Categories
men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW MGTOW paradox misandry misogyny MRA precious bodily fluids sex

The Regender Challenge

The other day Darksidecat introduced me to what I now consider to be the Greatest Webpage Ever (this week): Regender, a handy tool that will take any web page and, well, regender it, turning male pronouns and references into female and vice versa. It even works with names.

Following Darksidecat’s lead, I have started plugging the writings of some of my favorite manosphere misogynists into the magical regendering machine. The results are, well, instructive.  And frequently hilarious. As DSC noted, Roissy and MarkyMark are perfect for this sort of treatment.  As is, I discovered, MarkyMark’s longtime pal Christopher in Oregon.  Here’s what happens when Christopher of Oregon becomes Christine of Oregon with the help of regender, and all the horrible shit he wrote about women becomes the horrible shit she wrote about men:

Men are whores. They are far more likely to have STD’s than women. Be aware of this. Handle with extreme care. Men are filthy, and they will lie about their infections. Condoms will NOT protect you. …

Men are walking cesspools of filth! Most of them have or will have a permanent STD infection. It is unavoidable. These are FACTS, and not the rantings of an unstable misandrist.

(I’m a very STABLE misandrist, thank you kindly)

Men are DIRTY creatures, pure and simple. Be dignified, and don’t lower yourself to engaging in any filthy behavior with them. You WILL be infected with the diseases they are carrying. A moral, dignified woman does NOT rut like an animal with one of these creatures. Sexual intercourse and oral sex are filthy, disgusting activities, and ruin a woman morally. They spread disease.

Elevate yourself above such filth of the flesh. …

Do not lust after men in your mind. Masturbate only as a last result to relieve tension. Do not lust after men sexually. It weakens you.

Goddess made woman in Her image, and men was made in the image of Satan. Squeal all you want, but history proves me right. A man is a test; a stumbling block for woman. Our life is an adventure. A journey. A pursuit of our creator, and a pursuit of excellence in our personal lives. A man and his filth is part of the obstacle course set before us. If we are wise, and avoid them, we will grow stronger as a result. We will finish the race successfully.

Men was not put here to support us as such, and we will only grow stronger if we AVOID his snares. ..

Christine in Oregon

Woah. Critics of Man Boobz often say that feminists are “just as bad” as the guys I quote. Well, if they were, the posts on their blogs would look a lot like this regendered post.  I ask all of you: have you ever seen something so grotesquely misandrist on any feminist web site? I thought not.

Here’s a challenge for all of you: See if you can come up with a regendered post that tops this one from “Christine in Oregon.” You can draw from old posts of mine, or go poking about in the manosphere yourself. Post your results in the thread below, along with a link to the regendered web page you got them from. I’ll highlight the best in a future post.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

1138 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ithiliana
9 years ago

thefemalespectator–yikes–I’d have to check–it’s been about 30 years since I studied Shakespeare at any depth (my undegraduate program )–and those were among my least favorite–so I may be totes wrong! I’m not even remembering basic plots of them let alone characters.

My area of specialization since he 1990s has been 20th and now 21st century work, primarily marginalized authors and genres! Sorry!

Pecunium
9 years ago

Perhaps he’s just Dearth

traindodger
9 years ago

Some of these regenders also make me acutely aware of how often MRAs use “women” singular. Like “a women” instead of “a woman”. What are the origins of this tic, I wonder?

Jumbofish
Jumbofish
9 years ago

@Wanderer
“the only times I’ve popped out of obscurity have been to pimp out a YTMND and ask our host about a picture”

have you been lurker for longer than a few months?

http://manboobz.blogspot.com/2010/10/quoteotd-david-futrelle-is-dancing.html

just curious if that commentor “wanderer” is you. I was looking for the old manboobz site on google and that page popped up so now I’m curious.

Marc
Marc
9 years ago

He reads Darth Vader as an example of an alien being with a completely different morality, and then paints his final transformation as a recognition of kin bond. However, this is comically misguided. Darth Vader is a classically HUMAN villain

Well, I think it’s impossible to get it that much wrong. I think, when he watched Episode IV in the late 70s (he is that old 😀 ) he thought Vader as an alien or something between (remember, there are many of the so called “Near-Human species” in the Star Wars Universe) because there are simply no hints who or what Vader is.

But you are right about what you write later.
Though in the first movie there is no reference that Vader is Luke’s father (I remember reading somewhere, that Lucas hadn’t even yet decided to write the story in this way) it is still a very bad example because that is already revealed in Episode V, not in Episode VI. So yes, he’s pretty confused on this one.

If Ruse had written about Alien, which had already come out 4 years earlier, he could have done a much better job making his argument, without leading to the epic fails outlined above

Well “Alien” is too simple to be used as an example. The alien there is simply totally devoid of any moral feelings and considerations (you remember, Ash admires him for that) and it’s level of intelligence is unknown, so there’s no difference to a beast of prey on earth. That’s too simple, Ruse wants to argue about the situation where there’s some overlap in morality between humans and aliens or some possibility of a common morality.

