Scarlet Blue’s Day Off….

567800-galactus_400.jpg Hell, I have nothing to add, except, if I were a Woman, I’d want to be Scarlet W. Blue (Sometimes, I think I might be Scarlet W. Blue or Vice Versa).

Welcome our newest Writer, and your Future Empress-

scarletblueredhairbluelipssnipplefont.jpg

My day off…which is really like three hours off because the Jedi will return home soon after a weekend with their dad. I’m going to use my three hours to write this post, my first post at Jonestown. I should be doing laundry (but the washing machine is way down in the basement), or sending out resume packets, or riding my exercise bike…. But it’s my three hours off, see? Probably the only three hours I’ll get all week.

Anyway, by way of a brief introduction, here’s what you need to know about me: fairlane has promised that when he becomes Emperor, I will be Empress. So, I’m counting on you, fairlane.

My father likes to say to me, “Scarlet, yer so contrary, if you was to fall in the Mississippi River n’ drown, they’d find yer ass upstream.” (Like I don’t come by that honestly, old man: look at my life….). But yeah, I’ll own it. And that is why I don’t like to write about things like “relationships” and other so-perceived “girlie” things like nail polish, which I don’t know anything about anyway, except to say that stuff that says “10 Day No Chip” on the label? Not so much, at least not on toenails. I don’t paint fingernails, so I wouldn’t know about that.

But I did read an article the other day that prompted some thinking on my part, despite fierce resistance initially. I’ll come back to that article.

An old friend of mine has dedicated his life to being a foot soldier in the War of the Sexes, and he frequently engages in battles that leave him scarred and wanting revenge. In fact, he sends me emails all the time attempting to prove that women are the source of all human misery and evil. Why he does this, I do not know. I suppose I am to acknowledge his pain and apologize on behalf of all women. Instead, having the aforementioned stubborn streak, which renders me physically and mentally unable, I usually just tell him if he brings the battle of the sexes to my gate, I will slay everyone, equally, without mercy. Male, female, children, pets…. Keep that sh*t away from me.

For the most part, I think it’s better to treat people as individuals, not as “women,” or “men” or “minority group members,” but as unique people with their own qualities. That’s not to say, mind you, that people don’t have concerns and problems related to being women, men, or members of minority groups, but rather they experience these things within the context of their own individuality.

Try pointing this out to my “friend,” and he will promptly inform you that women don’t have “qualities” except those necessary to ruin the lives of men.

ZZZZzzzzz. (That’s snoring, in case you don’t recognize it). I hear your pain. Or feel it or what the fvck ever. Now shut the fvck up.

But I did read an article in Psychology Today the other day called “Desperation with a Difference” by Nando Pelusi, a clinical psychologist, that made me think about this topic, the disconnect between men and women, a bit more. In this article, Pelusi made the point that in relationships, men and women get obsessed with a love interest of the opposite sex at different points in the relationship. And that just leads to trouble.

A summary of the article (attribute any of what follows to me, and I will mock your reading skills sans mercy):

A man becomes obsessed with a woman before he actually enters into a relationship with her. Men tend to idealize women, and this makes a man pursue a woman zealously, sparing no expense to prove he wants her for her and not what he really wants her for. Then, when he snags her, he’s disappointed. She’s not the ideal he imagined. (That twenty minutes of reward came and went. Ha—a pun). Now what? Oh, look! Another one! This behavior leads to disappointment again and again and again.

Women, on the other hand, become obsessed AFTER the relationship commences. They’re not quick to rush in, because they want to know what the relationship will mean in the long term. They’re not into wasting time, perhaps because biologically they have less time to waste. Instead of twenty minutes of intense pleasure, women are (possibly) looking at years and years of parenthood. And this explains why women will often try to make an impossible relationship work, even after the horse is dead and they should get the fvck off. Of the horse, I mean.

I suppose Pelusi believes that Biology drives behavior. But with such radically different hardwiring, how are these two kinds of people EVER going to have a relationship satisfying to both?

There are underlying assumptions to Pelusi’s argument that must be examined. First of all, we’re all heterosexual in this article, which leaves one to wonder how lesbians ever find themselves in committed relationships.

Secondly, we have a tendency to become “obsessed.”

Third, we are, in fact, driven by biological factors beyond our control.

I’m sure there are more assumptions there, but I just ran out of fingers. (Ha! Kidding!)

It’s the last thing that really bugs me (not the dearth of fingers, which I made up, but the biological determinism of sorts). You see, my friend, the one bent on forcing me to account for the misdeeds of all women, swears by biology. Women are denying men the right to their biological destiny, which is to spread their seed far and wide.

Personally, I prefer the insight of writer Barbara Kingsolver, who notes that biology (or in particular the “sociobiology” of Edward O. Wilson) might explain behaviors but doesn’t excuse them. “A creature with a big enough head to make a contract should have the sense to make one it can keep,” says Kingsolver, in an essay titled, interestingly, “Semper Fi.” (I love her, by the way. She makes me wish I were a lesbian.)

Still, a nagging doubt lingers that there is something to this biology thing.

I have the sneaking suspicion I have been idealized, more than once, and then found wanting, despite the fact that I tend to state UP FRONT that I am, indeed, flawed. “Totally effed up,” is more like it. (For some weird reason, men seem to find this charming, actually.) And, therefore, I have disappointed. And been disappointed, to be sure.

And I have known that annoyance of being pursued and wined and dined, only to end up with a couch potato who doesn’t want to leave the house.

Pelusi notes in the article that this vast disconnect between male and female experiences completely turns some people off of the notion of love and relationships. That I readily and easily understand. My reluctance to even address such topics probably indicates a desire to distance myself from the whole thing.

Are men really all about the pursuit?

Are women really all about the hanging on?

Is disappointment inevitable for both?

What does this say about evolution?

Or is there a god that’s just really, really perverse and sort of mean, too?

As usual, I find myself with more questions than answers.

Advertisements

~ by Scarlet Blue on April 1, 2008.

34 Responses to “Scarlet Blue’s Day Off….”

  1. Welcome to Jonestown Scarlet. I see that you, too, have recovered nicely from the sip of Kool-Aid we all take from the cup that is life.

    This a great first post and I have to say parts of it intrigued me because you’re right, it does lead to more questions than answers. Like this one:

    Why is your old friend bitching to you about his “women” issues when he should be taking that shit up with his mother and/or therapist, if they’re not one in the same person?

    Nonetheless, I’d like to take a stab at the last questions you posed in you post if I may using the magic 8 ball answers.

    Are men really all about the pursuit? Outlook not so good.

    Are women really all about the hanging on? Absolutely.

    Is disappointment inevitable for both? Yes.

    What does this say about evolution? Ask again later.

    Or is there a god that’s just really, really perverse and sort of mean, too? My sources say no.

    Because I am a scientific person, I invite you to and all your readers today to verify my results at http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~ssanty/cgi-bin/eightball.cgi

    Again, welcome Scarlet. Great post.

