This is Jill.
This is Jack.
This is rape.
This is not rape.
When a man physically forces Jill to have sex we consider it rape.
But when Jill physically forces Jack to have sex, we don’t consider it rape.
We think that Jack’s sexuality negatively affects Jill in a way that Jill’s does not negatively affect’s Jack’s.
Mary Koss agrees.
Mary Koss is the feminist researcher behind the factoid that one in four women will be raped in her lifetime.
In Mary Koss’s original survey only one in sixteen women said “yes” to “have you been raped?”
So how did she get her one in four number?
By asking women “have you ever been physically forced to have sex or have had sex under the influence of drugs or alcohol”
Disregarding the women’s answers to “have you been raped” Mary Koss went on to publish her findings and 1 in 4 became an oft repeated feminist talking point.
Unfortunately Mary Koss encountered an additional problem. When women and men are asked if they were raped, the number of male victims is low. But when women and men are asked if they were “physically forced to have sex”, the number of male victims skyrockets.
On her efforts to correct to correct the problem of too many men saying “yes” to “have you been physically forced to have sex” Mary Koss says:
We worked diligently to develop item wording that captured men’s sense of pressure to have sex and draw their responses into an appropriate category of coercion instead of rape.
Based on Mary Koss’s advice the Center of Disease control decided to separate “physically forced sex” into two categories in their nation wide US study of sexual and domestic violence:
This is rape.
This is made to penetrate.
They then went on to publicize their findings on rape while excluding the majority of male victims of physically forced sex.
When we reclassify “made to penetrate” as rape we see the problem that Mary Koss and the CDC were facing.
They had found that men and women report equal levels of victimization in the past year.
Jack is equally likely to experience physically forced sex as Jill in the last twelve months.
However the CDC found that only 20% of the victims who reported being physically forced into sex in their lifetime were male.
Why is this?
When witnessing two criminals, one female and one male, who are both equally violent, witnesses “misremember” the violence of the female over time. The force she uses is remembered as being less relative to the male. The witnesses’ perception of her agency is whittled away.
The same process is happening with male rape victims. Over time they are bringing their memories in line with the dominant narrative shared by Mary Koss, the CDC, and likely you.
This is rape.
This is not rape.
So when you ask “did someone physically force you to have sex with them in the last year” equal numbers of men and women respond yes.
When you ask “did someone physically force you to have sex with them in the last five years”, the percentage of male victims drops from 50% to 30%.
And when you ask “did someone physically force you to have sex with them in your lifetime”, the percentage of male victims drops again to 20%.
Over time male victims are “misremembering” the violence used against them by female rapists.
Feminists will often assert that 90% of rape victims are female and 99% of rapists are male.
Considering that this is universally seen as rape.
And this is not commonly seen as rape.
It makes sense that the majority of male victims and the majority of female sexual aggressors are excluded from statistics regarding rape… But what’s really remarkable is that as much as ten percent of male rape victims remain to be counted. And that despite being categorically excluded women count for even one percent of rapists.
Feminists are creating a false perception of female victimhood. They are creating a culture of fear targeted at women. They are maintaining the idea that men act and women are acted upon.
That this:
is fundamentally different from this:
Wouldn’t it be better if we stopped playing games with people’s lives and recognized that this:
is not fundamentally different than this:
And that all victims of sexual violence–including Jack–deserve equal compassion.
References
Female criminals seen as less violent:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100525090554.htm
The Centre of Disease Control’s National Partner and Intimate Violence Survey:
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf
Tables specific to sexual violence:
My Analysis of the CDC’s NIPSVS:
http://www.genderratic.com/p/836/manufacturing-female-victimhood-and-marginalizing-vulnerable-men/
Mary Koss Promotes Rape Culture:
http://www.genderratic.com/p/836/manufacturing-female-victimhood-and-marginalizing-vulnerable-men/
http://www.genderratic.com/p/2798/male-disposability-mary-p-koss-and-influencing-a-government-entity-to-erase-male-victims-of-rape/
http://www.genderratic.com/p/2943/mary-koss-the-corruption-continues-manboobz-style/
Feminist groups block or remove men’s protections against rape by female sexual predators.
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Womens-groups-Cancel-law-charging-women-with-rape
A Sad Day For Male Rape Victims In India
- What will Dior’s decision regarding Johnny Depp mean for male survivors? - August 10, 2022
- Chauvin Released, Teen bullied for supporting trump, False accuser forced to apologize| HBR News 277.5 - October 13, 2020
- What Jordan Peterson checking into Rehab can teach us all - October 26, 2019
by 
“Wouldn’t it be better if we stopped playing games with people’s lives and recognized…”
Yes but our room for improvement is infinite while our potential for improvement seems mostly absent.
The UN is currently observing a relocation of Syrians from areas which are besieged and starved by the Baathist forces. The males of fighting age are separated (which was not part of the agreement for this) while females, kids and elderly are relocated to other besieged areas which the government was supposed to stop shelling (it hasn’t). To their credit, the UN is questioning the continued shelling but they aren’t asking many questions about where the males have been taken. One doesn’t ask questions one doesn’t want the answer to.
Eivind Berge disagree’s
http://eivindberge.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/oversocialization-explains-female-sex.html
So he’s still around! I thought he had shuffled off the stage of history and was muttering to himself down in his cave under the bog.
Three or four years ago there was some dust-up about him. I forget what it was.
His blog name is apt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpagus
I think you’re missing a few puzzle pieces just after the “99%” claim.
Regarding Eivind Berge:
That link is the first I have heard of him and I am now thankful for that. He started out with a lot of name calling and rhetoric identifying those who have similar but not identical views as his own as being members of the group he is completely opposed to (i.e. feminists). He makes Olympic-worthy leaps in logic–going from the proposition that female sexuality is of superior value to male to the conclusion that biology could never allow a female to *want* sex from a male enough to actually take it unwillingly. The thought that any male could ever see any opportunity for sex with a female as worthy of refusal is also inconceivable–which leads him to refer to underage boys having any sexual contact with adult women as “getting lucky”. It makes me wonder what would happen if a sexually aggressive aging homeless prostitute, with drug-ravished and disease-ridden countenance, ever approached him. Would he “get lucky”? It also makes me wonder if he would be comfortable letting his sons go to a school which hired her as a custodian. Would he worry about his sons “getting lucky”?
He seems a tad messed up. He also uses the Unabomber as far to worthy a reference. It is one thing to note that a crazy or evil person has a few intelligent observations (not that I’ve read any from the Unabro) but he really seems taken with the guy’s writings.
Snake Oil Baron, you are misrepresenting my opinion. No, I would not necessarily consider myself lucky if sexually coerced by an old, drug-ravished and disease-ridden woman, but the sexual aspect would be de minimis. Other aspects of violence can be traumatizing and equally worthy of punishment if perpetrated by women, of course, but the sexual aspect per se of any female-on-male sexual coercion is always so trivial for deep evolutionary reasons that it should certainly not be a concern of the law, and calling it rape is ludicrous. If you want a name for it, then sexual coercion is indeed accurate, but never rape. Rape is a profoundly meaningful term that does not just automatically apply to all coerced sex, and people understand this instinctively, just like they understand the difference between murder and palliative care going on in any hospice setting even though both could simplistically be described as conduct causing someone’s death earlier than they strictly had to die. Profoundly meaningful human concepts such as rape and murder cannot be reduced to banal descriptions of physical acts that are interchangeable like mathematical equations (or puzzle pieces, lol), and anyone with a smidgeon of wisdom or just common sense understands this. Insisting it is “rape” if a man is sexually coerced by a woman simply because it follows from your simplistic feminist-defined abstractions is just as ridiculous as calling doctors murderers for not administering futile care but instead doing palliative care which hastens death.