Marc
Marc
9 years ago

While it’s not my place to lecture you, in my view your attempts at discussion with (most of) the blog residents here is futile. It’s also the reason I’ve been lurking for the last few months rather than posting–aside from this long screed, written against my better judgment, the only times I’ve popped out of obscurity have been to pimp out a YTMND and ask our host about a picture. Now, attempting to refine your ideas is one thing, but I hope you don’t intend to win any converts.

I totally know that and I don’t expect that a rational discussion is possible here, so I don’t even try.

Look at Pecunium, if he’s a troll, he’s one of the best I’ve ever met. I would bow to him.

He would be such subtle and brilliant parody of the Internet-know-it-all: a guy who knows every single logical fallacy by his name, but constantly wrongly accuses other of them.
A guy who knows every single rule of inference by his name (like Occam’s Razor the weakest of all rules, on the Internet it’s the strongest 😉 ) but always uses them the wrong way.
A guy who needs two minutes to write a 500 word manifesto of substanceless nitpicking and then thinks he’s right because nobody bothers to reply to him.

BRILLIANT if he were a troll!

Sadly, I’m afraid he’s totally serious!

Look at the way he argues, he writes “you are arguing in bad faith” and when I ask him why, he writes “You have said there is no way to convince you.” and his ‘proof’ for this is, that I started my sentence somewhere with “There are no rational arguments that…”.

Oh Jesus … that’s so bad I can’t believe he’s serious. But he probably is. When Richard Dawkins says “There are no rational arguments against evolution…” he must think that Dawkins in principle cannot convinced that evolution is wrong even if we would find massive evidence against it. And of course you’re even forbidden

Pecunium:
We don’t know how you define “cogent argument”, … gimme a break!!!

My original serious position (which you can few pages ago before) was of course not to argue that rape should only be a misdemeanor. But imagine not trolling here and then getting all this Pecunium nonsense… !

Marc
Marc
9 years ago

I meant with Pecunium you’re even not allowed to use the term “cogent argument” or “rational argument”.

Marc
Marc
9 years ago

I still think seriously that the reason we think rape is so bad is very tightly connected to the way human sexuality works. If humans as a species evolved somewhat differently, killing other adults would very probably still be bad (there are few mammalian species who habitually kill themselves for no good reasons) but we might easily have totally, radically different attitudes regarding rape.

It’s difficult to explain why rape is so bad with the potential damage alone. As we heard, it’s even punishable by a life sentence in some US-states, the average sentence for rape is nearly 12 years in the US.

It can’t be psychological damage: I gave abundant examples that acts that can inflict enormous psychological harm (paternity fraud, cheating, libel) are not even a crime at all. If libel is not even a criminal offense in the US it only strengthens my point (god, how I hate this Pecunium nonsense “blah blah it’s just a civil offense, hah, I proved you wrong”).

It can’t be unwanted pregnancy either because that’s easy to fix.

So that leaves us with STDs.
If you compare it with DUI, what are the actual sentences for DUI? Much less than for rape, much, much less. And also I don’t think that the chance to kill or permanently injure someone if you drive under influence but is much less than the chance to infect someone with an incurable STD like AIDS or Hepatitis B.

Now one interesting example…
Though it’s a problematic comparison (because the men could have protected themselves and the rape victim doesn’t have this choice) lets have a look at this story:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/26/nadja-benaissa-hiv-sentence-germany

Though sentences are much less harsh in Germany than in the US for nearly all crimes, rapists usually don’t get just a two year suspended sentence. And there are many, many people publicly stating this woman shouldn’t have been punished at all. So being recklessly silent about your HIV infection gets you (a) more sympathy and (b) a much lesser prison sentence than raping someone.

So you see, there’s much evidence that rape is punished unproportionally severe compared with the harm it causes.

Our moral intuitions is that rape is a very serious crime, but we cannot give easily comprehensible reason why that’s the case. As Ruse writes:

“Furthermore, consider one of the major biological reasons why we humans think rape wrong — especially why males think rape wrong. Because humans take so long to mature, males cooperate in child-rearing, unlike most other mammals (Lovejoy 1981). Hence there are good reasons why human morality is transsexual, and why nobody (especially no male) wants some third party leaving his seed around in fertile places. If you have got to spend years raising a child, biologically there are reasons why you prefer it to be your own. However, if extraterrestrial females did all of the child-rearing, unaided, there might be simple moral emptiness when it came to rape. This is not to say the females
would not have strategies to mate with the ‘best’ males (Hrdy 1981); they would! (I am not saying we think rape is wrong simply because males might have to raise the children of others.
I am looking for biological reasons why we might feel so strongly about it. Why is non-physically injurious rape put on a par with assault, or murder even? ‘Because people get upset’ is the whole point!)”

