The director of the first Human Centipede film – the one about a psychopathic doctor who sews three unwilling and unwitting captives together mouth-to-anus to make a sort of “centipede” — proudly declared that his film was “100% medically accurate.” That is, he found a doctor who was willing to say that if one were indeed to create such a centipede, the second and third segments (i.e., people) would be able to survive, provided that you supplemented their rather dismal diet with IV drips to give them the nutrition they were lacking.
This dubious claim to 100% accuracy came to mind today as I perused a post by the blogger who calls himself Dalrock, a manospherian nitwit with a penchant for pseudoscientific defenses of old-fashioned misogyny. In a post with the whimsical title “We are trapped on Slut Island and Traditional Conservatives are our Gilligan,” Dalrock argues that the best “solution” to out-of-wedlock births is some good old-fashioned slut shaming.
Here’s how he breaks down the (imaginary) numbers in a post that is “100% mathematically accurate” – which is to say, not accurate at all:
Assume we are starting off with 100 sluts and 30 alphas/players. The sluts are happily riding on the alpha carousel. Now we introduce slut shaming. It isn’t fully effective of course, but it manages to convince 15 of the would be sluts not to be sluts after all. This means an additional 15 women are again potentially suitable for marriage. This directly translates into fewer fatherless children. This also makes the next round of slut shaming easier. Instead of having 99 peers eagerly cheering her on her ride, each slut now has 15 happily married women shaming her and only 84 other sluts encouraging her. After the next round this becomes 30 happily married women shaming the sluts, and only 69 other sluts cheering them on, and so on. This process continues until all but the most die hard sluts are off the carousel. You will never discourage them all, but you can do a world better than we are doing today.
Why not shame the fathers as well, while we’re at it? Dalrock explains that this just doesn’t make good mathematical sense:
Start with the same base assumption of 100 sluts and 30 players. Now apply shame to the players. Unfortunately shame is less effective on players than it is on sluts, so instead of discouraging 15% of them (4.5) in the first round, it only discourages three of them. No problem!, says the Gilligan [the social conservative], at least there are now three fewer sluts now that three of the evil alphas have been shamed away, and all without creating any unhappy sluts! But unfortunately it doesn’t work that way. The remaining 27 players are more than happy to service the extra sluts. They are quite maddeningly actually delighted with the new situation. Even worse, the next round of player shaming is even less effective than the first. This time only 2 players are discouraged, and one of the other 3 realizes that his player peers are picking up the slack anyway and reopens for business. This means in net there are still 26 players, more than enough to handle all of the sluts you can throw at them.
Well, there’s no arguing with that!
Seriously, there’s no arguing with that, because it is an imaginary construct with only the most tenuous connection with how things work in the real world. “But … MATH!” doesn’t really work as an argument here, since human beings don’t actually behave according to simplistic mathematical formulas.
Film critic note: While the first Human Centipede film offered little more than a workmanlike treatment of a fantastical idea, the recently released sequel, which details the attempts of a deranged Human Centipede superfan to take human-centipeding to the next level, is actually sort of brilliant. If you like that sort of thing.
If at first you don’t succeed a stitch in time saves a gift horse in the mouth when you can get the milk for free if you can’t say anything nice at all like a box of chocolates. WORDS OF WISDOM, BITCHES.
It’s all just so childish. We will punish you, ladies! Just watch us! You’ll be sorry!
Eh, I’m nearly 40 and pretty happy with where my life has ended up. Sorry to disappoint you, revenge-seeking manchildren.
They sound so young, don’t they? Rooting is a big part of life in your twenties, but what about the next 60 years? Doesn’t he reckon he’ll do or think anything else that might affect his life and happiness?
You hear that ladies? Y’all are gonna be real sorry when the guys you don’t want to fuck stop trying to fuck you! Oh wait, that’s really not much of a threat at all, is it? Never mind…
Thank you, David, for creating the first Internet thread I’ve ever seen in which Human Centipede is the least gross thing.
Although I did enjoy Meller flipping out Victorian-style over the very notion of lady fighter pilots, not in the least because I have a cousin who flew fighter jets during her stint in the Air Force. Like ten friggin’ years ago.
She’s a lawyer now. And married with two kids, so I’m not even sure where she’s going to end up in the Meller World Order.
“doyourownresearch”, you have a lot of advice for cute to pretty girls, what advice do you have for us plane to ugly girls?
“In NWOSlaves next life:
He we be a 24/7 technician in an artificial womb lab. Without time off to whine on the internet.
How would that work for you buddy? Saving the unborn and all.”
I don’t wanna go all annoying and sound anything like a transhumanist, but I do think in ectogenesis we might have a very important option for unwanted pregnancies that will satisfy the needs of many women who feel opposed to abortion…In the future. I’m getting out of here and dropping this topic like a hot potato now.
If I’m a slut, and I’m busy having sex with guys who aren’t alphas, can I still get married? Should I be collecting references from all the virgins I fuck in order to reassure my future husband that I wouldn’t have rejected him when I was younger?
Also, I love how no one middle-class (or, God forbid, lower-class) exists in Doyourownresearch World. I’ve never slept with a Harvard MBA or Jude Law’s hotter brother, you know? I doubt I’m going to get to. And yet I have a vagina and everything.
Alsoalso I have totally fucked a guy and then fucked his friends.
Ugly girls should try to marry all the MBAs real quick while they’re still blueballin’ sad and alone; “plane” girls should get the hell out of the cockpit. ;D
When a man sleeps with 100 chicks, he’s a stud. When a woman sleeps with JUST ONE guy, that eliminates you as wifey material to ALL of his friends.
Funny story: one of my good friends from college met her husband when her ex-boyfriend introduced them. Her now-husband asked her out specifically because her ex had given him such glowing descriptions of how awesome she was in the sack back when they were dating.
I’m always amused by how the MRA types seem utterly incapable of grasping a concept most of us manage around the age of 3: all people are not you. If you only date virgins, that’s fine for you, I suppose, but there are loads and loads of men out there who don’t have the same weird madonna/whore hangups and either don’t really care or actively like being with partners who have at some point had sex.
(I know that’s only scraping the surface of the near-infinite layers of wrong in that post – and even just in that sentence! – but the notion that “all men are horrified by the thought that a woman might at some point have fucked” is some universal truth made me laugh even harder than “all women just want to marry someone, and have no interest in sex in its own right” and “women routinely ‘shelve’ men to be fucked later.”)
Zhinxy said-
“We aren’t designed for war as humans, and men aren’t very good at it either. If women are too soft, well, most men, thank any god there is, don’t shoot to kill…”
—-
“A look at history might help illustrate what I am talking about. In World War Two, it is a fact that only 15-20 percent of the soldiers fired at the enemy. That is one in five soldiers actually shooting at a Nazi when he sees one. While this rate may have increased in desperate situations, in most combat situations soldiers were reluctant to kill each other. The Civil War was not dramatically different or any previous wars.
In WW2 only one percent of the pilots accounted for thirty to forty percent of enemy fighters shot down in the air. Some pilots didn’t shoot down a single enemy plane.
http://www.military-sf.com/Killing.htm
“And when they don’t have the good sense to cash in their chips, they often end up just like Icarus–dead in the water.
If at first you don’t succeed a stitch in time saves a gift horse in the mouth when you can get the milk for free if you can’t say anything nice at all like a box of chocolates. WORDS OF WISDOM, BITCHES.”
<3
Fret not, my brethren. You will be a master of the universe in the long run, so long as you stick to the script.
Oooh! Oooh! I call She-Ra! 😀
stonerwithaboner:
Zhinxy said-
“We aren’t designed for war as humans, and men aren’t very good at it either. If women are too soft, well, most men, thank any god there is, don’t shoot to kill…”
—-
“A look at history might help illustrate what I am talking about. In World War Two, it is a fact that only 15-20 percent of the soldiers fired at the enemy. That is one in five soldiers actually shooting at a Nazi when he sees one. While this rate may have increased in desperate situations, in most combat situations soldiers were reluctant to kill each other. The Civil War was not dramatically different or any previous wars.
In WW2 only one percent of the pilots accounted for thirty to forty percent of enemy fighters shot down in the air. Some pilots didn’t shoot down a single enemy plane.
http://www.military-sf.com/Killing.htm”
Yes. Thankyou for the additions. And it’s also important to look at the horrific psychological toll killing took on those who did it.
I think some people play video games where they mow down about a bajillion Nazis a day, and think that they could totally handle shooting actual humans no prob. Yeeeeah.
Bagelsan: Yeah, no. Human beings are bad at killing people. It’s that whole “empathy” thing we have. 🙂
So yeah, my argument on this always ends up: Women can be in combat. Women can fight and women can kill as well as men can. Which isn’t very well, and nobody should! So there, I suppose.
And Meller, I know you’re (at least) anti-war, so again, why does the question of women weakening the military bother you so?
Zhinxy-
It’s mentioned in the link, you might find On Killing by David Grossman to be an interesting/disturbing read…..
Ooh, yes. I’ve had that in my to read list for a while, thanks for the reminder 🙂
It’s always funny when Meller is in full NO OTHER MEN LIKE WOMEN LIKE THAT rant mode and someone points out that in fact there are men who really like the women he despises. His ability to dismiss them as weirdos, despite his own tendency to have conversations with his doll collection, is pretty damn funny.
Do you suppose there are any people where Doyourownresearch lives, or is he surrounded by a bunch of stereotypes and poorly written characters?
God, I wish I lived in a world where people didn’t say things like “the true prices of commodities (women).” Fuuuck.
Young women (and some older ones) have an overinflated sense of the value of their vaginas.
Honestly, I actually think it’s MEN (and MRAs particularly) who seem to have this overinflated sense of the “value” of our sex organs… e_e
Oddly enough, most women don’t consider our vaginas to be the most valuable part of ourselves at all. Shocking and difficult for MRAs to understand as this may be, it is in fact the reality.