being abused and exploited on reality shows in the name of entertainment : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2044915/Why-I-believe-X-factor-guilty-child-abuse.html?ito=feeds-newsxml#