  2. Ahh! What a delightful surprise and a great post as well – as I would naturally expect.
    This may be a subject best left to people younger than me – as are most of you. Having left the DbbleP’s (Pursuer-Pursueed) long ago I’ve had the opportunity to verify your suggestion that it all does come down to individuals. History, natural tendencies, intellect, sense of humor, kindness and maybe even maturity can heal the disconnect.. but what do I know? I can only speak personally and not in general to this subject.

  3. Hello, Scarlet.
    That biological determinism is a load of crap.
    It’s about character.
    Such as the difference between being goal-oriented or process-oriented.
    Where one is in movement and growing and another is in movement and growing, then the interaction is another movement and growth of its own accord, to influence the both, but not to control.
    As Gibran wrote, as the columns of the temple stand together, and yet with space between them.
    Although that really doesn’t capture it properly, because it indicates a solidity that is never available as humans. We move, and we grow. We consider, we process, we go on to other things.

    Your friend is unhappy because he chooses to be.
    He tries to confine people into little cages made of stone. He doesn’t want people, which are hard to predict, where the interaction is more of an improvisation.
    He wants statues that are whole in themselves.
    People– real human beings– are never whole in themselves.
    That’s why we’re social animals, to one extent or another.

    Where he seeks to confine others within his own narrow-mindedness, he himself is trapped.
    Those cages carved of stone have proven fruitful for imprisoning only himself.

    Again, as humans, we all do that to one extent or another.
    We are the victims and heroes of our own perceptions and untility.

    To phrase it succinctly, if you choose to be an asshole, then you choose to smell like shit when you make that decision.
    The two are one.

  4. Welcome with your first post!What a topic.

    I’m such a huge fan of broad generalizations like the ones made by Pelusi. I’d like to see what he(?) would come up with someone who is bi like me. For example, am I different with men than women? In relationships with men, I’m more the bolter than the bolted and even when bolted, definitely not the one to cling. Tell me it’s over and it’s over. I’m not into hanging on.

    And as for your friend who wants to especially focus on the biology of spraying his seed all over, tell him to just consider women nothing more than cum-catchers and stop letting them get at his head. That’s way easier in the long run. And if that doesn’t work for him, then he can just stick to Kleenex.

    -signed a bitter woman bent on male destruction except then I’m fucking with women.

  5. Damn, spartacus beat me to the commentary about disappointment, which, admittedly, varies from person to couple to timeframe, but it’s there. Thus, things like drinking and PS2s and words and rock and/or roll.

  6. The reason your old friend sends you messages on the topic that you address is, I perceive, that he respects your opinion and that he is seeking your sage advice. Though I have not seen the emails you have received, I would bet he does not perceive them as being evidence that women are ‘the source of all human misery and evil,’ rather I would venture he is providing evidence to you for how women may be blind to the harm he has witnessed being visited upon men. This is neither to say that men have not done the reverse nor that women are not abused by men. However, it may be to point out that men are not the only abusers in human relationships and that men are frequently blamed even if they are innocent. I assume that your friend is male and that you are female, so it is likely he is seeking an explanation from a woman whom he respects as to why women tend not to appreciate the needs of men. I can only guess at this. I do not think he wants you to apologize on behalf of all women. Perhaps he would, however, like to know why many women and society in general do not acknowledge the biological need of a man.

    I would venture to wager that your friend would agree that we should ‘treat people as individuals,’ which of course is what everyone deserves. Nevertheless, even if you treat each person as an individual, it does not erase biology. Would it be wrong to say that males ‘ejaculate’ or that females ‘menstruate’ even though there are men who have been paralyzed from the waist down and even though there are women who are post menopausal? The answer is a negative. The biological reality is that these features are what make men men and women women respectively, despite the fact that polite society frowns on such acknowledgements. These biological generalizations obtain whether the human subject is heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual or lesbian. That every human being is not omnisexual is a consequence of social programming not individualism.

    As I interpret it, your old friend appears to be saying that there is a biological difference between men and women that society refuses to acknowledge. What could it be? The obvious answer is that women ovulate and men ejaculate. A woman only has so many eggs to ovulate over her life time, but a man has an almost unlimited potential for producing sperm. I know I am generalizing, but I feel rather safe in saying that these generalizations are biological fact. Perhaps the quantum leap that your friend expects you to make is that these differences also may lead to significant differences in the need for sex. It is plausible to conclude that a man may need to release gametes more often than a woman needs to release hers, wouldn’t you agree?

    If that assumption is granted, then it might also be not far behind to infer that a single woman may not be able to meet the sexual needs of a single man, which has been acknowledged by some scientists (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4790313.stm). All of this is not to say that there are not men out there who have diminutive sex drives or that there are not women out there who are nymphs. It is to say that all things being equal men generally need sex more than women do.

    How is this gap handled by society? On the whole, society seems to side with women. Men who are not quite broken in are told that they are emotionally immature, that they are oversexed, that they are sex addicts, and that they are perverts. Society often puts mental illness labels on people who have behaviors not embraced by the norm. Walter Freeman was keenly aware of how social pressure empowers individuals to punish those who do not follow the norm. He perfected the prefrontal leucotomy of Moniz, who won a Noble Prize in 1949. Freeman travelled all over the United States performing lobotomies on people who did not behave the way society thought they should (Go to [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5014080] to read about/listen to Howard Dully’s story). We are lucky that Freeman’s work was mostly discredited, although lobotomies are still performed. What society prefers now is to perform temporary chemical lobotomies. Children who are diagnosed as having attention deficit disorder are a good example of today’s victims. Other examples are women who freely choose their own lovers being labeled sluts and men who masturbate with exuberance being called wankers.

    Conventional wisdom has even convinced most of society that the reason men rape is because of power. Even though I do not believe this to be the case, I do not believe rape is acceptable behavior. If men do not rape for power, why do they rape? Is it possible that they rape for some other reason? Perhaps men rape for sex—Thornhill and Palmer (http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=3681) show quite convincingly that rape is not about power. Men need access to sex if they have access, there is no problem. If they have no access to sex, rape occurs. We could argue it is a matter of character and that men should have to develop character, and we should punish those men who have little character. That’s one view. However, if you’d like to reduce rape, it might be a better idea to look at its actual causes.

    In the end, the conflict would seem to be in what is enough sex. Women tend to need sex less than men, and society tends to believe that however much sex a woman needs is all that a man needs. Judging whether an orange is good by the criteria of what is a good apple is absurd, so too is it preposterous to evaluate men and their character by what is the female standard. What is the female standard? I don’t know but inference seems to indicate that she wants one man who is faithful to her, a man who does not want sex very often. This description does not fit the typical man.

    Perhaps, Ms Scarlet W. Blue, this is what your old friend is trying to convey to you: Why do women not acknowledge men’s need (i.e., the need for frequent sex) while men readily acknowledge women’s need (i.e., the frequent need to shed the lining of the uterus)?

  7. Interesting post, and I generally agree with you Scarlet. I tend to see people as individuals, with ups and downs.

    I saw an announcement on Yahoo, about a new channel for women devoted to (a lot of cliche crap). I found it insulting and I can only imagine what a woman might feel about being told those trivial things applied to her. And my first thought was, “I bet some dude at Yahoo came up with this brain fart.” So, I suppose I am as guilty as the next about stereo-typing the sexes. It’s just that I usually stereo-type my own first. Sigh.

