Eivind Berge : Another Round of Feminist Rape Law Reform in Norway
http://eivindberge.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/another-round-of-feminist-rape-law.html
Criminalizing sexuality, and particularly male sexuality, is the most salient aspect of feminism, in my view. All the other feminist shenanigans pale in comparison because criminalization represents direct, institutionalized violence against men. Witnessing ever more hateful and draconian legislative attacks on sexuality is the primary reason behind my radicalization into an MRA. It has reached the point where even the mainstream media these days report the profound impact of feminist sex law reform. In 1999, sex with very drunk or unconscious women was defined in Norway as a relatively minor crime of sexual exploitation and punished by an average of 4 months in prison. Today the same phenomenon is called “rape” and the usual sentence is 4 years.
And that’s just one example from a long list of legal reforms during the past 13 years which includes criminalizing negligent rape (abolishing mens rea), criminalizing johns (but not whores), the introduction of a grooming law and associated police stings, criminalizing bestiality, escalating mandatory sentencing, and so on. But despite these extreme advances in misandry, feminists are far from satisfied with the status quo. Now, for the fourth time since 2000, here we go again with another major round of feminist-driven sex law reform. Definitions and penalties for various sex crimes ranging from stalking to rape are set to escalate, in order to capture even more of male behavior and increase the prison population. Sex with anyone under 14 is now categorically to be defined as “rape,” shamelessly instituting a deliberate lie in order to demonize men further. A brand new category of “abuse” of 16 to 17-year-olds will also be invented which effectively raises the age of consent to 18 if only the pigs find a pretext for claiming the girl was in a “vulnerable life situation” — which can mean practically anything they want it to mean. The statute of limitations for sexual offenses against minors is proposed abolished, and retroactively so, so as to prosecute old men for alleged sex crimes many decades in the past. And bizarrely, they want to redefine masturbation to “intercourse” in order to apply the full force of rape law to men who persuade girls to perform sexual acts on themselves…..(read the rest of Eivind’s excellent article)
I really wish more sex-positive “liberals” would study the situations in Norway, Iceland and Sweden carefully…they could then see taht this is what happens to sexual freedom in a feminist society. its amazong how many sexpos libs seem to think that all you need to do to promote greater sexual freedom is to “give women economic independence” and “give women a voice” in the political realm. Well “giving women a voice” is just fine but you have to realize that when you “give women a voice” you are giving a voice to femihag sexual trade unionists too. “Giving Women a Voice” WOULD garrauntee a sex-positive society…if women looked like 16 year old girls their entire lives. Women just like men have their good and bad sides to them and any democracy needs a strong constitution framework to prevent the darker nature of women from destroying sexual freedom via the ballot box.
The Highwayman
23 Feb 13 at 2:30 am
Yes, excellent comment Highwayman. And this is why I keep stressing that the constant repetition of the puritan explanation for the attack on male sexuality gets us nowhere. It just gives on the one hand sexual liberals the excuse not to confront what is now the primary cause – feminism, and on the other hand, allows men’s rights activists to dismiss these issues as not being anti-feminist/men’s rights concerns (because they are the result of puritanism not feminism).
It is also important, as you point out, to hold women in general accountable as well as ‘feminists’ (who would have little or no power if they weren’t being supported by the mass of ordinary women). Even Eivind Berge himself is of the view that it is ‘feminists’ rather than women who are responsible for these sex laws (he even praised women for not taking advantage of feminist laws in order to make false rape accusations etc more frequently than they do).
As you say, women have a good and a bad side, unfortunately, when men fail to hold women accountable as moral agents and genuine human beings, then just like men when given unlimited power, women are apt to do very bad things.
theantifeminist
23 Feb 13 at 6:44 am
It is true all women have feminist privilege.
Columnist
23 Feb 13 at 8:07 am
This is a bit of a stab based on general reading, but would be interested in any views on it.
Feminism, and anti-male sexuality in general could be explained by an unconscious/sub-conscious sociobiological process that seeks, through social coercion and authority, to deny lower genetic quality/males opportunities to breed. And further that evolution has selected for this sociobiology.
Hence, when radfems seek to ramp up the “rape” culture humans are all too able to go along with it all. You see this with white knighting where women are “protected” from the advances of lower genetic quality/status males by groups of males/women or bigger more physical men. Would not be surprised if you see a lot of this behaviour in our closest ancestors in evolution.