Yes, we get upset about rape, and I’m not different in this respect, that’s our moral intuition. But this moral intuition about rape is so unique and contradictory that it can’t be easily generalized like other ethical intuitions.

We simply can’t say “Rape is rape is rape”. That doesn’t work. The rapist hiding behind the bushes makes us angry, makes our blood boiling, but many people are more relaxed about a husband raping his wife.

You “can’t” (” ” are for nitpicking Pecunium) say “How archaic is that? What’s the difference? In both cases it’s unconsensual sex and that means rape!”

That makes no sense, simply because there’s no abstract justification (why we see unconsensual sex as so extremely bad as we do) to begin with!

Our feelings and inbuilt moral intuitions about rape are archaic and contradictory by themselves you can’t generalize them, sexual violence is not something where abstract moral reasoning works.

Tons of people think that Christine Hubbs punishment of five years in prison for having consensual sex with 14-year-old boys was too severe. And of course they would see it different if the genders were reversed. A double standard, yes. But can we blame them? It’s just that (contrary to normal ethics) reasoning about sexual ethics in an abstract way doesn’t work.

Molly Ren
9 years ago

Shorter Marc: I can’t think of any good reason why anyone wouldn’t want to be raped, therefore it shouldn’t matter to anyone. There’s science to back this up!

Bee
Bee
9 years ago

One of the problems with an evo psych analysis of rape is that rape, as we all know, doesn’t just happen to people with fertile ovaries and the capacity to carry embryos. In fact, it seems to happen to people who a rapist thinks ze can get away with raping: often times that’s the elderly and children.

And that’s the first problem I see with your theory.

Holly Pervocracy
9 years ago

Marc – It’s all very well to be above everyone else’s petty little morals, but you benefit from them every day.

Saying “why is nonconsensual sex so bad? It’s just nonconsensual sex!” is as meaninglessly detached and inhuman as… well, itself, really.

Let me put it this way, then: saying “it’s only psychological harm” is meaningless because all harm is psychological. If I cut off your arm, what’s really hurting you is your experience and perception of losing your arm–the arm itself isn’t sentient, but the pain and loss are experienced inside your head. Psychologically.

If we want to avoid harming people (we do! just go with me on that point), then we have to take psychological harm seriously, because that’s the only harm there is.

Nobby
Nobby
9 years ago

Marc- If it were purely about “nobody (especially no male) wants some third party leaving his seed around in fertile places” then cheating would be punishable as strongly as rape. It’s not. It’s not punished at all by law unless you’re in a marriage, and then the worst you get is having to pay an alimony. So, how the hell does that fit?

Or, or, maybe those examples of “enormous psychological harm (paternity fraud, cheating, libel)” are absolutely not the same (and see, cheating’s right there!), especially since they do not involve any physical attack on the victim, and therefore are considered a lesser severity of crime? Fancy that!

Nobby
Nobby
9 years ago

Oh, a small edit, you can lose all your stuff in a divorce as well if it goes spectacularly badly. However, still no prison sentence, or anything else. It’s all a civil crime (and even then not really…), unlike rape.

ithiliana
9 years ago

Marc: I still think seriously that the reason we think rape is so bad is very tightly connected to the way human sexuality works.

First, you have to stop thinking that what you say the people in the US and/or Europe think is what all people think, especially if you’re going to talk evolution.

Second, you have to stop thinking that “rape is bad” is something that all humans have thought throughout all time (see: evolution) because it’s not.

All your examples, even if accurate (don’t have time to check) are contemporary.

Have you read anything about how legal attitudes toward rape have changed over time?

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

There are multiple reasons why rape is considered bad:

Physical harm-this could be the actual bruising on the person from the force used if any, tearing (there are some delicate bits in the genital region, especially if anal rape), any other kind of harm that could happen depending on any weapons used. These generally heal (sometimes a rape is violent enough to case permanent damage.)

STI/Ds-a rapist could have a sexually transmitted disease and if the rapist fails to use a condom, the victim could become infected.

Possible pregnancy-not all rapes result in a pregnancy but for those that do, there is a lot of decisions to be made from do you keep the baby or not. If the victim has access, Plan B or the equivalent could be taken. If there is no access or the victim is refused because of moral issues on the part of the pharmacist, the victim could still become pregnant and have those choices.

Psychological harm: From the violation of one’s own person to the violation of one’s sense of safety, ability to have intimate relationships and a dozen of other issues, rape can have lasting and major psychological harm. It is a traumatic experience for the victim and can continue all the way until the rapist is released from prison or beyond. To equate a rape’s psychological damage to a divorce is showing that the equator is unable to understand the pain and suffering a rape victim goes through.