    That’s way easier in the long run. And if that doesn’t work for him, then he can just stick to Kleenex.

    I suspect the Kleenex is stuck already, DCup.

    Regards,

    Tengrain

  8. Welcome Scarlet:)

  9. I may cry. I wrote a reply to the comments, including a lengthy one to Satyr, and it disappeared out into cyberspace, leaving me bereft and, frankly, lazy!

    Let me try to recreate that….

    Spartacus, I love that 8-ball because if you keep hitting the back button on the browser,you will eventually get the answer you desire. For example, I asked it if I would ever be Empress, and it said, “Maybe,” but I didn’t give up until it said, “Definitely.” That’s my advice to all of you: keep asking until you get the answer you want.

    Susan–who’s my favorite person today? The answer lies in two new Karen Armstrong books. Happyhappy joyjoy. Love books and KA. I look forward to reading them.

    PT, I’m not sure it’s a load of crap, but I do think it is tempered by our ability to function on a higher intellectual level than, say, your average dog in heat. I’m with Kingsolver on that one: what is the point of the big brain? Nice analogy about the cages, and you made me consider the implications of my friend being trapped. A nice reminder of my need to feel empathy and compassion.

    Trust you, D-Cup to provide some perspective with your frankness and honesty.

    RG, you seem to have some nice circumstances going there in your life.

    Ah, Satyr, don’t misunderstand me. I love my friend. But I have a feeling he’s not sending me these messages out of a desire for understanding so much as a desire to vent some anger and frustration he’s grappling with. I am female, and we have been together through some dark times, and he knows I will not reject him, so he knows he can vent on me. I do not see men as abused or women as abused, but that PEOPLE often abuse other people, and it does not matter who is the ABUSER, it’s wrong. It’s wrong not to treat another individual as a human being. Being male or female has nothing to do with that. As PT said, that’s an issue of character. My friend asks me to answer for all women, and I cannot do that. I am only one woman.I can’t speak to the needs or lack thereof of other women. I think my friend needs to examine the assumptions he is making about ME and what those assumptions say about his attitudes toward me. I don’t want my friend to be unhappy, and I have always stood by him, as I said, but I think he hides his individual pain behind angry rhetoric. If he wanted to confide in me, friend to friend, he knows he would find no better friend. But I still think he wants to vent and punish.

    Tengrain, it could easily have been a woman who thought of that, unfortunately.

    Thanks, Johnny Wingnut.

  10. Welcome, Empress!

  11. Welcome Empress.

    Uh, Scarlet?

    Did you read all of Satyr’s comment?

    He says men rape because, in essence, women don’t put out enough.

    In other words, rape is the fault of women because men “Need” to have sex (It’s Biology, a Drive, We can’t help it).

    Thornhill, and Palmer (The douche’s who wrote the book he’s citing) assert that men are hardwired to “Spread their seed,” and that rape is merely a way of ensuring this.

    The book also claims that women get upset about rape not because it’s violent, but because they didn’t get to choose the guy with whom they had sex.

    These two idiots are attempting to use Darwinian Theory to shoot down Sociological, and Feminist Theories about rape (They’re not all that different than Charles Murray who wrote “The Bell Curve.” Murray used biology to explain away racism. Blacks are simply genetically inferior to whites).

    T, and P even use an anecdote about a man who didn’t get upset when his wife was raped by an orangutan because, after all, an orangutan isn’t a human, so, she can’t get pregnant.

    You see, men get upset when their wives are raped because they might become impregnated with another man’s seed.

    Forget love, concern, empathy or any of those “Human” emotions. Nope.

    Only a complete Asshole would believe such BULLSHIT.

    I will offer you a word of encouragement though Satyr.

    Try practicing that Theory, and you’ll end up in a place where you can have all the Sex, and Tossed Salad you want.

    I almost forgot,-

    One question, if rapists are simply “Spreading their seed,” why do so many of them wear condoms?

    Oh, that’s right, they’re trying to hide any potential DNA evidence because they just committed a violent crime against another human being.

    Most rapes are planned out, not spur of the moment. If rape was a “biological impulse,” men would rape any time, anywhere, but they don’t.

    And “Venture to wager” is redundant.

  12. Thanks, Suze.

    Yes, fairlane, I did read that, but I’ve heard that argument so much that it no longer registers with me. I pass right over it. It is a poor argument for all the reasons you cited, and it’s one of those assumptions my friend has that he refuses to examine. When people argue based on logical fallacies, you can’t really do much with them, you know?

    Also, you know I come from southern Missouri, right? No amount of anti-female feeling surprises me any more. Welcome to my world.

    Besides, you’re way smarter that moi, and you know the material, and you did better than I could have with that topic.

  13. Fairlane,

    “And ‘Venture to wager’ is redundant’ is an ad hominem argument.

    I’m sorry that you are angry/offended. However, your inference is erroneous. I do not think men rape because women do not put out enough. It does, nevertheless, seem to be a result of men not having access to sex (read Toni Morrison’s description of bestiality in Beloved for an example of how this might play out).

    That you cannot comprehend how one could be driven to rape and that that very same person could plan that rape is really a sign of your not being able to understand the concept of epiphenomena. Think about the human obsession with sugar and calories and dieting: An apparent contradiction, no?

    Just because my argument (and Thornbill & Palmer’s) is that rape is caused by biology doesn’t mean it can not or should not be prevented.

    I believe just as strongly as anyone else that forcing another to do something against her/his will is wrong. The difference seems to be that I haven’t had a visceral response (rather ironic of you, isn’t it?) to a logical conclusion. Furthermore, I do not wish anyone to rape you. You, on the other hand, appear to be fantasizing about Bubba having his way with me in maximun security.

    Who is the less civilised is what one might ask.

  14. Satyr- “Toni Morrison?”

    She’s a writer, not a biologist, sociologist, psychologist or schooled in any branch of science.

    Completely irrelevant.

    Mother Goose wrote about talking chickens, and dogs.

    As for not “Comprehending,” your arrogance is off the charts.

    I taught rape prevention seminars for the FBI for two years when I lived in St. Louis.

    The reason I’m angry is because Palmer and Thornhill, not unlike Murray, Creationists, Thomas Szasz, and Michael Creighton are using junk science.

    The book you cited is junk science.

    And Junk Science is dangerous.

    If such a “theory” were ever adopted, it could be used as a defense/excuse for rape.

    It’s nothing more than a “pseudo-scientific” spin on the, “Men can’t help it” argument.

    Correcting your improper use of language is not “ad hominem,” but it does point out, once more, your pseudo-intellectualism (That would be “ad hominem”).

    I was attempting to offer my help. Your writing style is stilted, and seems forced.

    As for your “fantasy” comment about prison rape, I’m not the one who came up with a name for your theoretical rapist.

    I was simply making a humorous comment off the cuff, but you, apparently, gave it some thought.

    “Men need access to sex if they have access, there is no problem. If they have no access to sex, rape occurs.”

    Those are your words, not mine.

    Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, your troubles with women are your own doing?