To what extent civilization as it stands can overcome this I’m not sure. After all due to modern contraception, etc etc, these lower quality males may not pass their genes on if they have regular sex anyway, but as with responses like “fight or flight” our evolutionary past does not disappear easily.
Having read quite a lot about this whats interesting is a lot of politics, morality, traditional academic subjects seems to be largely superficial and surface explanations for whats going on.
The greatest hope would be further science and biology knowledge getting to the heart of human nature. I suspect these discoveries, and research will be blocked or underfunded though. The truth is often untimely.
Jay
23 Feb 13 at 11:37 am
“You see this with white knighting where women are “protected” from the advances of lower genetic quality/status males by groups of males/women or bigger more physical men.”
More saliently, prison rape. That is why I say everything boils down to kafa’a. Who has sex with the women of whom, kto kogo, as Lenin said.
Columnist
23 Feb 13 at 2:56 pm
I wonder if these new laws would stand if challenged by the European Court of Human Rights.
But – how many innocent lives will be ruined forever before any such case will make it to the human rights court; and for all intents and purposes, it’s probably not unreasonable to assume that the ECHR is by now also in the firm grip of feminists. After all, perhaps the one true feat of feminism has been its ability to subvert and infiltrate any and all relevant legal institutions and lawmaking bodies and skew the law in their favor.
inclinedreader
23 Feb 13 at 3:10 pm
I think that’s the important point to this interesting theory (which has already been developed by Steve Moxon, and to some extent independently by the person formerly known as ‘Jay Hammers’).
It explains to a large extent possibly why men will go along with it.
I notice you say ‘humans’ not ‘men’. I guess this means that you think it requires a complex analysis of evolutionary psychology and sociobiological theory to explain why a 40 year old hag would vote for a feminist or a conservative who promises to raise the age of consent or make laws putting men in prison for looking at pictures of 17 year old girls, or supports the promotion of rape culture which leads to men too afraid to go out and chase sexually available young women?
http://theantifeminist.com/its-not-rocket-science-krauser-pua-dont-judge-women-for-their-beauty/
http://historyoffeminism.com/a-history-of-feminism/
What would be really interesting and useful is a complex evolutionary psychology theory as to why it is that highly intelligent men need to construct elaborate theories to explain what is so blindingly effing obvious that a 5 year old ought to be able to see it.
Now that would really interest me.
theantifeminist
23 Feb 13 at 3:12 pm
So how does this fit in, for example, with the way society today regards interracial sex, in particular white women and black men? And how does it explain why our attitudes today are completely the reverse of a century ago (or less)?
Have black men suddenly raised their genetic fitness? or has their ‘status’ suddnenly become raised? There is a lot of evidence that white women have always found black men attractive, which is why there was previously draconian punishments for such relationships when they were frowned upon (for example, in the Carribean under the Empires, white women – who at the time would likely have been the wives of rich men or aristocrats – had their breasts cut off if they were found having sex with a black slave. Less than 100 years ago there were riots in Liverpool when the local women coudn’t keep their hands off of the black American sailors docking there.
theantifeminist
23 Feb 13 at 3:45 pm
Regarding “giving women a voice”, it is useful to think of women as holders of the same company stocks (UK English: shares). The company stock is female privilege. Some women are big holders and stand to win/lose more if the stock price fluctuates. Other women are small holders and stand to win/lose less. But any dabbler in the Stock Exchange knows even small holders have a dogged interest in seeing the value of their stocks rise rather than fall. This explain why women who seem not to have much at stake one way or another are no less relenting in their support of misandry.
Jack
23 Feb 13 at 4:30 pm
@Jay: what you explain in terms of EP could be construed more mundanely as what the PUA community call a “shit test”. Feminism could simply be one gigantic shit test enabling women to sort out the betas (only the men who fight back are real men).
This can account for the unrelenting nature of feminism: it’s not what they extract from men that matters to feminists, it’s the very process of driving men into an increasingly tight corner. Continuously shit-testing men in this way could be central to female nature.
Jack
23 Feb 13 at 5:04 pm
I used to believe this, and still do to some extent. Especially when you consider the way that women seem to have so much more respect (and sexual attraction to) black men and arabic men who are far more likely to be decidedly unfeminist.
But honestly, isn’t the most obvious evolutionary psychology reason that older women are simply using their growing political power to preserve their diminishing sexual power?
Even Steve Moxon somewhat contradicts himself regarding his own version of the beta male blocking theory. In one of his recent fine essays regarding Jimmy Savile, he pointed to resentment at an alpha male getting all the pussy (and Moxon recognises that a millionaire male at the top of the music industry is a high status male, or was 30 years ago, when his alleged teen chasing took place).