Of course, a lot of what feminists call rape when it happens to women is also de minimis, which is why the women don’t consider it rape themselves and need feminist researchers to tell them they have been raped. But we don’t make it any better by amplifying the charade and insisting men too are raped when they don’t perceive their experiences as such, which is why I hate the phony MRAs who take this path. I think oversocialization is a good concept to explain the process of forcing all these artificial victims into the false category of rape, because it certainly isn’t natural or part of any healthy process of socialization to see it that way. Not saying the Unabomber is a good person, but he got that right.
So if one estimates psychological trauma by the percentage of self-destructive behaviours such as substance abuse, suicide etc. one would expect to see levels of trauma for men and boys who are beaten and made to experience unwanted sexual activity by females which are closer to those of males who are beaten then robbed but less than those levels experienced by men raped by other men or for women who are raped.
Do you know of any research showing this which could help me achieve this wisdom and common sense?
SOB:
Perhaps a combination of cannabis and a narcissistic sense of ones’ own brilliance in defiance of all evidence would suffice?
If you want conclusive proof of whether unwanted sexual activity with females by itself causes self-destructive behavior in males beyond what just equivalent violence or nonsexual abuse would, you would need to perform prospective, randomized controlled trials. Since such studies would entail deliberately subjecting boys to “abuse” and thus be deemed unethical, all we have are observational studies. Hence it is impossible to know if any self-destructive behavior observed is due to sexual coercion or some confounding variable. There could quite possibly be some other factor which makes boys both more prone to self-destructive behavior and more likely to be sexually “abused” by females, if increased self-destructive behavior in this population is indeed observed (for example, the studies claiming boys “raped” by women later become rapists themselves could be explained by alpha traits making these men more attractive to women throughout their lives, thus naturally engaging in more sex legally defined as “rape” both when they are underage and older). In other words, the relationship could just as well be associational as causative. Moreover, there is extreme bias among researchers in this field to attribute any and all negative outcomes to past “sexual abuse,” so the extant studies are worse than useless. To answer the question, then, the best we have at the moment is the theory of evolutionary psychology. We know from this field that there is no reason for why female sexual coercion should be traumatizing for males, since males have nothing substantial to lose from such coercion. Unlike real rape, sexual coercion by females doesn’t hurt anybody’s reproductive fitness, so there is no reason to be terribly concerned about it. We understand how it is adaptive for females and males alike to be traumatized by rape perpetrated by men (in the case of males, being raped by other men is an attack on their status and thus ability to attract women), but there is no similar reason to fear female sexual coercion, so most likely it is harmless. The fact that female “rapists” were never acknowledged or punished in history until feminists created the illusion that the sexes are equal should tell us that the concept is extremely suspect. No one needs to tell women to be averse to rape, but you really have to go out of your way to oversocialize boys into fearing “rape” from women — and that should be a powerful hint, at least until the randomized controlled trials are in. You certainly don’t prove that women “raping” males is a serious matter by performing simplistic semantic puzzle games. That only comes across as an autistic freak show of taking words too literally.
Eivind,
” but the sexual aspect per se of any female-on-male sexual coercion is always so trivial for deep evolutionary reasons that it should certainly not be a concern of the law, and calling it rape is ludicrous. If you want a name for it, then sexual coercion is indeed accurate, but never rape”
This is exactly the rationale female child rapists of boys and their defenders use. It is too vile to merit any repsonse other than hanging them up in a public place to die slowly. I credit the statements of child rape victims over your theorizing when it comes to the extent of the permanent damage female rapists inflict.
And not just child victims. I wonder, Eivind, if you have had this discussion wiht James Landrith, whose insights into this matter, you will admit, have a far more solid empirical basis that yours.
“We know from this field that there is no reason for why female sexual coercion should be traumatizing for males, since males have nothing substantial to lose from such coercion.”
Sexual coercion of the degree rising to the degree of disregard for consent is rape, period, and rape is an act of enslavement. It is an act where one person appropriates the body of another for her own purposes without. It is ludicorous to claim that slavery is somehow less traumatic for one class of people than for another.
“since males have nothing substantial to lose from such coercion.”
I find sex with women and the thought of sex with women, or anyone that soft and hairless, vile. I was married to one for 11 years and so I know how completely social conditioning can suppress natural revulsion, but that natural revulsion can never be removed. Being forced into sex with a women would be a profound defilement and violation.
Eivind,
While I personally see a lot of validity in your argument I think the importance of calling BOTH experiences rape lies in the legal consequences. Women can and DO have a legal remedy at hand when they experience something called “rape”. Men should have the same legal remedy.
Your argument is akin to the idea that a 5’2, 98 lb woman is going to be far more severely injured in an assault than a 6’2 200 lb man and therefore only the woman should have a legal remedy against assault.
While it is objectively true that women are, in general, more likely to be injured in an assault, it is not always true and should have no bearing on the legal remedies available.
This is more about balancing the scales of justice.
Some might call it “equality”.
@Typhonblue
I really like the spirit of your article. I think you make some salient points and the puzzle pieces make for a good visual. But one thing I learned early on, if you are going to criticize Koss, get it right. In my early blogging days I criticized Koss in a post that was actually about something else. I was criticized on my blog and attacked on a couple of others. Everyone completely disregarded the point I was making and simply decided I didn’t know what I was talking about. Fact was, I wasn’t really even that far off base and I was going from memory instead of re-reading her article.
Koss never asked her subjects whether or not they were raped. She asked about a variety of sexual situations some of which (she claims) fit the legal definition of rape. Her survey did not contain the words “rape” or “consent.” The words “when you did not want to” were used to imply lack of consent. This wording was used because Koss believed that women would be less likely to admit they had been raped or sexually assaulted if the actual words were used in the questions. The problem was that the questions she used did not actually meet the legal standard for rape because “did not want to” does not necessarily imply lack of consent and/or the question regarding alcohol was misleading and didn’t fit the legal definition. Further, while Koss did not ask men whether or not they were raped (directly or indirectly). Men were asked (indirectly, using the same wording) whether or not they had committed or attempted rape or sexual assault. Also the 1 in 4 number not only included alleged rapes and sexual assaults, but “attempted” acts as well. In a second part of the Koss study, participants who had given positive responses on the questionnaire were interviewed face-to-face. Nearly 3 out of 4 of the female “victims” denied that what had happened to them had been rape or sexual assault. Koss merely dismissed this without evidence and claimed that these women (America’s best and brightest) did not know the meaning of rape or sexual assault.
Koss has also written about the definition of rape being something only a man can commit against only a woman (excluding male victims and female perps). She bases this on traditional common law definitions of rape as “carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.” She claims that this means the forcible entry of a penis into a vagina and nothing else. Interestingly, she supports excluding “homosexual rape” (her term, not mine) because it would expand “the types of penetration considered to be rape.” Yet she support expanding the definition to include “rapes involving forms of penetration other than penile-vaginal intercourse, and rapes without actual force…” as “unjustified.” In other words for Koss, expanding the definition of rape to include more female victims is justified, but expanding the definition to include male victims is not.
That aside, I think the point you are making is spot on.
[…] Posted on 2014-02-10 by Typhonblue […]
@TDOM
So essentially Mary Koss asked the women who she classified as having been raped if they were raped and 75% of them said no.