    Scarlet is your friend, and obviously upset with your “Theories,” and yet, you continue to discuss them with her.

    Scarlet- You don’t have to put up with that bullshit.

    I have some people in St. Louis, if you know what I mean 8)

    *Jonestown has its fair share of female readers/contributors. I’d love to hear what you have to say about Satyr’s views.

    Addendum- I think I waited too long to ask for feedback. So, I think I’ll write a post about this very subject. It will be a nice change of pace.

    Oh, and Satyr, you should stay tuned, maybe you’ll learn something.

    Or not.

  15. Satyr wrote: “Why do women not acknowledge men’s need (i.e., the need for frequent sex) while men readily acknowledge women’s need (i.e., the frequent need to shed the lining of the uterus)?” Excuse me, what does having a period have anything to do with men’s acknowlegement? That don’t make no sense!!!

  16. //..and men who masturbate with exuberance being called wankers.//

    Gees, I think Satyr made a summation of his own comments. Wankerism.

    // ..If they have no access to sex, rape occurs..// So I guess an exuberent masturbator does not have access to sex???? Gees, it may be do-it-yourself, but golly, hey, whatta ever gets you through the night!!

    The whole thing seemed like a Wankerism. And the whole opinion trite and contrived. Chicken Soup for a Wanker’s Soul. Gees, gimmee a break or gimmee a beer!

  17. Should I even make an effort to respond? My gut tells me no matter what I say I will likely not be listened to. However, I would like to point out that what I have written has been misread or misconstrued. Let me say it clearly below:

    I do not believe rape is ever justified. It is wrong.

    Never did I imply otherwise. Was it faulty of me to refer to a literary work for an example? No, I do not believe so. Yes, Morrison is simply a writer. Still I think writers tell truths about human beings and their struggles. Nevertheless, a literary allusion is anecdotal at best. I concede that point, although I do not concede that it is irrelevant. Do you believe fiction has no human truths in it?

    That you say you taught ‘rape prevention seminars for the FBI for two years” is not evidence. No one knows you from Adam. Humans lie—it is not inconceivable that you could be a story teller yourself. I have no reason to doubt you, but to state that you are an expert does not make you an expert.

    Further, just because you state that Thornhill & Palmer’s work is ‘junk science’ does not make it so. You offer no scientific works to which one might refer and find where it has been declared by other scientists in the discipline that it is poor science.

    I agree junk science is dangerous, but you have not shown that the work we are discussing is junk. You seem to think that Thornhill & Palmer wish to excuse or defend rape. They do not do that. They explain in the work itself that that is not their intention, rather there aim is to help come to grips with the causes of the horrible social problem that rape is.

    Would you agree that human beings are animals? Would you agree that animals have base instincts? Would you agree that animals are driven by their basic instincts? You would be hard pressed to argue against the motivating power of our baser drives. Do basic instincts justify actions? No. The ends do not justify the means. However, the ends might explain why the means occur. That’s all I’m saying.

    Look at the natural world. Rape occurs all the time in the wild. Young adolescent male sea lions trample baby seals to death in their attempts to mate. They fight each other and kill each other. The common chimpanzee will fight and kill members of its species. So do human beings. The bonobos, our close cousins, are the only chimpanzee that does not wage war on others and kill each other. A little research would show you why. However, you may think that that work is junk science as well.

    Power is not the explanation for rape. Perhaps it explains some of it, but it does not explain most of it. Do you suppose a young dog that humps your leg is wanting to show you his ‘power’? Think of how absurd that is. You many be correct that rape is uncivilised behaviour, but for you to say it is not caused by biology is to reject overwhelming evidence. In fact, your reaction to the findings of Thornhill & Palmer is not dissimilar to those of the authorities of Roman Inquisition to the heliocentric ideas of Copernicus. You appear to want to find a heretic like Giordano Bruno to burn at the stake for speaking out against accepted dogma. You offer no counter evidence, not even an iota.

    I deny that a biological cause is a justification for rape. I believe it is a first step on the path to finding a solution to a social problem. As for your ‘correcting my improper use of language’ not being ad hominem argument, you must not understand that term. Ad hominem just means to the man. Why would you attack my ‘grammar’ if you could shred my argument? Why is there a need to comment that my ‘writing style is stitled and seems forced’? That is irrelevant to the discussion. Can you not address the argument?

    To clarify for you, I do not think sex in prisons is about power either. I reaffirm that I believe men in prison or out of prison need access to sex. Because of this need, they can commit horrible acts. I do not deny this. You seem to though.

    It is a well-known discourse tactic to hint at a threat and only hint at so that one may have plausible deniability. I suppose you would say that your saying, “I have some people in St. Louis, if you know what I mean” is not a thinly veiled threat.

    I hope Jonestown does have its fair share of female contributors and readers. I would embrace their comments. However, since you and I would probably agree that women are the not fault—I think biology is the culprit; you think I’m not sure perhaps ‘evil’ is the cause—then perchance they won’t have a solution either. Vindictiveness is not the answer.

    I am sorry that you have had to wait for feedback. I am not here to tell you that you are ‘stupid’ or ‘unintelligent’. I came to address a problem, not to accuse. If you give me evidence for your posting on this subject, I will be glad to learn. However, visceral ranting is ineffectual.

  18. See, here’s how it works. You presented an idea that is contrary to long established views.

    The onus for “proof” falls squarely on you, not me.

    For example,

    “Power is not the explanation for rape.”

    Where’s your “proof?”

    Argument by assertion is an invalid argument. Your opinion means jack.

    This is the same shit Creationists pull. Instead of explaining their jackass “theories” they attempt to force those with whom they disagree to “prove” them wrong.

    Nope, nope, nope.

    By the way, a dog humping your leg is a power display, as is licking your face.

    Alpha males hump other dogs within the pack to show dominance, and Betas will lick the faces of the Alphas as a sign of submission.

    That’s evolution.

    You say rape is a “social problem” while asserting it has a biological cause.

    The first part of your statement is true, but the last part is sorely lacking.

    Rape would be evenly distributed around the world, if it was caused by biology.

    It’s not.

    Rape occurs far more often in societies that have patriarchal tendencies.

    Men > Women

    Power.

    Your “overwhelming evidence” statement is absurd. What “overwhelming evidence?”

    One study, one book, two men’s opinions hardly qualifies as “overwhelming.”

    Again, this is a similar tactic used by Creationists.

    The overwhelming evidence contradicts T, and P’s findings.

    Read interviews with rapists, sexual sadists.

    Fantasies of power, and domination are what motivates them, not an “Impulse” to spread their seed.

    Why would a rapist use a date rape drug or alcohol to immobilize their victims?

    Submission.

    Power.

    Rape is a psychological crime, not an evolutionary crime.

    Women are objects, and are easy prey, as are children.

    Ed Kemper, Serial Killer/Rapist/Sexual Sadist, described killing as equivalent to throwing out a paper cup after you’ve emptied its contents.

    In other words, the cup (Person) was irrelevant, it was the fantasy, the quenching of his thirst that mattered. Once he was finished with his fantasy, he tossed out the cup, and went looking for another one.