So Marc-essentially what you are saying is “well, cuz someone else hurts for this completely different type of situation, rape is not bad enough to send someone to prison for 12 years.” So I have to ask-if your own sister/wife/female friend or relative was raped, would you be willing to look her straight in the eye and say exactly what you are claiming here?

Marc
Marc
9 years ago

Shorter Marc: I can’t think of any good reason why anyone wouldn’t want to be raped, therefore it shouldn’t matter to anyone. There’s science to back this up!

How can anybody want to be raped, if “lack of consent” is missing, it’s not rape anymore.

One of the problems with an evo psych analysis of rape is that rape, as we all know, doesn’t just happen to people with fertile ovaries and the capacity to carry embryos. In fact, it seems to happen to people who a rapist thinks ze can get away with raping: often times that’s the elderly and children.

I would never claim that evolutionary psychology can explain everything in every detail.

It’s not that absolute, you have to remember that natural selection probably doesn’t work like a scalpel but more like a sledgehammer.
But evolutionary psychology is still possible if we look at the rough trends.

What could be more natural to explain the prevalence of heterosexuality with evolutionary psychology? What else should be the reason?

But maybe on the other hand pedophilia as a sexual orientation is just an aberration that serves no purpose, something that went wrong, but that natural selection was not yet able to eradicate, something we can’t explain with evolutionary psychology.

We see, that females aged 12 – 34 is the age group with the highest risk, that absolutely strengthens my point because that’s the most fertile group.

Saying “why is nonconsensual sex so bad? It’s just nonconsensual sex!” is as meaninglessly detached and inhuman as… well, itself, really.

See, now you’re distorting again, massively…

I haven’t said that I feel in that way, that that’s really my opinion.

I and Michael Ruse (a really kind guy) are just saying, that if you think about it abstractly you must come to this conclusion.

Let me put it this way, then: saying “it’s only psychological harm” is meaningless because all harm is psychological. If I cut off your arm, what’s really hurting you is your experience and perception of losing your arm–the arm itself isn’t sentient, but the pain and loss are experienced inside your head. Psychologically.

See, nitpicking again. You know exactly what I mean with “psychological harm”. Bodily pain is not something that needs interpretation by the mind, not complex psychological processes going on. The sensation is instantly there, it’s a lower, more fundamental experience and also something that (though some humans are less susceptible to pain than others) is not so daaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn variable from person to person.

And if you lose your arm, you may be very depressed, but still we don’t have to speculate about your feelings to judge the harm. We just have to look at you, your body changed, the arm is missing, that’s something that happened in the physical world that is also observable by other humans.

Watch this video:

Now isn’t it funny, where at 3:10 he says something like “he then said he had trauma… and he had to go into therapy… … he lost me … no I’m sorry.”

So basically he’s absolutely no empathy for this guy… but can we blame him? Can we really blame him?

You see how complex and problematic psychological harm is.

The most unproblematic harm is where something changes in the physical world, like Bill Gates is missing a million (and then it’s totally irrelevant if Bill Gates is ok with it — he’s still a victim) or something happened with your body.

But if there are just massive “unpleasant” feelings but harm to your body can be ruled out, we get problems.

Who are we to judge that forced sensory deprivation (where you experience extreme anxiety and get bad hallucinations) and waterboarding (where you experience the terror of imminent death) feels less worse than being raped?

You may be against interrogation tactics like waterboarding, but that’s not the point. The point is, that there would be a public outcry if rape would be institutionalized the way waterboarding was until 2009, not just some cautious protests!

What else can explain this than evolutionary psychology? What else?

Molly Ren
9 years ago

“But if there are just massive ‘unpleasant’ feelings but harm to your body can be ruled out, we get problems.”

I guess you don’t believe in clinical depression or post traumatic stress disorder?

Marc
Marc
9 years ago

Psychological harm: From the violation of one’s own person to the violation of one’s sense of safety, ability to have intimate relationships and a dozen of other issues, rape can have lasting and major psychological harm. It is a traumatic experience for the victim and can continue all the way until the rapist is released from prison or beyond. To equate a rape’s psychological damage to a divorce is showing that the equator is unable to understand the pain and suffering a rape victim goes through.

Just because I wrote somewhere that many acts that cause psychological harm like are not even punished at all and I gave this example it doesn’t mean I equate them…

There are more drastic example (I don’t tell you the first time…) like the interrogation tactics used in Guantanamo, or massive bullying, harassing and invasion of privacy that drives people into suicide. Or if you substract the actual bodily harm, what about the women that infected her boyfriend with HIV, what’s the psychological harm there, the anger and pain he must feel that she knew about her infection and didn’t tell him? And as a HIV-positive he might have problems with intimacy, too, mmh? And she got a two years suspended sentence.

Now you might say, let’s punish all those people much more severely with sentences comparable to rape, like 10 years in prison for Dharun Ravi, George W. Bush, Nadja Benaissa and others. But that’s very probably not a position the majority of the public would support.

Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
9 years ago

Marc, exactly what is it you’re trying to argue here? I’m not confused about what you’ve written, I’m confused about your intent. You’ve said that you don’t think you can have a rational discussion with most of the posters here. So, what’s the deal?

Is this simply a way to get people to take evopsych more seriously? Are you attempting to argue that even if a conviction of rape should be treated more seriously than a misdemeanor, that 10 – 12 years in prison is far too long? Are you arguing that as human society progresses and advances, we’ll shed these primitive feelings and associations about sexual violence, and violation? That (for example) just as we’ve come to believe, much more prevalently that slavery is wrong, we’ll come to recognize how much less of a big deal rape is because we have antibiotics and abortion? Do you believe that every society, all throughout history has viewed and punished rape in the exact same ways?

Other than promoting Ruse, what exactly is it you’re attempting to argue?

And in what way is a discussion about rape, in the abstract, even relevant?

Bee
Bee
9 years ago

Well sure, Marc. If you have to rely on a pseudoscience that invents cheap but compelling explanations out of whole cloth and doesn’t even try to meet any kind of scientific standard for its theories — if that’s the only place you can find this theory that that totally appeals to you in some utterly groinal way, then I guess you best buy into it, proselytize for it, and defend it to strangers on the internet.Jesus fuck, Marc.

What could possibly explain my great love for pasta, other than my loving noodly god? All hail FSM.

Molly Ren
9 years ago

What Nobinayamu said. ^^

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

I find the tactics used both at Gitmo and elsewhere to be completely wrong, against the highest values of the United States and probably criminal (although in the theatre of war rather then regular civil criminal acts.)

The sole difference, which is pretty effing important actually: quite a few of the people in Gitmo getting this treatment were not innocently going about their lives. They were making a decision to support or participate terrorist activities.

So unless you are going to state that those who are raped are not innocent? That they invited it by what exactly? Not staying locked in a basement with a million different traps to stop a person from approaching them in any way?

As for the lady who was given a suspended sentence after failing to inform a sexual partner she was HIV positive, she was facing ten years in prison. And it appears there were mitigating circumstances that were taken into account-just like in the rest of the world. Also, if you google “rapist given suspended sentence” you get a lot of stores saying that a rapist was given a suspended sentence.

So she faced a serious prison term and got a sentence that sounds awfully similar to others.

So you are claiming that someone who does have a lot of psychological harm is either the same as a possible terrorist or that rapists are never given light sentences. Neither of which is accurate in anyway.

Amnesia
Amnesia
9 years ago

“So basically he’s absolutely no empathy for this guy… but can we blame him? Can we really blame him?”

I can. Having your boundaries invaded like that can be traumatic, especially for a man that has not been conditioned to expect this kind of unwelcome attention from women. I completely understand the guy’s need for therapy just from hearing the first minute of the report.
I hope you don’t think we should see it as a joke or find it funny.

Marc
Marc
9 years ago

There are multiple reasons why rape is considered bad:

Physical harm-this could be the actual bruising on the person from the force used if any, tearing (there are some delicate bits in the genital region, especially if anal rape), any other kind of harm that could happen depending on any weapons used. These generally heal (sometimes a rape is violent enough to case permanent damage.)

STI/Ds-a rapist could have a sexually transmitted disease and if the rapist fails to use a condom, the victim could become infected.

Possible pregnancy-not all rapes result in a pregnancy but for those that do, there is a lot of decisions to be made from do you keep the baby or not. If the victim has access, Plan B or the equivalent could be taken. If there is no access or the victim is refused because of moral issues on the part of the pharmacist, the victim could still become pregnant and have those choices.

Yes those points are valid, but compare it to aggravated assault. If you beat someone to pulp you get a lesser punishment than for rape. That’s just the way it is, at least in Europe. And if your victim is of frail health you also risk his life…

So Marc-essentially what you are saying is “well, cuz someone else hurts for this completely different type of situation, rape is not bad enough to send someone to prison for 12 years.”

So I have to ask-if your own sister/wife/female friend or relative was raped, would you be willing to look her straight in the eye and say exactly what you are claiming here?

No, I would not!
But now you’re appealing to my emotions or moral intuitions. We don’t argue about them.
Do you think Michael Ruse (who looks like some friendly grandpa) would say “But… maybe rape isn’t wrong on Andromeda?” to a rape victim?

It’s only an argument that generalized and abstract reasoning about sexual ethics doesn’t work (something that feminists do all the time).

Marc
Marc
9 years ago

Marc, exactly what is it you’re trying to argue here?

I’m arguing, that abstract and generalized reasoning (though it works well with most of ethics) about sexual morality is absolutely and totally wrong!