How is that different than what was said in the video?
Studies of this sort often ask gateway questions. “Have you ever been physically forced to have sex or had sex while under the influence of drugs and alcohol” is a gateway question to “have you been raped.”
If a woman answered no to “Have you ever been physically forced to have sex or had sex while under the influence of drugs and alcohol” but yes to “have you been raped” if the survey was in any way legitimate, that response would be thrown out as inconsistent.
JB, thank you. Measured and adult.
And welcome! You honor us!
I think that merely asking someone “Have you been raped/were you ever raped?” is not the sort of question that any researcher can use because of its subjective nature. Some people may not define an experience as rape despite what would clearly be legally rape (having sex with an adult at six years old, for example) and some people may define “rape” as something involving no physical sexual contact at all. The best questions would be of a specific nature, but also designed to rule out roleplaying scenarios, dom/sub relations, consensual sex when under the influence of a substance, etc.
Since such studies would entail deliberately subjecting boys to “abuse” and thus be deemed unethical, all we have are observational studies. Hence it is impossible to know if any self-destructive behavior observed is due to sexual coercion or some confounding variable.
Possibly. But if multiple observational studies show common factors when controlling as much as possible, the possibility of a link increases.
Judgybitch,
I disagree with your analogy. The difference with regard to assault is merely a matter of degree of risk, but when it comes to rape we are dealing with a profound qualitative difference in the ability to violate the opposite sex sexually. No one would argue that it is unreasonable to be hurt by violent assault, or that men don’t deserve a legal remedy in case they are actually injured. But a very large number of men, probably the majority, would consider the entire concept of female-on-male rape laughable — despite decades of feminist propaganda telling us that the sexes are equal. Only outliers are seemingly very traumatized by female sexual coercion, such as James Landrith, the professional victim who serves as poster boy for female-on-male rape in every single debate on the subject that I’ve seen in the past ten years. This kind of victim is so rare, Landrith pretty much owns the scene. He has also been caught changing his story and relies on recovered memories after lengthy therapy, and in order for his story to be rape even if he is telling the truth, you have to accept the radical feminist expanded definition of rape which women use against men every day. The question then becomes, is Landrith a reasonable man, or is he a freak? I submit that he is a freak, and his kind of reaction to female sexual coercion should not serve as a model for the law. Using outliers as the standard makes a mockery of the law and offends the sense of justice of reasonable men. Especially since we also have a solid theoretical basis in biology on which to conclude that women raping men is nonsense. It also isn’t fair to women to have a severe legal remedy available against acts that are only exceptionally harmful. If the law says something is a heinous crime, but only once in a blue moon does a “victim” see it as a crime at all, then that in itself is seriously at odds with basic legal principles. Sound legal remedies are based on a “reasonable man” standard, and female-on-male rape fails this test. Your argument then boils down to “equality” — but equality which denies real differences isn’t equality at all, but rather disparately criminalizing essentially harmless aspects of female sexuality.
Eivind,
EXACTLY! That’s the whole damn point of the exercise. Rape that hasn’t resulted in a pregnancy a woman is forced to carry to term is not really the horrific violation feminism claims it to be. Most guys will do the walk of shame after waking up with the “coyote ugly” bitch who jumped him when he was trashed out of his mind and had his beer goggles firmly in place and laugh the whole episode off.
Except in one case.
What’s the one case?
When the encounter results in a pregnancy carried to term. Men have no reproductive rights, so that single instance of poor judgement can result in a lifetime of state enforced slavery to pay for a child he did not want and did not intend.
Insisting on the equal application of rape laws has nothing to do with feelings (men tend to be a whole lot more rational and sane about the topic) and has a whole lot more to do with CONSEQUENCES.
Imagine if a man had the same legal right to charge a woman with rape based on the simple standard of consent (which cannot be given while intoxicated). How he FEELS is irrelevant.
We’re flipping the feminist script on its head. You keep trying to bring reality into the debate, but reality left the building a long time ago.
This is strategy, pure and simple.
Their flank is open. If you believe in gender equality and believe that a woman was raped if she FEELS she was raped then why not extend the same conditions to men?
Because the whole house comes crashing down.
And that is just what we want.
@ Judgy
I agree that feminism has increased the scope of “rape” beyond reason and that they’re turning it into more that what it actually is which is in turn hampering survivors’ recovery.
But our society turning a blind eye to the sexual exploitation of men and boys by women does no one any favours.
Even if you don’t care about the men and boys in question, the fact is that having been abused by a woman is a bigger risk factor for a sexually abused boy to go on and abuse others. Other boys and men, yes, but this should catch the “it’s only rape when it’s women who are a victim” crowd’s interest… boys abused by women are more likely to go on to rape women.
@ Elvind
“The difference with regard to assault is merely a matter of degree of risk, but when it comes to rape we are dealing with a profound qualitative difference in the ability to violate the opposite sex sexually.”
The difference is what exactly?
If you’re going to bring it down to pregnancy as a consequence, then it’s impossible to rape pre-pubescent girls or post-menopausal women. In addition any “forced sex” that doesn’t result in unwanted pregnancy isn’t rape.
Men with vasectomies can’t be rapists. Women on the pill can’t be raped.
And since pregnancy has a solution, the real consequence for “rape” should be restricted to paying for the “victim’s” abortion.
Typhonblue,
The difference is this: Men do not possess the adaptations women have evolved to deal with rape by the opposite sex. Rape involves a great deal of acute and long-term pain for women because it is adaptive for women who have been raped to learn strategies to avoid being raped in the future. This mechanism would serve no purpose in men with regard to female sexual coercion. That is the theory, and you simply cannot deny the observed reality that men almost never feel the need to accuse women of rape, and that this has been a complete non-issue until radical feminists such as yourself dreamt it up. For example, it has happened only exactly one time in all of Norwegian history that a man has made a formal complaint of rape against a woman, and none in the last ten years despite massive feminist indoctrination and a conviction rate for female rapists of 100% so far (based on that single case, which demonstrated with great fanfare that the police and courts are more than willing to accommodate male accusers). The few men who fancy themselves as victims of rape by women are invariably heavily indoctrinated by feminist ideology and generally deviant characters.
As to the claim that “boys abused by women are more likely to go on to rape women,” the evidence for a causal relationship is highly dubious. As noted, the studies can only be observational and are heavily biased towards explaining everything in terms of “sexual abuse” due to the feminist ideology of the researchers. I have looked at some of the studies, and they usually don’t even make a distinction between consensual and forced sex, simply calling all illegal sex “abuse.” Sample sizes are also low to nonexistent if we try to count only sex with no other abuse in the case histories. And even if we are to take the studies at face value, alternative explanations are at least as likely. For example, it is not surprising that alpha males will have lots of sex from an early age because they are so attractive to women, much of which will be defined as “abuse” due to legal fictions. And later in life they will continue to be highly successful with women for the same reasons, including underage girls, and thus have a higher risk being branded as “rapists” and “abusers” themselves. In that case, the “cyclical abuse” is actually explained by alpha traits rather than abuse. It also seems to me that a great deal of the supposed cyclical abuse is confounded by real violent and emotional abuse, and precious little of the future destructive behavior of these boys is caused by sex itself. But researchers will always single out sex as the explanation. Why do you gullibly assume their antisocial behavior is always caused by sex, even though any number of other factors can explain it?
@Eivind
When boys who “score” with older women grow up, they’re just continuing their “success” by having sex–but not rape–with lots of women. (I assume all the women are falsely accusing them?)