I mean, it’s not as if the likes of Silvio Berlusconi are being giving a free pass is it?
theantifeminist
23 Feb 13 at 5:27 pm
Indeed such shit-testing probably evolved to be functional when conducted by courted women on an eye-to-eye basis. When administered worldwide by female government ministers and female NGO officials with the help of female-dominated media empires, it becomes a weapon of mass destruction. Not even AAA males pass the test any more.
Jack
23 Feb 13 at 6:12 pm
Columnist
[“You see this with white knighting where women are “protected” from the advances of lower genetic quality/status males by groups of males/women or bigger more physical men.”
More saliently, prison rape. That is why I say everything boils down to kafa’a. Who has sex with the women of whom, kto kogo, as Lenin said. ]
Could one say that in civilised states that the state owns the woman more and more? And that one has to jump through the states hoops, in their different forms, to be able pursue women. So you see tradcons and feminists joining together to get men to “man up” and be good beta drones. Most of their arguments seem to involve men doing stuff for women. I don’t think MGTOW was part of the plan. The increasing draconian laws could be explained as a way to coerce men into their clearly important roles as worker ants grinding away at the metaphorical coal face. Thats why they gotta get porn banned cos it gives men another option. If I got no kids, and no wife, why would I need to work hard? I could prob live off 8K a year where I am and be reasonably ok.
Jay
23 Feb 13 at 6:29 pm
Apologies for my IT ignorance but how do you quote on here?
Jay
23 Feb 13 at 6:30 pm
@Jack It might also partly explain why young and attractive women are so reluctant apparently to resist older feminists attempts to make it difficult for men to sexually access them. For example, the fact that a man must fear a false accusation might put off the beta male, but will hardly likely be enough to deter the alpha male thug. Likewise even for the age of consent. For a girl a year or two below (the inreasingly high) age of consent, it simply serves as a filter to weed out the flakes and the betas. Risking your liberty, your job, your friends, just to get inside a girl – that has to be the ultimate shit test.
theantifeminist
23 Feb 13 at 7:11 pm
@ Shopenbecq
QUOTE: “It might also partly explain why young and attractive women are so reluctant apparently to resist older feminists attempts to make it difficult for men to sexually access them.”
In contrast to this my belief as to why young women are not actively fighting the restrictions placed upon them is because these restrictions are only temporary (by the time the reach Magic Age the restrictions no longer apply) and hence there is less of an incentive to do anything about it. Furthermore when they reach magic age they will begin to BENEFIT from those very restrictions as they shelter them from younger competition. For men of course the consequences of being prohibited from having sexual relationships with young girls are lifelong (and that especialy true for ephebophiles).
Now when it comes to prostitution there is more of an incentive for women who want to work as prostitutes to fight against restrictions placed against them (since these restrictions are not temporary ones such as age of consent laws)…but unfortunately there are far more women who would like to “use thier voice” to crucify prostitutes (or thier clients) than there are women who would like to be prostitutes.
BTW a good constitutional clause for democracies would be a Sexual Freedom clause which would stipulate that no legislation that would restrict sexual freedom can be passed unless there is concrete proof that the activity being prohibited is clearly harmful.
The Highwayman
23 Feb 13 at 10:56 pm
Of course its also true that Age of Consent laws give young girls enormous power over thier illegal older partners…and few people who have power over other human beings like to give it up.
The Highwayman
23 Feb 13 at 10:58 pm
I agree Highwayman, and I’m sure I’ve given the same explanation here several times in the past. Simpy being assailed at the moment it seems by all these complicated different theories tonight that are trying to explain the deep imponderable mystery as to why old women with unheralded political power want to stop men having sex with young women (who have largely zero political power), and why those young women don’t seem to care too much. Sometimes I feel like giving up, LOL.