Ami Angelwings
9 years ago

This is again chasing ppl’s tails :

So I have some questions :] These are not questions trying to “get” you btw :] I just want to know what you think more, and flesh things out more, I think it would help w/ your complaints that ppl here do not understand what you’re saying or aren’t interested in a discussion, b/c I think they dun fully understand what you are proposing :]

How do you feel about statutory rape? What changes would you make to the laws? :]

Regardless of whether you believe they would be accepted or not, what would a legal system ideally look like? What other laws would you like changed? Or believe that are too harsh or not harsh enuf, b/c of the way our minds have been evolutionarily conditioned to believe (like as you say, we only THINK rape is bad, but in an objective legal system it should not be)? :]

You’re proposing some interesting ideas I’ve never heard before, and you seem to have a strong idea of what’s unjust and what you would want changed and etc, so I’m curious :] And also I’m curious what harms do you believe our current ideas of rape and how it intersects w/ law are causing?

Amnesia
Amnesia
9 years ago

Don’t you just love dudes trying to be all Spock-like and pretend that emotions and morality have no place in serious discussion?

Bee
Bee
9 years ago

I’m having kind of a difficult time believing that the guy who is arguing that rape punishment is too harsh, psychological injury doesn’t matter, and the only reason anyone gives a shit about rape is because our stupid reptile brains tol’ us to is now appealing to us to buy into the above because one of the guys who writes about that kind of stuff LOOKS LIKE SOMEONE’S NICE OLD GRANDPAW.

Maybe I can believe all that. It all has that fresh new-ass scent. Smells like it’s all coming from the same place.

Ami Angelwings
9 years ago

I dunno him, (I’m trying to xD ) but from what I’ve observed.. I think as a gay man (i got that right i hope?) he is understandably wary of and understands the problems around making laws based only on emotions and ideas of “morality” : (as am I, tho this doesn’t mean I believe necessarily that rape is about purely emotions and morality xD i’m just pointing out why I think this might be important to him) :]

Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
9 years ago

Marc, how is exactly is consent an abstract about which generalizations can be applied?

Rape is not an issue of sexual morality. It’s an issue of consent.

Abstract thought and generalizations about sexual morality would be relevant and applicable in a discussion about homosexuality, or bisexuality if you objected to them. They’d be relevant and applicable in a discussion about the man who videotaped himself giving another man he’d met on the internet permission to kill and eat him.

How is the issue of consent an issue of sexual morality? How is consent an abstract concept?

Marc
Marc
9 years ago

I can. Having your boundaries invaded like that can be traumatic, especially for a man that has not been conditioned to expect this kind of unwelcome attention from women. I completely understand the guy’s need for therapy just from hearing the first minute of the report.
I hope you don’t think we should see it as a joke or find it funny.

Well, it’s about what the public thinks.

If Cenk Uygur said something about a female victim he had lost his job and he would instantly be one of the most infamous Internet personalities.

How can we explain this?

EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY.

Well sure, Marc. If you have to rely on a pseudoscience that invents cheap but compelling explanations out of whole cloth and doesn’t even try to meet any kind of scientific standard for its theories — if that’s the only place you can find this theory that that totally appeals to you in some utterly groinal way, then I guess you best buy into it, proselytize for it, and defend it to strangers on the internet.Jesus fuck, Marc.

1. Women have no place in my sexual fantasies, how can this theory appeal to me in a “groinal way”?

2. It’s not pseudoscience. The vast majority of evolutionary psychologists support a position similar to Ruse’s (READ: “Sexual Coercion in Primates and Humans: An Evolutionary Perspective on Male Aggression Against Females”).

Amused
Amused
9 years ago

Marc’s discussion of rape and his “questioning” of our perception of it reminds me of the dialogue from Woody Allen’s Love and Death:

Boris: Murder is immoral.

Sonya: Immorality is subjective.

Boris: Yes, but subjectivity is objective.

Sonya: Not in a rational scheme of perception.

Boris: Perception is irrational. It implies immanence.

Sonya: But judgment of any system or a priori relation of phenomena exists in any rational or metaphysical or at least epistemological contradiction to an abstracted empirical concept such as being or to be or to occur in the thing itself or of the thing itself.

Boris: Yes, I’ve said that many times.

Nobby
Nobby
9 years ago

It is pseudoscience, because the rest of the scientific community (of which I am a part) tends to think of it as bullshit, because it does not make testable theories that rule out purely cultural ideas, and relies on, as Ilithiana mentioned, only a small subset of human culture. Not nearly enough to base it on ‘evolution’.

And we can easily blame that on the culture surrounding the incident. If we go to, say, the middle east, and a woman grabs a man’s crotch, I’m pretty sure we’d have a hell of a different situation.

Also, again, why is cheating not so bad if it’s all based around spreading semen?

Amnesia
Amnesia
9 years ago

@Ami
Yeah, that could very well be it. I just deal with too many guys IRL convinced that they are ‘logical’ by virtue of being men.