So… what you’re saying is that these boys weren’t raped and they didn’t go on to rape women because the women weren’t actually raped.
So you are asserting that rape doesn’t exist. At all.
“If you’re going to bring it down to pregnancy as a consequence, then it’s impossible to rape pre-pubescent girls or post-menopausal women.”
I never said those can’t be raped. Clearly they can be, but theory predicts that they would be less traumatized by rape than fertile women, and I can cite studies indicating that this is the case. In the case of prepubescent girls this goes against all political correctness, but it is what research by Thornhill and Palmer shows. It’s a fun fact that if law was based on evolutionary psychology rather than feminist gibberish, raping a 20-year-old woman would be punished more severely than raping a 10-year-old.
Men on the other hand can NEVER be pregnant, so they never evolved any rape-avoidance adaptations to protect them from being raped by women. Evolution didn’t bother removing women’s aversion to rape completely after menopause or if they are on the pill, however. Rape avoidance in those groups might be called a byproduct rather than an adaptation, but it still exists and I don’t claim they can’t be raped.
“So you are asserting that rape doesn’t exist. At all.”
I am asserting that women raping boys or men does not exist at all in any meaningful sense, and in my opinion the law should completely disregard this possibility. I also proposed two alternative explanations for the “cyclical abuse” claim. It is entirely plausible that some men score more with women when they are underage as well as when they are older, and thus get branded as “abused” and “abusers” more often, providing false evidence for the claim that sexual abuse of boys turns them into rapists.
And no, I am not saying the women are necessarily falsely accusing them (though that might also happen), but greater success with women will make a man more prone to conviction for the legal fiction of statutory rape. That’s what I primarily had in mind.
this isn’t a battle I really feel like joining in but I think the distinction is this…
I’ve seen articles saying that male virginity does not exist…
http://www.loveforum.net/threads/77107-Men-can-t-be-quot-virgins-quot
ie a man may not have had sex but since virginity doesn’t exist for men then a man who hasn’t had sex isn’t a virgin…
well, what do you call this man? sexually inexperienced?
Most would call him a male virgin…
So to say a man can’t be raped, well what do you call involuntary sex? Forced envelopment? Or what about an empowered feminista with a strap on who won’t take no for an answer? Or prison rape? Call it something else?
Yes biologically men cannot be impregnated just as they can’t have hymen’s broken…
But it really becomes a rhetorical point rather than an ideological point….
That being said, I get uncomfortable when I read Typhone Blue’s stuff because it seems to mirror feminist thought and present’s a black and white world where there is only super hawt sweaty sex with a YESYESYES enthusiastic consent and another kind of sex that isn’t sex but RAPERAPERAPE when the reality is there’s lotts of not so great sex that might not result in terrible consequences such as an STD or pregnancy but isn’t some magical dance where two souls unite.
Now a great point that has been raised is that men do not have reproductive rights. Sure a guy can get sniped via a vasectomy but the fact that isn’t always reversible makes a guy whose 80% sure he doesn’t want kids hesitate because that 20% is just enough to not want to risk it…
One point that’s very hard for me to articulate but that I find distasteful in many MRM/man-0-sphere/feminist spaces is very black and white thinking. Yes I realize that statement comes accross as condescending and patronizing…
“So to say a man can’t be raped, well what do you call involuntary sex? Forced envelopment? Or what about an empowered feminista with a strap on who won’t take no for an answer? Or prison rape? Call it something else?”
To the first question: You can call it sexual coercion. And just to be clear, I not saying female sexual coercion should never be a crime, just not classified as rape or any kind of sexual crime, because the sexual aspect is irrelevant. In the case of the strap-on, it would certainly qualify as assault, and possibly a very aggravated one if there is much pain or injury involved. It might even deserve just as much prison time as rape or more, but it isn’t rape — that is all I am saying, because women cannot rape men. If a woman is violating me with a strap-on, the last thing I am worried about is that she is having “sex” with me, but it might still be very bad. In contrast to when women are raped, in which case sex is usually her primary concern, while the violence is secondary.
Oh, and I would still call prison rape rape. I never said men can’t be raped by other men. The evo psych explanation for why this is traumatizing enough to deserve the designation “rape” or at least be a serious crime at that level is because it is an attack on a man’s status, which threatens his reproductive fitness because a man’s status is closely related to his ability to attract women. But there is no good reason whatsoever to call female sexual coercion rape. Well, except as a strategy to combat feminist sex law as Judgybitch suggests, but I think that’s an awful strategy.
@Eivind
“It is entirely plausible that some men score more with women when they are underage as well as when they are older, and thus get branded as “abused” and “abusers” more often, providing false evidence for the claim that sexual abuse of boys turns them into rapists.”
The particular study I referenced followed sexually abused boys for several years.
It found that about 10% of them went on to sexually abuse other children–with having been abused by a woman being a larger risk factor than having been abused by a man. By your logic, 100% of them would have been found to “score” with other children.
“Clearly they can be, but theory predicts that they would be less traumatized by rape than fertile women, and I can cite studies indicating that this is the case. ”
I would be particularly interested in studies that indicate pre-pubescent girls are less traumatized by rape. Post-pubescent women being less traumatized may be attributable to emotional maturity.
Also, if rape trauma is merely a function of pregnancy-avoidance, wouldn’t the best method be to desensitize women to rape since this is no longer an issue? That way they can enjoy the same psychological freedom as men.
“which threatens his reproductive fitness because a man’s status is closely related to his ability to attract women. ”
Why would being raped by a physically stronger individual threaten a man’s status more than being raped by a physically weaker individual?
@SWAB
“Yes I realize that statement comes accross as condescending and patronizing…”
I’m glad you realize it, because it does. Also, you’re putting words in my mouth where did I say “enthusiastic consent” should be a legal standard?
Eivind,
so prison rape is still rape because it involves a penis penetrating an orifice but the case of the straponista is assault not rape because it is an inanimate object penetrating?
typhon blue,
no, in all fairness, I don’t think that I’ve seen you suggest that “enthusiastic consent” should be made a legal standard.
however, I feel that you are staying within a feminist world view and saying if women are victimized by X,Y and Z then men are also victimized by X, Y and Z. This mathematics would work IF A) feminist’s had things right–and since many women run away from the feminist tag, much less the many thoughtful critiques, I don’t think feminist’s have things right. and B) that men and women experience the world in the same way. I don’t think that they do. I also think this is a great flaw in MRM thought.
SWAB
Pointing out that if women are affected by X, Y, and Z then men are are affected by X, Y, and Z is logically consistent whether or not feminists have anything right. Anything otherwise requires positive proof that has never been demonstrated, only stated as useful dogmas. It is incumbent on feminists (and you) to demonstrate that men and women are fundamentally different in their experience of trauma.
“It is incumbent on feminists (and you) to demonstrate that men and women are fundamentally different in their experience of trauma.”
probably not scientific proof but…
women are more likely to be diagnosed with depression but men are more likely to successfully complete a suicide attempt. If men and women were “the same” wouldn’t we see the same results? To me that suggest men and women processing the world and their environment differently and coming to different conclusions. Of course one could say it is cultural conditioning due to the patriarchy (or if you are an MRA, matriarchy if you prefer.) Of course this gets into some kind of nature vs nurture debate.
…and I’ve brought this up before but I don’t think it’s inappropriate to bring up again. When Paul Elam freaked out on stardusk, this is where I saw an ideological split between MGTOW/MRA. It seems to me PE was threatened by stardusk’s conclusions–FTR, I don’t think that stardusk is a prophet who has sacrosanct knowledge but he is presenting a worldview that is irroconcilible with MRM thought.