    His fantasy was to have complete power over another human being. To make them do whatever he wanted them to do.

    On a smaller scale, date rapists who use Roofies or alcohol, are in essence doing the exact same thing. They have someone with whom they can do whatever they please.

    If rape were a product of evolution, far more men would rape, and far more men would have rape fantasies.

    Here’s what I know.

    People seek out philosophies, ideologies that justify, rationalize, coincide with beliefs they already hold to be true.

    It doesn’t matter if T, and P are trying to “justify” rape. Charles Murray wasn’t trying to justify racism. It just so happens that blacks are genetically inferior to whites.

    It was simply a “fact.”

    Whatever consequences stem from such moronic conclusions are not his fault.

    You “Prove” me wrong.

    Oh, the comment to Scarlet was a joke, hence the smiley face.

    You are overestimating your impact.

    I will say, your detached comments are interesting, especially when combined with your sense of importance, i.e. “My opinion is fact.”

    Is that you Grandiosity?

    Okjimm– No worries. Comment as you feel necessary.

  19. //..I would like to point out that what I have written has been misread or misconstrued. //

    or, ergo, I am a bad writer.

    //Rape occurs all the time in the wild.//

    We are, ah, not in the ‘wild’ . Faulty causal reasoning.

    //Power is not the explanation for rape.//

    Two rather terse statements explaining (or rather not documenting your arguments.) and indicating you really know little of the subject or did not take enough care to document your inherent thesis.

    //it is not inconceivable that you could be a story teller yourself. //

    Shit&Whiskers!! Yes!!! It seems clear that you are of the ilk that knows a bit of ‘telling’ stories.

    //It is a well-known discourse tactic to hint at a threat and only hint at so that one may have plausible deniability. I suppose you would say that your saying, “I have some people in St. Louis, if you know what I mean” is not a thinly veiled threat//

    Well slap my ass and call me Sally!! Again, you offer no citation…..plus the statement you make is obtuse and reveals a lack of understanding of sarcasm and satire.

    //I am not here to tell you that you are ‘stupid’ or ‘unintelligent’//

    OK. Then what the fuck are you here for??

    Wowsers! I gotta get a beer. My sincere apologies to all the Jonestown folk for flapping my flapping my fingers on the keys. I normally show up here to read. Wankerisms kinda set me off.

    Satyr….do not even bother to reply to me. Morning is the long way home and I gotta get started.

    //Power is not the explanation for rape.//

    Two extremely unsubstantiated statements.

  20. …but to get to YOUR points….

    //Are men really all about the pursuit?

    Are women really all about the hanging on?

    Is disappointment inevitable for both?

    What does this say about evolution?

    Or is there a god that’s just really, really perverse and sort of mean, too?

    As usual, I find myself with more questions than answers.//

    …but to get to your points.
    1) no
    2) no
    3) probably
    4) not much
    5) Love is the only God there is
    6) And that makes you a kind, thinking person. Good for you.

  21. Wacky

  22. As has been shown, no one has demonstrated the case to be otherwise. Every statement I have made has been condemned as being unsubstantiated while nearly every commment against mine also been unsubstantiated. But then I suppose this is not my ‘home’ and I shouldn’t be here.

    As for proofs, I’ll leave those to the mathematicians. I can provide evidence but proof? What is proof? I’m afraid statistics aren’t about proof. They’re about probabilities.

    I find it strange that the P&T argument must be dismissed without consideration.

    We are in the ‘wild’. How else does one explain capitalism? How else do we explain 32,000 children in the world dying of curable and preventable diseases every day? Is that acceptable to civilisation? But live your life an illusion. It is your life.

    I would not mind a true discussion here, but the ad hominem arguments make discourse difficult if not impossible.

    Apparently, you guys can’t get past the urge to insult me. I have come here neither to insult nor to be insulted.

    I am sorry that we cannot have this conversation. I am further sorry that you don’t welcome guests with differing perspectives.

    Do I know the answer? No, I do not. I haven’t claimed to know it either. Long established views haven’t solved the problem; the answer must lie elswhere. I hope we find it.