However, I can vouch from personal experience that there might be something in this ‘shit test’ theory, at least on a personal level. It doesn’t happen much to me anymore in the UK, given that things are so draconian now that few underage girls are arrogant enough to demand that a man risk everything by seducing her or even by trying to talk to her, but with foreign ‘jail bait’, and when I am abroad, I do still get girls quite often mocking me for the fact that I won’t attempt to ‘seduce’ them (or rather accept their attempts to seduce me). Obviously they know that it is, at the very least, socially risky for a man to attempt to seduce a girl of their age, even if they are above the local age of consent. But still it happens that if I’m in a restaurant or coffeeshop, on the beach etc, and I happen to give a glance of appreciation in the direction of ‘jail bait’, then very often they will fix their hair, look at me and give an open invitation to come over and talk. And when I prudently decline their offer, they will often become insulting or even quite aggressive.
theantifeminist
23 Feb 13 at 11:22 pm
That’s an interesting point, and obviously has some truth to it. But I’d like to ask you to come down from the intellectual clouds and think about something more basic and simple, and surely obvious. If states will go to this trouble to ban porn because a growing number of men will be disinclined to marry or seek a mate, and this has the important consequence that those men will be less productive workers, don’t you think that, on a more a personal level, women themselves will be inclined to want porn banned for the more basic reason that they want to have sex with men (and be supported by men), and as you say, porn leads to men being less inclined to go through the trouble of seeking sex with women? Given that whatever this great science of evolutionary psychology tells us, is that men and women are motivated primarily by the need to reproduce and to survive (and survive only long enough to reproduce, so essentially EP teaches us that everything is motivated by sex)?
Only yesterday I posted a link stating that the average woman spends over a year of her life putting on make-up (i.e. performing one aspect of attracting and keeping a sexual mate).
I do have some objections to this manosphere assumption that in today’s world, men who do not marry will not work as hard. Gay men are amongst the most economically productive members of society (hence the ‘pink pound’), yet gay men do not as a rule seek marriage or get married, let alone have kids, and this is unlikely to change drastically even as the right to gay marriage is forced down their throats by feminists and ‘progressives’. However, seeking out the opposite sex certainly is a motivation to work hard and earn money. Even the availability of prostitution could be an incentive to earn money (certainly is for me) – in that case, it’s difficult to see why feminists want prostitution criminalized (or the paying of sex by men), and that this is one of their overriding goals in just about every part of the globe where their power and tentacles have reach (and appears to be a key goal of the UN – the ultimate super state).
The instant availability of instant free porn via the interent is a trend that could lead to unproductive men, however, (and possibly already has in Japan).
The shit test theory might have some support from a link I posted the other day in an article regarding hypergamy in China (and the gender ratio imbalance), leading to growth in GDP as Chinese men have to compete harder to earn enough money to woo a potential wife.
theantifeminist
23 Feb 13 at 11:38 pm
Another good point Highwayman.
theantifeminist
23 Feb 13 at 11:41 pm
I’ve thought myself a bit along those lines when considering black Africa. There you have a range of countries that seem bent on remaining underdevelopped for ever. Could that be because black African women trade sex for peanuts, providing little incentive for their men to compete with each other and create wealth? If that is the case, then feminism could be a prerequisite for economic growth, rather than a recipe for economic ruin as we like to be portray it. Which in turn would explain that the more developed and industrialised a country, the more rabbid its feminism. That’s a disturbing possibility: feminism being the opposite of the self-limiting economic disaster we would like it to be!
@Jay: to quote, open the quote with and close it with .
Jack
24 Feb 13 at 7:22 am
theantifeminist
23 Feb 13 at 3:45 pm
In those days, the kafa’a hierarchy was reversed. White men had sex with black women without any compunctions. The main reason the system was unstable was the Roman rule that children of slave women were considered slaves. In Mauritania and Sudan children of Berber and Arab men are considered Berbers and Arabs, and slavery persists until today.
Nowadays black men even use torture against couplings of white men and black women.
Also, there is female HYPOGAMY. Some women are strongly attracted to men who are strong and handsome, but socially/economically completely powerless. Think the wife of Potifar. There were also cases of Moorish women seducing European galley slaves.
Without hypogamy, how to explain female sex-tourism?
Columnist
24 Feb 13 at 8:43 am
Yea, but the point we might all be missing is that the jailing of thousands or even millions of white middle-class men (which is increasingly the demographic of most ‘sex offenders’) won’t be good for the economy or society in the long run. It’s not just the time in prison, but the sex offenders register and mandatory criminal past disclosures mean they are basically unemployable when they come out.
If Alan Turing had been born 50 years later, he would have probably have been jailed and ruined for downloading twink porn before he even finished university (and condemned as a subhuman child abuser by the same ‘liberal’ fuck heads who demanded he be pardoned for picking up and banging a low IQ 19 year old labourer up the ass).
And if this ‘governments create feminism to create hard working drones’ theory was true, even relating to pornography it would be simpler for governments to raise the price of porn and crackdown ruthlessly on free porn (copyright theft) sites, as well as encouraging attractive women to enter a regulated and easily available (but expensive) prostitution industry.