Here is Elam’s not retracted statement:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7BnC8RUWYeU/Ucct6FNLuaI/AAAAAAAAAHs/xNjONBAkDW4/s1600/Paul+vs+Stardusk.jpg
and here was stardusk’s video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bk-559eOImI
@ SWAB
Maybe I don’t think that men should consider being raped by a woman inescapable defilement. And I also think that making rape out to be an inescapable defilement shouldn’t be promoted for women either.
“Maybe I don’t think that men should consider being raped by a woman inescapable defilement. And I also think that making rape out to be an inescapable defilement shouldn’t be promoted for women either.”
presumably this is typhon logging with different credentials…
okay, so here is where I disagree. I think what you are showing can much easier be explained by male disposability. Giving men more rights won’t improve their lot so much.
Now is this disposability biologicaly determined as stardusk seems to suggest or is it cultural? I don’t know if we’ll have a clean answer in either of our lifetimes to that one…
weird, your last statement said admin then typhonblue…
SWAB
It is biologically determined that we should sleep on the ground, eat food raw, and that women are likely to die from childbirth. So what?
Societies exist for us to mitigate problems. They do not exist so that we can perpetuate them like meaty fuel. If this is happening, it is a gross failure, not a sign of inevitable destiny, and treating it like it is signals that western civilisation has wasted the last 2500 years, because the cynics were wrong and we are simply in the hands of Fate.
And no, Stardusk is not “in conflict” with MRA thought, he is in conflict with the thoughts that (used to) underpin the civilisation he lives in. The only real emotion this inspires is disappointment, because Stardusk is smart enough to not give in to the very crappy ideas of fate and inevitability. This is the junk feminists and other ideologues peddle for one reason alone: to command subservience from doubters. For who could argue against the inevitable?
We can. Their inevitability is a gossamer curtain wrapped around a pyramid of pigshit. Even if you think nothing can be done, you are defying that with your very existence. Your pessimism is a paradox.
Off topic, anyone seen this:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/psychology/1801295-why-male-suicide-rate-so-high.html
If it is true the fact that male suicide rates are so much higher than women’s is put in an entirely new light.
Eivind, one can fairly easily construct an evopsych argument that men are also traumatized by rape. One word to set you on the right track: Restricted sociosexuality.
Also if your view is correct every man should desire to have sex with virtually every fertile woman that is willing. I can certainly attest to the fact that I would abhor sex with most women, even most fairly attractive women. I´m picky basically and so are a lot of other guys. And this is despite me enjoying casual sex. It just has to be with someone highly attractive physically that I have the right personal chemistry with as well. That chemistry can be found within minutes, but if it is not there even sex with a physically attractive woman is repugnant to me. If most men do not desire sex with almost all willing women your theory does not work because there has to be a reason they don`t and your theory does not leave room for that.
Thank you, M.
And by the way, the use of English is not required here – not in general and especially not in this instance.
One of the problems at present with evopsych is that the field is just so vague and crude. it may develop, but that will require at least a couple of generations of work.
So you see errors such as the one you are addresing, m, which attributes reprodcutive motivations to humans that more properly apply to certian species of fish. Cod will spray milt around on any breeding female. What proof is there that that apllies to humans – and by proof I mean empircal evidence, not theories built on theories built on other baseless theories a la Chomsky.
You see the same kind of shallow thinking when people talk about the supposed imperatives of living as hunter-gatherers. People either think all hunter-gatherer societies looked just like the Bushmen or Australian Aborigines, when there is clear documentation of very societies, or else they make simple mistakes like thinking that breeding females are going to be favored in every situation simply because they breed, when the fact is that the imperatives of territorial defense, exploitation of sources of protein along with maintianing the continuity of the territory-holding lineage are all going to place a higher value on males.
So the field needs a lot of work before it starts yielding reliable insights.
@ SWAB
I log in as admin to do edits. I replaced admin with “typhon” for clarity.
Your references to Paul Elam’s exchange with Stardusk are off-topic and constitute spreading drama. Stop it.
So males are incapable of feeling the same kind of profound violation and powerlessness when forced to have a sexual experience–possibly a painful one with someone they find repellant–because evolution found no benefit for such emotions in males (except when forced by other men)–while it desperately wanted females to learn to avoid males who were strong and aggressive enough to reproduce via rape so it made rape more emotionally traumatic for females.
And to believe that males are capable of similar emotional responses to experiences as females are makes one a radical feminist.
Learning is fun. At least, it is if evolution can allow me to experience fun. Maybe that’s just another girl thing.
EIvind: “Only outliers are seemingly very traumatized by female sexual coercion, such as James Landrith, the professional victim who serves as poster boy for female-on-male rape in every single debate on the subject that I’ve seen in the past ten years. This kind of victim is so rare, Landrith pretty much owns the scene. He has also been caught changing his story and relies on recovered memories after lengthy therapy, and in order for his story to be rape even if he is telling the truth, you have to accept the radical feminist expanded definition of rape which women use against men every day. The question then becomes, is Landrith a reasonable man, or is he a freak? I submit that he is a freak, and his kind of reaction to female sexual coercion should not serve as a model for the law.”
Wow. You have a lot of brass attacking a man who isn’t here to defend himself, to slander his reputation.
So you call him and people like Toy Soldier “Outliers” because their reactions didn’t fit YOUR idea of biological essentialism? Now there’s a one-two punch below the belt if I ever saw it.
I’m not going to mince words: You are an ignorant bigot to engage in such attacks. People here have been undeserveringly neutral to you but after this slanderous language you’ve applied to James, and your opinion on treating male rape as less serious, you deserve a kick in the pants.
Dress it up in all the intellectual gobble-de-gook you want but it won’t work on me. Because I deal in giving everyone support regardless of their gender. That includes men. According to you, that doesn’t work. Tell me, why should a human being who’s been raped have to leap through your particular hoops in order to be considered viable for equivalent support? Why are men who react negatively to abuse from women “Outliers”?
You know something else? The way you use “Outliers” is an implication that you don’t believe they’re “Real Men”. What’s up with that?
You know what, forget it. It’s not worth getting myself worked up over you. But know this: You’re pretty much an “Outlier” since the tide is turning and awareness for male survivors is increasing. And we could care less about how you consider it pissing in your cornflakes.
Eagle35
At this point he has been given as much information as can be given. After this he’s either a narcissist looking for supply, or the “One Good Man” using his superior intellect for the advancement of his chosen harem.
@Typhonblue
“Why would being raped by a physically stronger individual threaten a man’s status more than being raped by a physically weaker individual?”
Humans are not just individuals. There is a difference between male and female. Being sexually coerced by a woman represents a free reproductive opportunity, so it would be absurd to evolve adaptations to be traumatized by it. Indeed, men who are “raped” by women get higher status because not only do they become the envy of their peers, but this is also preselection, which serves to attract more women. I suspect some of the claims men make about being “raped” by women are actually exaggerated bragging or lies to impress women. It is the PUA tactic of flipping the script taken to the extreme.
If you believe people come into the world as asexual blank slates, notice how it fails in the opposite direction too, and prevents you from comprehending how traumatizing rape is to women. If you believe adaptations related to rape do not exist, and all there is to it is factors like which “individual” is stronger and violence in general, then your model fails to explain why real rape is uniquely damaging. If you don’t believe in adaptations, then you must underestimate how painful rape is to women, in addition to overestimating how painful it is to men.