Bee
Bee
9 years ago

Oh, I see. Marc is gay. Gotcha. *regrets time spent googling Michael Ruse’s personal history*

OK, Marc, so scratch your literal reading of “groinal” and insert “primal” or “basic.” The point is, here’s an idea that someone’s put out there that relies on an observation of “how things are” and a basic understanding of evolution. That someone is trying to prove that “how things are” is the result of evolution. He thinks about it for a minute, scratches his head, and voila! That thing that he though might be the result of evolution? It totally is! And guess what: It’s an easy enough explanation that it appeals to lunkheads all over the place who like easy but catchy ideas.

That’s the meaningful scientific method behind evo psych. It is based in nothing.

Amused
Amused
9 years ago

The problem with evolutionary psychologists is that they construct a theory justifying some sexist bullshit, then pick out certain facts of history and anthropology (or invent them out of whole cloth) and completely ignore others. Evolutionary psychology is West-centric, often American-centric, and post-1920’s centric in often hilarious ways. That debacle about why women are supposedly hard-wired to prefer pink over blue is just one amusing example. (In fact, pink was considered for centuries to be a “masculine” color and blue a “feminine” one, and the tradition of pink for baby girls and blue for baby boys is actually a very recent one.)

And it’s the same with rape. Sexual coercion is actually a pretty poor evolutionary adaptation, if you think about it. After all, the objective is to pass on your genes, not to merely shoot your load. And women are notoriously averse to taking good care of babies conceived as a result of rape. If men evolved to rape, how come women haven’t evolved to bond to children conceived in rape? Throughout history, and since prehistoric times, children conceived as a result of rape had a very high likelihood of being aborted, abandoned, killed at birth, sold into slavery or otherwise treated in a way which would ensure an early death and make further reproduction very unlikely. Obtaining consent, by contrast — of the woman and the community — is essential to actually, you know, passing on one’s genes, as opposed to merely depositing sperm. So it would make much more sense to say that humans evolved to seek consent and to find sexual violence abhorrent, and that therefore rapists fail to live up to their evolutionary imperative. Rape is an evolutionary dead-end. Funny how these “experts” ignore that.

Bee
Bee
9 years ago

I should add that I love that Marc proves that evo psych isn’t psuedo science by pointing out that other evolutionary psychologists agree with it.

“It’s not pseudoscience. The vast majority of evolutionary psychologists support a position similar to Ruse’s”

Amnesia
Amnesia
9 years ago

“Well, it’s about what the public thinks.”

Are you not a part of ‘public’? Do you mindlessly submit to majority rule? Do you take no responsibility for what you think is right or wrong, for what little part you play in influencing those around you?
I for one think that newscaster was out of line and should lose his job.

Nobby
Nobby
9 years ago

@Amnesia His point isn’t quite that, he’s saying that evo psych lets us know what ‘people’ think, and so the reaction of the public to this guy proves evo psych is right.

Despite, again, other completely valid ways of explaining it that doesn’t have to do with an ‘evolution’ theory based on the observations of a small part of the world over only a few centuries.

And, of course, none of us arguing against it count as people. Why? Cause…. edge cases! Right!

Marc
Marc
9 years ago

If evolutionary psychology is unscientific for you, any explanation that uses natural selection (excluding something very simple that can be observed because it doesn’t take 100.000 years or so, like antibiotics resistance) must be unscientific for you.

What’s the difference between mental traits and bodily traits?

And we can easily blame that on the culture surrounding the incident. If we go to, say, the middle east, and a woman grabs a man’s crotch, I’m pretty sure we’d have a hell of a different situation.

But for a totally different reason. They are afraid of indecent women there 😉
Show me ONE culture in the world, where they would have compassion with the man because of what he had to endure.

Doesn’t exist, explanation: evo-psych.

It is pseudoscience, because the rest of the scientific community (of which I am a part) tends to think of it as bullshit, because it does not make testable theories that rule out purely cultural ideas, and relies on, as Ilithiana mentioned, only a small subset of human culture. Not nearly enough to base it on ‘evolution’.

Then they’re testable. If the evo-psych claims something but you can show that it’s different in different cultures, you refuted his claim.

Marc
Marc
9 years ago

I would be better to put it that way:
What’s the difference between behavioral traits and bodily traits?

Nobby
Nobby
9 years ago

@Marc Antibiotic resistance is a different case. Either it’s in BACTERIA, which, you know, divide about ever twenty minutes and therefore have a much faster evolutionary timescale, or if its in mammals, its not evolution but bodily adaptation. The closest thing we can see is the development of lactose tolerance, which took quite a few centuries to actually become noticeable. And even so it’s an imperfect variation.

I did just give you a culture. She would be seen as a woman attacking the man sexually. She would probably be stoned for assaulting that man. And yet the guy isn’t seen as being attacked? Because that just does’t make sense.