  23. In defense of dangerous ideas
    In every age, taboo questions raise our blood pressure and threaten moral panic. But we
    cannot be afraid to answer them.
    July 15, 2007
    BY STEVEN PINKER
    Do women, on average, have a different profile of aptitudes and emotions than men?
    Were the events in the Bible fictitious — not just the miracles, but those involving kings and
    empires?
    Has the state of the environment improved in the last 50 years?
    Tell us what you think
    This essay was first posted at Edge (www.edge.org) and is reprinted with permission. It is the
    Preface to the book ‘What Is Your Dangerous Idea?: Today’s Leading Thinkers on the
    Unthinkable,’ published by HarperCollins. Write to
    controversy@suntimes.com .
    Do most victims of sexual abuse suffer no lifelong damage?
    Did Native Americans engage in genocide and despoil the landscape?
    Do men have an innate tendency to rape?
    Did the crime rate go down in the 1990s because two decades earlier poor women aborted
    children who would have been prone to violence?
    Are suicide terrorists well-educated, mentally healthy and morally driven?
    Would the incidence of rape go down if prostitution were legalized?
    Do African-American men have higher levels of testosterone, on average, than white men?
    Is morality just a product of the evolution of our brains, with no inherent reality?
    Would society be better off if heroin and cocaine were legalized?
    Is homosexuality the symptom of an infectious disease?
    Would it be consistent with our moral principles to give parents the option of euthanizing
    file:///C|/Temp/dangerous_ideas.htm (1 of 8) [8/9/2007 1:22:43 PM]
    Untitled Document
    newborns with birth defects that would consign them to a life of pain and disability?
    Do parents have any effect on the character or intelligence of their children?
    Have religions killed a greater proportion of people than Nazism?
    Would damage from terrorism be reduced if the police could torture suspects in special
    circumstances?
    Would Africa have a better chance of rising out of poverty if it hosted more polluting industries
    or accepted Europe’s nuclear waste?
    Is the average intelligence of Western nations declining because duller people are having more
    children than smarter people?
    Would unwanted children be better off if there were a market in adoption rights, with babies
    going to the highest bidder?
    Would lives be saved if we instituted a free market in organs for transplantation?
    Should people have the right to clone themselves, or enhance the genetic traits of their
    children?
    Perhaps you can feel your blood pressure rise as you read these questions. Perhaps you are
    appalled that people can so much as think such things. Perhaps you think less of me for
    bringing them up. These are dangerous ideas — ideas that are denounced not because they
    are self-evidently false, nor because they advocate harmful action, but because they are
    thought to corrode the prevailing moral order.
    Think about it
    By “dangerous ideas” I don’t have in mind harmful technologies, like those behind weapons of
    mass destruction, or evil ideologies, like those of racist, fascist or other fanatical cults. I have
    in mind statements of fact or policy that are defended with evidence and argument by serious
    scientists and thinkers but which are felt to challenge the collective decency of an age. The
    ideas listed above, and the moral panic that each one of them has incited during the past
    quarter century, are examples. Writers who have raised ideas like these have been vilified,
    censored, fired, threatened and in some cases physically assaulted.
    Every era has its dangerous ideas. For millennia, the monotheistic religions have persecuted
    countless heresies, together with nuisances from science such as geocentrism, biblical
    archeology, and the theory of evolution. We can be thankful that the punishments have
    changed from torture and mutilation to the canceling of grants and the writing of vituperative
    file:///C|/Temp/dangerous_ideas.htm (2 of 8) [8/9/2007 1:22:43 PM]
    Untitled Document
    reviews. But intellectual intimidation, whether by sword or by pen, inevitably shapes the ideas
    that are taken seriously in a given era, and the rear-view mirror of history presents us with a
    warning.
    Time and again, people have invested factual claims with ethical implications that today look
    ludicrous. The fear that the structure of our solar system has grave moral consequences is a
    venerable example, and the foisting of “intelligent design” on biology students is a
    contemporary one. These travesties should lead us to ask whether the contemporary
    intellectual mainstream might be entertaining similar moral delusions. Are we enraged by our
    own infidels and heretics whom history may some day vindicate?
    Unsettling possibilities
    Dangerous ideas are likely to confront us at an increasing rate and we are ill equipped to deal
    with them. When done right, science (together with other truth-seeking institutions, such as
    history and journalism) characterizes the world as it is, without regard to whose feelings get
    hurt. Science in particular has always been a source of heresy, and today the galloping
    advances in touchy areas like genetics, evolution and the environment sciences are bound to
    throw unsettling possibilities at us. Moreover, the rise of globalization and the Internet are
    allowing heretics to find one another and work around the barriers of traditional media and
    academic journals. I also suspect that a change in generational sensibilities will hasten the
    process. The term “political correctness” captures the 1960s conception of moral rectitude that
    we baby boomers brought with us as we took over academia, journalism and government. In
    my experience, today’s students — black and white, male and female — are bewildered by the
    idea, common among their parents, that certain scientific opinions are immoral or certain
    questions too hot to handle.
    What makes an idea “dangerous”? One factor is an imaginable train of events in which
    acceptance of the idea could lead to an outcome recognized as harmful. In religious societies,
    the fear is that if people ever stopped believing in the literal truth of the Bible they would also
    stop believing in the authority of its moral commandments. That is, if today people dismiss the
    part about God creating the Earth in six days, tomorrow they’ll dismiss the part about “Thou
    shalt not kill.” In progressive circles, the fear is that if people ever were to acknowledge any
    differences between races, sexes or individuals, they would feel justified in discrimination or
    oppression. Other dangerous ideas set off fears that people will neglect or abuse their
    children, become indifferent to the environment, devalue human life, accept violence and
    prematurely resign themselves to social problems that could be solved with sufficient
    commitment and optimism.
    All these outcomes, needless to say, would be deplorable. But none of them actually follows
    from the supposedly dangerous idea. Even if it turns out, for instance, that groups of people
    are different in their averages, the overlap is certainly so great that it would be irrational and
    unfair to discriminate against individuals on that basis. Likewise, even if it turns out that
    parents don’t have the power to shape their children’s personalities, it would be wrong on
    file:///C|/Temp/dangerous_ideas.htm (3 of 8) [8/9/2007 1:22:43 PM]
    Untitled Document
    grounds of simple human decency to abuse or neglect one’s children. And if currently popular
    ideas about how to improve the environment are shown to be ineffective, it only highlights the
    need to know what would be effective.
    Another contributor to the perception of dangerousness is the intellectual blinkers that humans
    tend to don when they split into factions. People have a nasty habit of clustering in coalitions,
    professing certain beliefs as badges of their commitment to the coalition and treating rival
    coalitions as intellectually unfit and morally depraved. Debates between members of the
    coalitions can make things even worse, because when the other side fails to capitulate to one’s
    devastating arguments, it only proves they are immune to reason. In this regard, it’s
    disconcerting to see the two institutions that ought to have the greatest stake in ascertaining
    the truth — academia and government — often blinkered by morally tinged ideologies. One
    ideology is that humans are blank slates and that social problems can be handled only through
    government programs that especially redress the perfidy of European males. Its opposite
    number is that morality inheres in patriotism and Christian faith and that social problems may
    be handled only by government policies that punish the sins of individual evildoers. New ideas,
    nuanced ideas, hybrid ideas — and sometimes dangerous ideas — often have trouble getting a
    hearing against these group-bonding convictions.
    The conviction that honest opinions can be dangerous may even arise from a feature of
    human nature. Philip Tetlock and Alan Fiske have argued that certain human relationships are
    constituted on a basis of unshakeable convictions. We love our children and parents, are
    faithful to our spouses, stand by our friends, contribute to our communities, and are loyal to
    our coalitions not because we continually question and evaluate the merits of these
    commitments but because we feel them in our bones. A person who spends too much time
    pondering whether logic and fact really justify a commitment to one of these relationships is
    seen as just not “getting it.” Decent people don’t carefully weigh the advantages and
    disadvantages of selling their children or selling out their friends or their spouses or their
    colleagues or their country. They reject these possibilities outright; they “don’t go there.” So
    the taboo on questioning sacred values make sense in the context of personal relationships. It
    makes far less sense in the context of discovering how the world works or running a country.
    Explore all relevant ideas
    Should we treat some ideas as dangerous? Let’s exclude outright lies, deceptive propaganda,
    incendiary conspiracy theories from malevolent crackpots and technological recipes for wanton
    destruction. Consider only ideas about the truth of empirical claims or the effectiveness of
    policies that, if they turned out to be true, would require a significant rethinking of our moral
    sensibilities. And consider ideas that, if they turn out to be false, could lead to harm if people
    believed them to be true. In either case, we don’t know whether they are true or false a priori,
    so only by examining and debating them can we find out. Finally, let’s assume that we’re not