You could make a case that sexual coercion might be harmful to males as a byproduct of the evolved pain of being forced to do things you don’t want to do and violence in general. So far I agree. But then that’s also all you have to explain the pain women get from rape. But there is more to it in the case of women getting raped, you see, and it is quite perplexing that you would deny this. The sexual aspect is precisely what makes rape so painful to women, and this adaptive pain is precisely what is not applicable when women sexually coerce men. If you postulate that it should be equal, then you are forced to conclude that either women overreact to rape by the opposite sex or men underreact. Nothing in your theoretical framework prevents us from concluding that it might as well be the former. Do you have any way of knowing that it is not in fact men who react reasonably to rape, and women should be taught to be less traumatized by it, because most of their stated pain is mere hysteria? If you believed in adaptations, you would see the problem with that proposition.
“I would be particularly interested in studies that indicate pre-pubescent girls are less traumatized by rape.”
Here is a citation for that:
An evolutionary analysis of psychological pain following rape:
Ethology and Sociobiology, Volume 11, Issue 3, Pages 155-176
Nancy Wilmsen Thornhill, Randy Thornhill
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(90)90008-T
From the abstract: “Reproductive-aged women appear to be more severely traumatized by rape than older women or girls and married women more than unmarried women. The results presented suggest that the psychology that regulates mental pain processes information about age and mateship status in the event of a women’s rape.”
Typhonblue also said: “Post-pubescent women being less traumatized may be attributable to emotional maturity.”
That is difficult to reconcile with the finding that prepubescent girls are less traumatized than fertile women. It seems women guard their sexuality the most when it is most valuable, which is in their fertile years. This is also what makes the most sense.
Reality is sufficiently complex that you can come up with any number of contradictory explanations for observed phenomena. I am sure you can also come up with some blank-slatist explanation for why prepubescent girls are less traumatized too, if you use your imagination. Perhaps they haven’t yet developed enough emotional maturity to be traumatized. But such explanations seem awfully unsatisfying. I think it’s more likely that adaptations exist, particularly for something as evolutionarily consequential as rape.
You asked: “Also, if rape trauma is merely a function of pregnancy-avoidance, wouldn’t the best method be to desensitize women to rape since this is no longer an issue? That way they can enjoy the same psychological freedom as men.”
This seems like a horrible idea. Even though the ultimate explanation has to do with pregnancy, the proximate cause is very complex, and attempting to break this down would be incredibly damaging, I think, rather than leading to psychological freedom. But please understand that men have this psychological freedom because we are different — not because there is anything wrong with us.
@ M
“Eivind, one can fairly easily construct an evopsych argument that men are also traumatized by rape. One word to set you on the right track: Restricted sociosexuality.”
Sociosexual orientation provides yet more empirical evidence that men cannot be raped by women. We know from the Hatfield & Clark experiment of offering sex to strangers that the majority of men have an unrestricted sociosexuality, to the point of accepting sex from women they never met before on the spot just like that. This is one of the most robust research findings ever and it has been endlessly replicated. The minority who say “no” probably do so mostly because they are in a relationship and don’t want to cheat (or some are gay). Sure, there is some variation in sociosexual orientation among men, and a tiny minority might have a somewhat restricted sociosexuality, but this doesn’t prove they would be *traumatized* by female sexual coercion similarly to how women are by rape. Even if you are repulsed by some women, it doesn’t necessarily mean you would be traumatized if forced to have sex with them. The trauma of real rape is much deeper than what can be occasioned by this kind of disgust, if the rape-avoidance adaptations proposed by evolutionary biology really exist, and indeed if rape is to be regarded as a serious crime (I personally believe in both, provided we get the definitions right). Rape is not just like being forced to eat some meal you hate, you know, which is why I am so bemused by all the men who say women can rape men because they themselves are not attracted to all women. All we can conclude from restricted sociosexuality is some men prefer committed relationships. To the vast majority of men, including many with a restricted sociosexuality, female sexual coercion would be a trivial insult at worst, and outliers like Landrith are rare enough as to be regarded as freaks, in my view. It’s easier to dredge up victims traumatized by alien abductions than having been raped by a woman, and the concepts are about equally credible.
@ Typhonblue
“The particular study I referenced followed sexually abused boys for several years. It found that about 10% of them went on to sexually abuse other children–with having been abused by a woman being a larger risk factor than having been abused by a man.”
I plan to do a comprehensive review of all the studies used to support the “cyclical abuse” dogma and see what it is they really claim, what the evidence really is along with the methodological limitations, and separate the bullshit from the facts. For now, let me just say this: The claim is preposterous on the face of it. If you claim boys are sexually “abused” by women, then presumably you are saying this would be an aversive experience for the boys. If you have an aversive experience, the last thing you do is go seek out more of it. Hence it would be more likely for raped boys to stay away from sex with women, rather than seek women out and rape them (and this would constitute real harm, by the way, but this is not what you claim). Instead the claim is that when women “rape” boys, it turns them into future rapists of women. This leads me to believe the boys weren’t really abused at all. On the contrary, they must have enjoyed it so much that they can’t get enough… This would be consistent with the finding that boys abused by men don’t turn into homosexual rapists, because homosexual abuse is truly an aversive experience. And of course, there could be confounding variables or the researchers’ definitions of “rape” might be corrupt (statutory doesn’t count). I wish we could do a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial to settle it once and for all. By the way, I suspect placebo “abuse” would turn out to be roughly as harmful as actual sexual “abuse,” since a lot of the harm is probably attributable to the environment’s reactions to the supposed abuse. Placebo can do amazing things and very few of the remedies we think work, actually work as we think. Did you know that even placebo surgery has been shown to be as effective as the real thing whenever it has been placebo-controlled? Meniscus surgeries, for example, that people spend billions on annually, are no more effective than sham surgery. Incredible, but true.
@ teh Bastard formerly known as SWAB
“So prison rape is still rape because it involves a penis penetrating an orifice but the case of the straponista is assault not rape because it is an inanimate object penetrating?”
Yes. Rape is human copulation resisted by the victim to the best of her ability unless she would otherwise be probably killed or seriously injured (and homosexual rape counts as well, but it does require a penis). One cannot copulate with inanimate objects, and I am totally opposed to including this in rape law. It isn’t sex and of course cannot be rape. But using a strap-on can be assault, sure. Also, female sexual coercion can never be rape in my opinion even when it really is sex, but if the man insists on pressing charges, then laws against simple assault, kidnapping or whatever fits the level of violence used and injuries sustained, might be used. This would reflect the true severity of the crime. Calling it rape is a category error.
Sorry, I meant “nocebo” instead of “placebo” in the abuse study I proposed in my last comment.
Dude,
” The Finnish study does not indicate that surgery never helps; there is consensus that it should be performed in some circumstances, especially for younger patients and for tears from acute sports injuries. But about 80 percent of tears develop from wear and aging, and some researchers believe surgery in those cases should be significantly limited. ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/26/health/common-knee-surgery-does-very-little-for-some-study-suggests.html?_r=0
from what I read it seems it is overprescribed and helps some people but that isn’t to say it is less effective than placebo…
and that whole preselection thing seems like you got it from a pua manual…
http://www.girlschase.com/content/how-preselection-can-get-you-girls
There is no scientific evidence “game” works…
Sure you could find a pua who hits on 60,000 women and gets laid more than a guy who doesn’t talk to any women. But that is no proof that “game” works. An oldschool “player” who has never heard of “game” but hits on lotts of woman is likjely more successful than the pua…
here’s one for ya
http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2009/08/13/stripper-rapes-man-with-strap-on-gets-off/
@ Eivind
“But please understand that men have this psychological freedom because we are different — not because there is anything wrong with us.”