And i just did. Saying ‘it’s different!’ doesn’t actually answer the question. If I give my PI a theory about how a protein works, and he says ‘why doesn’t it work that way when grad student B does it?’ and I say “it’s different!” He would stare at me for a bit and then probably throw me out of his office. In evo psych, apparently that’s just fine.

And you still haven’t answered me about cheating.

Nobby
Nobby
9 years ago

And to be perfectly clear, you are saying that our culture is purely, or at least mostly, an evolutionary thing. And yet when Iraq culture doesn’t fit the model, it’s different? Whence do those differences come from, pray tell? Are they somehow evolved differently?

Nobby
Nobby
9 years ago

And sorry for the triple post >.< But a last thing (for now):

When a real scientific theory is disproven, the scientist does (or should, at least) go back and say 'oh, okay, then we need to rework this theory or start over". The proper, scientific response, is not to say "But that's different!“. If your theory does not fit observable evidence, it’s not that that evidence is wrong. it’s that your theory is broken.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

No, I would not!
But now you’re appealing to my emotions or moral intuitions. We don’t argue about them.

Yes you are-you are trying to say that “well rape is XYZ because of how we feel about it.”

Either it has nothing to do with emotions or it has something or everything.

Taking the agg assault thing-if someone is beaten half to death with a crowbar after a really bad bar disagreement, it is different then someone being beaten half to death because a person thinks the victim is gay. Both are agg assault but one is considered worse then the other. Why? Moral/emotional judgments made by society in general.

The victims’ psychological harm will be different as well-the bar fight victim will be upset that s/he was beaten but not devastated (unless winning argument is really that important.) A gay man or woman will be upset not only because they were beaten but because the person who did it hates them for who they love.

Wanderer
Wanderer
9 years ago

Yes, that Wanderer was me. Like I said, I used to hang around here but stopped a few months ago, the only posts I’ve made recently have been in this thread and to pimp out a YTMND and ask our host about a picture. Sorry if it seemed like I was hiding something, hehe. I should have been more clear.

To respond to Marc’s points:

1: I don’t think pecunium is a troll, in fact, I found most of his points to be cogent and worth reading, albeit coming from an intellectual position I am farther from these days (again, this is why I don’t pop by much anymore). However, I will let him defend his statements, Instead, allow me to concentrate on some of yours.

2: As we heard, it’s even punishable by a life sentence in some US-states, the average sentence for rape is nearly 12 years in the US.

There are other reasons beyond “evolutionary biology” which could explain this–is the sentence for rape equally high in European, Asian, etc. countries? I’m not sure, but while I’d have to check, I doubt it. This indicates that our reaction to rape in less biological than cultural, since if evolutionary biology could explain it punishments for rape would be more similar across more human cultures. This is not to say I have as much disdain for evo-psych as the other commenters here do (I don’t), but in this case, you’re putting too much faith in it, IMO.

3: It can’t be psychological damage: I gave abundant examples that acts that can inflict enormous psychological harm (paternity fraud, cheating, libel) are not even a crime at all. If libel is not even a criminal offense in the US it only strengthens my point (god, how I hate this Pecunium nonsense “blah blah it’s just a civil offense, hah, I proved you wrong”).

Well, okay, for the purposes of argument let’s concede this point for now and move on to the next one.

4: It can’t be unwanted pregnancy either because that’s easy to fix.

Not really, no. Like I said above, abortions often cost a pretty penny and that’s not even going into the complications which can arise as a result (health issues, loss of fertility, etc.). The potential risk of causing someone hundreds, possibly more, dollars worth of damages justifies some degree of punishment for rape.

5: So that leaves us with STDs. If you compare it with DUI, what are the actual sentences for DUI? Much less than for rape, much, much less. And also I don’t think that the chance to kill or permanently injure someone if you drive under influence but is much less than the chance to infect someone with an incurable STD like AIDS or Hepatitis B.

This isn’t necessarily true, Marc, for what it’s worth while the U.S doesn’t punish DUI that harshly, other countries are significantly more hardcore about it. They *lash* you for DUI in Singapore, for instance. You could argue that we either punish rape too harshly or DUI too lightly, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with questioning the severity of punishment for rape–should someone get the death penalty for it? Of course not, that’s too high. To insist it’s simply a “misdemeanor” or “barely even a crime at all,” however, is problematic.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
9 years ago

Hiya Marc,

So, I’ve only been half following the convo thus far, but this is going a really weird place and I wanted to join in. Trouble is I can’t be bothered to look through pages and pages of diversions, side tracks, bar raisings, and so forth.

So I’d like to ask; what is your point re: rape? Why do you think what you do? I’d like to see if I can help clear some stuff up (or at least muddy the waters more).

Molly Ren
9 years ago

*bets Marc won’t actually answer, since he’s been asked this upthread*

The trolls never stick around for the *really* interesting questions. : /

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
9 years ago

@Molly:

Like, what they actually think? 😛

Molly Ren
9 years ago

@Kirby: Exactly!