    talking about burning people at the stake or cutting out their tongues but about discouraging
    their research and giving their ideas as little publicity as possible. There is a good case for
    exploring all ideas relevant to our current concerns, no matter where they lead. The idea that
    file:///C|/Temp/dangerous_ideas.htm (4 of 8) [8/9/2007 1:22:43 PM]
    Untitled Document
    ideas should be discouraged a priori is inherently self-refuting. Indeed, it is the ultimate
    arrogance, as it assumes that one can be so certain about the goodness and truth of one’s
    own ideas that one is entitled to discourage other people’s opinions from even being
    examined.
    Also, it’s hard to imagine any aspect of public life where ignorance or delusion is better than
    an awareness of the truth, even an unpleasant one. Only children and madmen engage in
    “magical thinking,” the fallacy that good things can come true by believing in them or bad
    things will disappear by ignoring them or wishing them away. Rational adults want to know
    the truth, because any action based on false premises will not have the effects they desire.
    Worse, logicians tell us that a system of ideas containing a contradiction can be used to
    deduce any statement whatsoever, no matter how absurd. Since ideas are connected to other
    ideas, sometimes in circuitous and unpredictable ways, choosing to believe something that
    may not be true, or even maintaining walls of ignorance around some topic, can corrupt all of
    intellectual life, proliferating error far and wide. In our everyday lives, would we want to be
    lied to, or kept in the dark by paternalistic “protectors,” when it comes to our health or
    finances or even the weather? In public life, imagine someone saying that we should not do
    research into global warming or energy shortages because if it found that they were serious
    the consequences for the economy would be extremely unpleasant. Today’s leaders who
    tacitly take this position are rightly condemned by intellectually responsible people. But why
    should other unpleasant ideas be treated differently?
    There is another argument against treating ideas as dangerous. Many of our moral and
    political policies are designed to preempt what we know to be the worst features of human
    nature. The checks and balances in a democracy, for instance, were invented in explicit
    recognition of the fact that human leaders will always be tempted to arrogate power to
    themselves. Likewise, our sensitivity to racism comes from an awareness that groups of
    humans, left to their own devices, are apt to discriminate and oppress other groups, often in
    ugly ways. History also tells us that a desire to enforce dogma and suppress heretics is a
    recurring human weakness, one that has led to recurring waves of gruesome oppression and
    violence. A recognition that there is a bit of Torquemada in everyone should make us wary of
    any attempt to enforce a consensus or demonize those who challenge it.
    “Sunlight is the best disinfectant,” according to Justice Louis Brandeis’ famous case for
    freedom of thought and expression. If an idea really is false, only by examining it openly can
    we determine that it is false. At that point we will be in a better position to convince others
    that it is false than if we had let it fester in private, since our very avoidance of the issue
    serves as a tacit acknowledgment that it may be true. And if an idea is true, we had better
    accommodate our moral sensibilities to it, since no good can come from sanctifying a delusion.
    This might even be easier than the ideaphobes fear. The moral order did not collapse when
    the Earth was shown not to be at the center of the solar system, and so it will survive other
    revisions of our understanding of how the world works.
    file:///C|/Temp/dangerous_ideas.htm (5 of 8) [8/9/2007 1:22:43 PM]
    Untitled Document
    Dangerous to air dangerous ideas?
    In the best Talmudic tradition of arguing a position as forcefully as possible and then switching
    sides, let me now present the case for discouraging certain lines of intellectual inquiry. Two of
    the contributors to this volume (Gopnik and Hillis) offer as their “dangerous idea” the exact
    opposite of Gilbert’s: They say that it’s a dangerous idea for thinkers to air their dangerous
    ideas. How might such an argument play out?
    First, one can remind people that we are all responsible for the foreseeable consequences of
    our actions, and that includes the consequences of our public statements. Freedom of inquiry
    may be an important value, according to this argument, but it is not an absolute value, one
    that overrides all others. We know that the world is full of malevolent and callous people who
    will use any pretext to justify their bigotry or destructiveness. We must expect that they will
    seize on the broaching of a topic that seems in sympathy with their beliefs as a vindication of
    their agenda.
    Not only can the imprimatur of scientific debate add legitimacy to toxic ideas, but the mere act
    of making an idea common knowledge can change its effects. Individuals, for instance, may
    harbor a private opinion on differences between genders or among ethnic groups but keep it
    to themselves because of its opprobrium. But once the opinion is aired in public, they may be
    emboldened to act on their prejudice — not just because it has been publicly ratified but
    because they must anticipate that everyone else will act on the information. Some people, for
    example, might discriminate against the members of an ethnic group despite having no
    pejorative opinion about them, in the expectation that their customers or colleagues will have
    such opinions and that defying them would be costly. And then there are the effects of these
    debates on the confidence of the members of the stigmatized groups themselves.
    Of course, academics can warn against these abuses, but the qualifications and nitpicking they
    do for a living may not catch up with the simpler formulations that run on swifter legs. Even if
    they did, their qualifications might be lost on the masses. We shouldn’t count on ordinary
    people to engage in the clear thinking — some would say the hair-splitting — that would be
    needed to accept a dangerous idea but not its terrible consequence. Our overriding precept, in
    intellectual life as in medicine, should be “First, do no harm.”
    We must be especially suspicious when the danger in a dangerous idea is to someone other
    than its advocate. Scientists, scholars and writers are members of a privileged elite. They may
    have an interest in promulgating ideas that justify their privileges, that blame or make light of
    society’s victims, or that earn them attention for cleverness and iconoclasm. Even if one has
    little sympathy for the cynical Marxist argument that ideas are always advanced to serve the
    interest of the ruling class, the ordinary skepticism of a tough-minded intellectual should make
    one wary of “dangerous” hypotheses that are no skin off the nose of their hypothesizers.
    (The mind-set that leads us to blind review, open debate and statements of possible conflicts
    file:///C|/Temp/dangerous_ideas.htm (6 of 8) [8/9/2007 1:22:43 PM]
    Untitled Document
    of interest.)
    But don’t the demands of rationality always compel us to seek the complete truth? Not
    necessarily. Rational agents often choose to be ignorant. They may decide not to be in a
    position where they can receive a threat or be exposed to a sensitive secret. They may choose
    to avoid being asked an incriminating question, where one answer is damaging, another is
    dishonest and a failure to answer is grounds for the questioner to assume the worst (hence
    the Fifth Amendment protection against being forced to testify against oneself). Scientists test
    drugs in double-blind studies in which they keep themselves from knowing who got the drug
    and who got the placebo, and they referee manuscripts anonymously for the same reason.
    Many people rationally choose not to know the gender of their unborn child, or whether they
    carry a gene for Huntington’s disease, or whether their nominal father is genetically related to
    them. Perhaps a similar logic would call for keeping socially harmful information out of the
    public sphere.
    Intolerance of unpopular ideas
    As for restrictions on inquiry, every scientist already lives with them. They accede, for
    example, to the decisions of committees for the protection of human subjects and to policies
    on the confidentiality of personal information. In 1975, biologists imposed a moratorium on
    research on recombinant DNA pending the development of safeguards against the release of
    dangerous microorganisms. The notion that intellectuals have carte blanche in conducting
    their inquiry is a myth.
    Though I am more sympathetic to the argument that important ideas be aired than to the
    argument that they should sometimes be suppressed, I think it is a debate we need to have.
    Whether we like it or not, science has a habit of turning up discomfiting thoughts, and the
    Internet has a habit of blowing their cover.
    Tragically, there are few signs that the debates will happen in the place where we might most
    expect it: academia. Though academics owe the extraordinary perquisite of tenure to the ideal
    of encouraging free inquiry and the evaluation of unpopular ideas, all too often academics are
    the first to try to quash them. The most famous recent example is the outburst of fury and
    disinformation that resulted when Harvard president Lawrence Summers gave a measured
    analysis of the multiple causes of women’s underrepresentation in science and math
    departments in elite universities and tentatively broached the possibility that discrimination
    and hidden barriers were not the only cause.
    But intolerance of unpopular ideas among academics is an old story. Books like Morton Hunt’s
    The New Know-Nothings and Alan
    Kors and Harvey Silverglate’s The Shadow
    University have depressingly shown that universities cannot be
    counted on to defend the rights of their own heretics and that it’s often the court system or
    file:///C|/Temp/dangerous_ideas.htm (7 of 8) [8/9/2007 1:22:43 PM]
    Untitled Document
    the press that has to drag them into policies of tolerance. In government, the intolerance is
    even more frightening, because the ideas considered there are not just matters of intellectual
    sport but have immediate and sweeping consequences. Chris Mooney, in The
    Republican War on
    Science, joins Hunt in showing how corrupt and demagogic
    legislators are increasingly stifling research findings they find inconvenient to their interests.
    Steven Pinker is
    professor in the
    Department of Psychology
    at Harvard University.