Why is it such a horrible idea to condition women to stop fearing something they no longer need to fear?
Humans often have irrational phobias towards other things; it would be medical malpractice to indulge those phobias rather than treating them.
“If you have an aversive experience, the last thing you do is go seek out more of it.”
This makes no sense. Why would children who were abused be far more likely to grow up to be abusers? Are the only abusers in the world those people who were never abused and it just occurred to them to beat up their spouse one day for kicks?
There are a lot of complex psychological factors underlying the “compulsion to repeat” not the least of which is normalizing the abuse.
And, actually, there are a number of men and boys who are raped who then become adverse to sex with women. A minority going on to rape women(and men and children) is just one of a number of dysfunctional behaviours.
“This makes no sense. Why would children who were abused be far more likely to grow up to be abusers? Are the only abusers in the world those people who were never abused and it just occurred to them to beat up their spouse one day for kicks?”
you are way off here…
want to find future abusers? Look for traits suggesting sociopathy. IE abusing animals when they were young. Granted if you read biographies of serial killers they were often abused. That seems to suggest that sociopaths whom were abused become serial killers, sociopaths who weren’t and who posses high IQ’s become captains of industry and politicians. Seriously, for someone who advocates for men who faced abused that is a fucking slap in the face. Oh, you were abused, you will become an abuser. Long story short, I chose MGTOW when literally my three closest family members-mother,father, sister were in domestic violence relationships.
@ SWAB
” Oh, you were abused, you will become an abuser.”
Where did I make an absolute causal statement like this?
I’ll wait while you find it.
SWAB,
“Oh, you were abused, you will become an abuser.”
That would be a pretty strange thing for Typhon to say. Think about it. tell me when you figure it out.
no typhon, I should have articulatewd my point much better, but it is an important point….
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20030206/do-sexually-abused-kids-become-abusers
@ SWAB
One that was already incorporated into what I said.
“A MINORITY going on to rape women(and men and children) is just one of a number of dysfunctional behaviours.”
Most of those dysfunctional behaviours are self-harming not other-harming, btw.
“One-third of the adult abusers had been cruel to animals as children, compared with just 5% of the child abuse victims who did not grow up to commit sexual crimes. But abusers and nonabusers experienced similar levels of physical abuse as children, and there were few significant differences in the severity or characteristics of the sexual abuse they suffered. ”
from the link above.
FTR, I think you meant one thing, then I read it as another thing and interpereted the most extreme thing, however, I do think that THIS distinction is severely important, that it’s not previous abuse that predicts future abuse. And this is one reason why modern psychology has failed men and boys as a group. I am not trying to “police language” but that distinction needs to be made.
@ SWAB
“that it’s not previous abuse that predicts future abuse.”
Actually, yes it does.
However only a minority of abuse victims go on to abuse.
There’s a difference in believing that all abused boys go on to become predators and recognizing that male predators are most often abused boys.
Don’t use the “vampire” myth to try and say the cycle of abuse is a myth as well.
Also there was a significant difference in the abuse they suffered. Abusers were more often abused by _women_.
“Twenty-six of the 224 sex abuse victims (12%) later committed sexual offenses, and in almost all cases their victims were also children. Abused children who came from families where violence was common were more than three times as likely to become abusers as were those who experienced maternal neglect and sexual abuse by females.”
this is what I read for cycle of abuse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_of_abuse
now is previous abuse one of the factors that may be in the history of a currently abusive person–yes.
Is it the only or even strongest factor-no.
Also, the cycle of abuse theory stems from rad fem ideology. While, yes, as I said above, many of the most visious serial killers did endure childhood abuse, however that is not the full story. The Cycle of Abuse is doing more harm to men and boys who went through bad shit and would like to seek help but will only be told THEY ARE AN ABUSER-guilty until proven innocent…
This is one of the more viscous things the hate movement of feminism has done.
“There is no scientific evidence “game” works…”
THere has actually been done a few studies that have tested some very simple PU techniques and found that they did increase the success rate of those who used them. That is they got more success on the first day of trying them. Most PU guys practice for a long time which would further increase success. I`ve met a few very good PUAs that started out being really bad with women and are now exceptional. Their current success does not really on just hitting on lots of women and getting success because anyone who does the numbers game is successful. They get laid on a very high percentage of approaches, they get laid by women far more attractive than themselves and they also eventually start getting approached a lot because of the changes they have gone through.
None of that means PU techniques can be applied in a formulaic way and will work as some sort of magic pussy opener, but they are broadly speaking correct and highly useful. I`vè`certainly benefitted immensely from learning about them. Mainstream dating advice I found was mostly counterproductive.
“THere has actually been done a few studies that have tested some very simple PU techniques and found that they did increase the success rate of those who used them.”
I’m curious as to which techniques….
There are certain things that appear to work, ie most of what an oldschool player would recommend–make lotts of approaches, look good, have a sexual persona…
most of what RSD/Heartiste et al pedal is snake oil…
also, if you don’t mind linking the studies….
Oh, yeah there seems to be two extreme dicotomies…
The PUAhate crowd which seems to say there is NOTHING you can do to boost your appeal to women and that you are either a grade a playa OR doomed to life long incel…
Then the flip side is the PUA snake oil school which seems to say you can make any woman attracted at any time and if you can’t it’s because you lack this magical thing called “game.” (seems like the “force.”)
Obviously the middle path is realizing many women won’t be attracted no matter what for whatever reason. Some will and you can build on that. So to compare the two extremes to sales. PUAhaters–oh, either you have teh bestest product and you don’t even need to make cold calls as the prospects are ringing you up OR you were born with the worst product and you will have to pay someone to buy from you. Gamers–you need to learn salesmanship because NO ONE ever buys anything unless someone demonstrates Superior Value through salesmanship and if you aren’t selling iceboxes to eskimoes, it is because you lack salesmanship.
Again, most of the seduction community stuff has a cult like obsession with game….
SWAB
Don’t you mean ” one of the most _vicious_ things the hate movement known as feminism has done”?
thanks Robert…
I still think taking feminist ideology which is flawed then trying to apply it causes more harm than good…
@Typhonblue
It seems you have misinterpreted your own evidence for the claim that sexually abused boys are more likely to become abusers. In fact, the authors of the study themselves explain why this claim is unfounded. Take a look at this:
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20030206/do-sexually-abused-kids-become-abusers
It is widely believed that boys who are victims of sexual abuse become abusers themselves. Studies of pedophiles suggest this often is the case, but new research shows that the risk may be smaller than previously thought.
Roughly one in 10 male victims of child sex abuse in a U.K. study later went on to abuse children as adults. But the risk was far greater for sexually victimized children who came from severely dysfunctional families. Family history of violence, sexual abuse by a female, maternal neglect, and lack of supervision were all associated with a threefold-increased risk that the abused would become an abuser. The study is reported in the Feb. 8 issue of The Lancet.
“The message here is that sexual victimization alone is not sufficient to suggest a boy is likely to grow up to become a sex offender,” study author and psychiatrist Arnon Bentovim tells WebMD. “But our study does show that abused boys who grow up in families where they are exposed to a great deal of violence or neglect are at particular risk.”
So just as I suspected, violence and neglect are the significant risk factors for growing up to be abusers, NOT sex itself! The confounding variables are evident right there in the study.
@ Eivind
You missed a crucial fact.
All the boys who were part of the study were sexually abused.
I know all the boys in the study were what you define as “sexually abused.” The issue was: Does being “sexually abused” by women cause boys to be more likely to in turn rape or abuse women or children when they get older? In other words, is there merit to the “cyclical sexual abuse” theory? You claimed this is the case. It is a basic feminist tenet that this is the case. Even I was fooled into thinking this might be the case, since there are supposedly studies proving so. This is the only aspect of the female sex offender charade that looked like it might be evidence-based (the rest is just anecdotes and attention whores like Landrith). Though it seemed unlikely, I was planning to examine these studies myself to see if it was really so. But it turns out the research itself that you yourself have cited does not even make this claim, and says instead that the relationship is associational rather than causal. Mistaking these is one of the most fundamental errors you can make while reading statistics, and spotting this fallacy is one of the first things you learn if you study statistics. I took a course in statistics for the social sciences. I guess you haven’t studied statistics. Do you even understand what a confounding variable is? I suggest you learn some statistics before you use studies to make claims they don’t support.
Now the entire house of cards which is the female sex offender charade has collapsed. You have exactly zero scientific evidence that sexual “abuse” per se is harmful to males.
I like how Eivind took this sentence:
and got this from it:
As far as I can tell, nobody’s claiming that all boys who are sexually abused will become abusers themselves. Rather, Typhonblue is saying that sexual abuse by a female and maternal neglect are important (read: statistically significant) risk factors alongside the violent and unsupervised childhood. She’s fighting the claim that it’s all men’s fault.
It is not a basic feminist tenet that abuse by women causes boys to become abusers. Feminism does not admit of the possibility that women could abuse anybody, or that anything they do might have consequences. Feminists blame fathers. They call Father’s Rights an “abusers’ lobby” and blame all gender problems on the patriarchy. They don’t blame any of the cycle of abuse on women (as Typhonblue is doing), because in their view it’s not abuse when women do it. Someone in this comment thread agrees with them, but it’s not Typhonblue.
@Theodmann
Statistically significant? That’s precisely what it isn’t. So you have a sample size of 26 boys who went on to be “abusers.” And this includes those who were abused by men also, as well as all the family violence such as “severe beatings, including marks to the head, attempts to choke or smother, second-degree burns, and comparable injuries.” How many of these 26 were sexually “abused” by females only, and had none of the family violence which the authors themselves admit is a much bigger issue than sex? I can’t find this information in the article. Perhaps there were none.
See for yourself. Full text of the article is here:
http://psychopixi.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Development-of-Sexually-Abusive-Behaviour-in-Sexually-Victimised-Males.pdf
Also their definition of “abuse” is corrupt beyond what I thought was possible even for the most radical feminists. They include all sorts acts that normal people don’t consider abuse, such as teenagers fondling each other without any coercion, even through clothes, if the age difference is two years and one of them is under 16. So teenage boys are defined as “pedophiles” if they fool around with other teenagers two years younger, even consensually. If there is any abuse here, it is the researchers abusing language.
But maybe you don’t care if what you believe has any validity? As long is it conforms to politically correct feminist dogma, you just gobble it up uncritically, eh?
The Unabomber was spot-on. Leftist oversocialization proceeds like this, and Typhonblue is a textbook example.
1. Pick one of the most politically correct dogmas you can find, in this case the feminist obsession with expanding the definitions of rape and abuse.
2. Accuse society of not fully living up to said politically correct dogma. Case in point: Koss does not apply her insanely broad rape definition to males, so we need to remedy this by seeing rape of men everywhere just like feminist theory tells us women are raped wherever we look.
In the process you validate and amplify the most extreme, sex-hostile feminist ideology, complete with citing their odious “research” where the definition of abuse is expanded to the point where teenagers are branded as “pedophiles” if their girlfriends are two years younger. Not only that, but these studies are then used to support far more outlandish claims about the harm from such “abuse” than the researchers ever intended or their data can possibly prove. And this is supposed to be good for men? I am impressed by how Typhonblue is able to take the most hateful feminist drivel and present it as the cutting edge of men’s rights activism — and get applause from some men.
@ Eivind
http://imgur.com/tCp90.gif
Do go on.
so what’ya all think of this?
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/02/10/wsj-editor-intoxicated-sexual-assault-victims-a/198007
Men when forced to penetrate, now have the possible legal consequences of being a father, which can be just as financially (And therefore psychologically) damaging as the woman having the child. It may not be biologically traumatizing, but it a social obligation by the state to pay for the child for 18 years is itself as just as much of a fear as having a child inside you for 9 months.
The man may also be married or in a closed relationship as you stated, not want to have sex with someone, and having been forced to penetrate may also lead to social ramifications.
The issue is not that of end psychological results, but more on the threats to the financial earning and (Possible) social implications of both male and female victims.
Equality under the law;
A crime should be viewed objectively under the law as to the sex of the defendant.
Engaged sexual activity without consent is still non consensual sex if the victim is male. The threat of having offspring, and also the threat of ramifications from spouses shows that there are implications to rape. Also, you suggest men gain social benefits from forced penetration, but I find this would be only a case in some males, and you also have no proof for this statement.
Men may not as a majority be traumatized by acts of rape that involve protection and have no social implications however, but the same can be said for >some< women.We are not talking about blank slated individuals running off of testosterone and beer here, we're talking about developed humans based off of past social experiences.
The best method of control is requiring both sexes to require verbal or physical consent before sexual activity. It's not hard to do, or to legally implement, and it allows the defense of the few that do get traumatized and/or financial loss by such an experience no matter the sex, individual problems etc etc.
I don't see the problem with this, if you can correct me however I will gladly listen.
Mat, welcome.
Court cases attesting to exactly what you are talking about are piling up across the nations – boys raped by women and then court ordered to support the child they don’t even get custody of.
“I don’t see the problem with this, if you can correct me however I will gladly listen.”
We all agree with that here. there can be legal problems after the fact around determing if consent was given or not, but that is a separate if related issue.
“Men may not as a majority be traumatized by acts of rape that involve protection and have no social implications however, but the same can be said for >some< women.We are not talking about blank slated individuals running off of testosterone and beer here, we're talking about developed humans based off of past social experiences."
Well you are, and we are. But you know very well that a lot of people in the discussion who insist on exaclty the false and sexist stereotype you outline.
“But what’s really remarkable is that as much as ten percent of male rape victims remain to be counted. And that despite being categorically excluded women count for even one percent of rapists.”
That is part of the problem. Feminists often claim that through their efforts men are now recognized as victims of rape. On the face of it, it sounds as if feminists are on the side of men, but when we look at the fact that only about 1.5% of female rapists are being recognized as such, the true insidiousness comes out.
If there were no women recognized as rapists, people would look at that number and say bullshit. I remember reading an article where so and so teacher raped her student or some other such article. With the government putting a non-zero there, but not recognizing about 99% of the female perpetrators, it gives the number “street cred” even though it is dishonest.
Does anyone else think Eivind Berge is a disgusting human being?
I was prepared for intelligent recourse, but I just can’t do it.
Welcome, Jarvis.
Well he gives me the creeps. Do you mean discourse? Yeah, calculate the cost benefit ratio before you bother.
Very descriptive blog, I liked that a lot. Will there be a part
2?
Magnificent website. Plenty of helpful information here.
I am sending it to several buddies ans also sharing in delicious.
And of course, thank you for your effort!
Nice blog here! Also your website loads up fast!
What host are you using? Can I get your affiliate link to your host?
I wish my site loaded up as quickly as yours lol