I had a friend 15 years ago who had been happily unemployed since leaving university – he was finally motivated to get a 9to5 by the possibility of being able to afford some porn site subscriptions. And do you guys think sexbots are going to come cheap or be handed out for free to the unemployed and work shy?
theantifeminist
24 Feb 13 at 9:07 am
Retrospective legislation for Norway now? Wow. Absolutely fucking wow.
I am aware of the anti-feminist’s view that one should not involve the willing but underaged in any sexual affair because it’s unfair to expose them to the law in such a potentially nasty situation, even if they’re on the right side of it.
However, if retrospective laws come to Australia anytime in the future, that injunction might as well be ignored. If they get you, they get you. If all you have to do is keep breathing for a few years and they accuse you of something that wasn’t a crime when you’re alleged to have done it, then as far as I’m concerned it’s good night Irene. I’d still take care as far as pregnancy and disease and make sure they’re willing, and the situation probably won’t even arise. However, even as far as saying it’s unfair to expose people to the law goes, well, in that situation there no longer really is any law. Might as well go for it. Seriously.
I can respect people even if they don’t share my opinion on this, and not everyone would be prepared to ignore the “law” for one reason or another even if they agreed with me. I can respect that too.
But anyway it’s getting really weird.
Bear in mind that other rights are deteriorating, too. Retrospective legislation, if it comes to wherever you’re living, could well come as only one part of a deteriorating legal system.
Hell, why not require every male over a certain age to have a remotely-readable plethysmograph attached to their old fella? That way, if some 13-y-o chicks in sports briefs are doing “interesting” exercises on an oval and you walk past and register the slightest arousal, you get a zap and compulsory counselling.
Is this where we’re going?
Perhaps that image might be something that can be used to reach the white knights and manginas who still have half a brain cell left.
Even if they’re so incredibly noble they’re prepared to have something like the plethysmograph put on themseleves, are they prepared to inflict it on their sons?
Maybe they are…
Dog Meat
24 Feb 13 at 9:48 am
The technology to be able to do this kind of thing is only a decade away at most. Airport security cameras are already being fitted with A.I software that can detect increased heartrates, read emotions from faces etc.
To be honest, I say bring it on.
There’s going to be a hell of a lot of paedocrites to jail. Probably around 70-90% of the male population.
Talk about feminism being good for the economy…
theantifeminist
24 Feb 13 at 9:57 am
Yea, but the point we might all be missing is that the jailing of thousands or even millions of white middle-class men (which is increasingly the demographic of most ‘sex offenders’) won’t be good for the economy
That’s what I like to think too. But it makes me uneasy sometimes. To what depths of chivalry and in-fighting are men willing to bow to get pussy now and then in their miserable lives? There’s the unpalatable possibility that increasing feminist nastiness can be accommodated by increased competition between whatever males remain operational.
Automation, remember, enables output to increase without any increase – indeed with a decrease – in employment. Male unemployment is an enabling factor of male disposability, and male unemployment is rising nearly everywhere in the World.
Jack
24 Feb 13 at 10:14 am
“Yea, but the point we might all be missing is that the jailing of thousands or even millions of white middle-class men (which is increasingly the demographic of most ‘sex offenders’) won’t be good for the economy or society in the long run.”
You do not get it. Morlocks plundering the Eloi is the very trick of the Overlords. Become an Overlord, and turn the former Morlocks into Eloi, and former Eloi into Morlocks.
Columnist
24 Feb 13 at 11:40 am
@Columnist – maybe I ‘don’t get it’, but I’m pointing out that this (jailing of thousands of the most productive men) isn’t consistant with the previously stated theory that feminism is a creation of government in order to boost economic output, which you appeared to agree with.
Perhaps the government has created feminism in order to replace white men with black and muslim men but I’m not sure that’s consistant with boosting GDP or enabling us to beat off the economic challenge of the likes of China.
theantifeminist
24 Feb 13 at 12:41 pm
I said Morlocks plundering Eloi, not Morlocks replacing Eloi. The Eloi are to stay off-balance, or they might get crazy ideas. It is no coincidence their anger is directed towards people improving wages and the welfare state.
http://kafircrusaders.wordpress.com/2013/02/23/video-uaf-commies-get-upset-when-patriots-do-a-counter-protest-of-their-own/
Columnist
24 Feb 13 at 3:04 pm