  24. //Do I know the answer? No, I do not.//

    You do not even know the question. Looks like a cut and paste troll job to me.

  25. Here are the facts-

    People in your position have built-in rationalizations for your lack of evidence, and for the lack of acceptance for your “theories.”

    1) Conspiracy- The dreaded specter of the “Conspiracy.” Conspiracy Theories are ethereal, and perpetually malleable.

    As an example, 9/11 conspiracy theorists denounce any, and all evidence that disproves their “theories,” as part of the conspiracy.

    Only evidence that supports their claims are valid, and their claims are forever adaptive.

    In other words, no one can ever disprove their “theories.”

    Conspiracies also appeal to the teenager in people.

    There’s something romantic about being involved in a conspiracy, and rebelling against the status quo.

    The problem is, teenagers are fucking stupid.

    2) Persecution- People with idiotic ideas can claim they are being persecuted when their ideas are dismissed.

    Case in point, Christians claim they are being “Persecuted” by “secularists.”

    Again, persecution, in many cases, is an ethereal entity.

    Are there people who hate Christians? Yep, there sure are. Does that mean Christianity is being “Persecuted?”

    Depends on who you ask, and what “Evidence” you study.

    And how do you define a “Secularist.” In many cases, a “Secularist” is anyone who disagrees.

    You present yourself as a victim.

    “I am sorry that we cannot have this conversation. I am further sorry that you don’t welcome guests with differing perspectives.”

    Oh, woe is me!!

    You’re correct Satyr. I am completely intolerant when it comes to ignorance because ignorance is a conscious choice.

    Guilty as charged.

    3) Incredible leaps of faith, and logic-

    You have presented ideas that require one to suspend reality.

    When people either refuse, or come to a different conclusion, you claim it’s because they simply cannot “comprehend.”

    I assure you, I know far more about human behavior than you.

    I’ve spent almost a third of my life studying, and working with people. Whether you believe me or not is, irrelevant. I’m not 15 years old, and I’m not looking for approval. On the otherhand, you appear to be seeking approval, but instead of being honest, you hide behind a theory.

    I know, I know, I was taught by the “Conspirators,” which implies I’m not intelligent enough to come to my own conclusions.

    I was brainwashed, while you stand outside the sphere of influence.

    This is where the “Grandiosity” I mentioned comes into play.

    You’ve convinced yourself that you are “Unique,” “Special,” and that your are “Misunderstood.”

    Nope. Nothing “special,” “Unique,” or difficult to understand about anything you’ve said.

    In fact, it’s mundane, and cliche.

    If you were honestly interested in “Truth,” you’d look into your claims objectively. Instead, you found an idea you liked, and came to a conclusion.

    Isn’t that what Lemmings do?

    Read what rapists themselves say, not what some guy sitting in his Ivory Tower at Harvard has to say.

    99% of the time, the truth is found at the source.

    You remind me of “Liberals” who romanticize people/life in the inner city, yet, they’ve never actually been there.

    I have offered you “Proof” that counters your claims. The humping dog, for example.

    Sexual behavior is used throughout the “animal” kingdom as a way to assert dominance, and to reinforce the power structure.

    I told you what Ed Kemper (I think it was Kemper. It was 15 years ago) said about rape in an interview with an FBI profiler (An interview, among many, shown to one of my classes, by the profiler himself).

    Here’s my theory-

    You have a difficult time dealing with women, maybe a relationship didn’t work out, and you’re angry, resentful, bitter, sad, frightened, etc and you’re searching for a way to explain why, and/or a way to absolve yourself of responsibility.

    This theory you’ve presented offers both-

    Of course, you present your argument within the framework of “Concern.” You merely want to “help” women who are/were victimized.

    If that were true, you’d understand the inherent danger, and idiocy of T, and P’s theory.

    (I digress).

    One can deduce from your statements that you believe men and women would get along better if women were more compliant with men’s “Needs” (Not wants/desires, “Needs”), and because they’re not compliant, men are not responsible when relationships fail.

    After all, we (Men) are victims of evolution. We have to/need to “ejaculate,” and women should understand. I mean, we deal with their menstrual cycle (I’m assuming you know what “conflate” means).

    Although my theory may seem complicated, it’s actually the simplest explanation.

    You’ve embraced an idea wholeheartedly, despite the fact you obviously have little knowledge/understanding of the subject at hand.

    That implies you “Want,” possibly even “Need” the theory to be true. In other words, you have an ulterior motive.

    You are extraordinarily dishonest Satyr, and either you cannot see it, or you can, and it’s intentional.

    And do not leave anymore 3000 word comments or I’ll delete them.

  26. Shit&Stuff!!!!

    //You’re correct Satyr. I am completely intolerant when it comes to ignorance because ignorance is a conscious choice.

    Guilty as charged.//

    //You are extraordinarily dishonest Satyr, and either you cannot see it, or you can, and it’s intentional.//

    Wowsers, good Troll-Stomping Fairlane!!!

    I’M buying you TWO beers (of course I will drink them myself)

    Kudos ana good weekend, huh!

  27. Let it go.
    It has intrinsic therapurtic value.
    Continue…

  28. I learned a long time ago that people will tend to rationalize the most monstrous of behaviors, provided it suits their will.

    Too many people are process first, formulate later.
    I think that’s what we see here.

    That is to say, and incoherent and contradictory argument.
    Although it is quite rationalized.
    That in itself bespeaks of something.

  29. Geez, Fairlane, could you help me out here?
    I’m a complete dick, and no woman in their right mind would want me.
    What should I do?
    Should I troll among the weak-minded?
    Would a woman capable of intellect possibly see through my bullshit?

    How do I become a human being again?

    How do I walk away from the losses of the past?

    Think of a time when you got racked out on the playground.
    How long did it take for you to get up?
    How long are you supposed to lay there clutching your cods, wailing?
    Think for a minute about what it is you want to be in this world….

    But please,
    continue….

  30. Damned keys are too close together.
    On the positive side, I brew a fine porter….

  31. Can we get to that part about the frontal lobe?
    I’m really interested….

  32. PT, don’t make me call you Drunken Hobo!

  33. I am obviously incredibly late to this. It’s been hard to find the time to make the rounds and read follow-up comments. All I will add, then, is that rape is not about sex and there is so much research out there to substantiate this, that anybody of average intelligence can find it. Rape is about aggression, control, and anger. Rape is a physical expression of psychological problems. Why is rape so commonly used as a weapon of war? Is that about just wanting to get laid? By the way, April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month, which is great since so many people still seem to unaware that it’s a problem. And here is an interesting article: http://www.counterpunch.org/rosen04042008.html

  34. http://www.break.com/index/dog-humps-a-duck.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: