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.
@ Kyrie “What if the woman want premarital sex AND marriage?”
I know right? Like, I’m pretty sure that ALL of the married (with kids, and monogamous) women in my family had premarital sex, with the possible exception of my grandmother.
And I’m pretty sure that my family has never started a blood feud with any ex-boyfriends over “family honor.” They pretty much trust that the women and girls in the family can think for themselves, and that we’ll get married when the time comes, or do something else that will make us happy.
… it’s almost like we’re PEOPLE or something.
@Mr Dubz: I don’t know about most of my family, but I’m sure even my catholic monogamous-to-the-death mother had premarital sex. Sure it was only with my father, but still in Mellertopia that mean she should have been sent to a brothel. Which would have been very bad for me and my family in general.
But the idea that wanting out-of-marriage sex is not the same as wanting sex with any man seem a too complex idea for some.
Oh wow, has my sex life been tearing my family apart? I mean, I’ve had a non-zero number of sex partners in my life and I’ve never been married, so I must be! Wow, when my parents met my partner who I am obviously having sex with, they kept their horror and disgust well under wraps. They kept talking about how they liked him and approved, instead of how I was destroying everything and should leave him to enter a life of quiet, clean prostitution.
I would like to propose the creation of a new feminist nonprofit – the Buy A Troll A Dictionary fund. This fund would make it possible to ship dictionaries out to poor, confused, angry men all across the land, finally allowing them access to vital information about what words mean. No longer would people like David K Meller have to use words like “freedom” to mean “forcing women into prostitution”, when the term that actually fits is “human trafficking”. Poor, unfortunate NWO would no longer have to labor under the delusion that authoritarinism is the same thing as libertarianism, or lack the knowledge that the word for his desire to have the age of consent lowered so that he can legally have sex with 12 year olds is “pedophilia”.
Please give what you can, and contribute to the Buy A Troll A Dictionary fund today.
Refusing to be a sex slave won’t be illegal (nothing will be illegal, since there will no longer be any laws), but if detected, it is reasonably certain it will be punished by death, or at least twenty five years in a forced-labor campe
DKM:
In the real world (as opposed to opera) when people screwup or sleep with people they really shouldn’t they are responsible for their own actions. Neither partner should be let off the hook because of their gender. Nobody is forcing them, after all. They have created the mess themselves and both are responsible for it and fix it as best they can. Neither men nor women should get a free pass here unless their regular partners/spouses already have that kind of arrangement.
Life==fiction.
When women, especially floozies, have sex with “whomever they want”, it disrupts families, cmmunities, and lives–Just ask poor Herman Cain, for example! When it can be done discreetly, smoothly, and cleanly, damage is minimized for everybody concerned.
If you are a student of Opera, almost EVERY opera involves seduction, a love triangle, or a woman having sex with womebody whom she shouldn’t! More often than not, somebody dies, sometimes even the girl herself!
The resulting mess(es) become everybody’s business, and the ongoing gossip often complicates matters for people even further.
Dracula (and other manboobzers and manboobzettes), no communities can be at their best if the lives of their people, especially their leading people,and families, are exposed to scandal! This system allows the tremendous energies that go into female sex emotions to be employed and sublimated usefully, cleanly, discreetly, and often even profitably..When such women do “what they want”on their own, the results are dreadful scandals and messes for everyone, especially people who need to attend to more important matters elsewhere!
Okay, but in an individualist philosophy that values the non aggression axiom, you can’t constrain individual actions so that they meet your system? Why are you a libertarian again?
DKM:
Another question. Who will be the clients of the women forced into prostitution under your system? Seems to me that you only have two options, single and/or married men. Again, with the double standard. I also think that this system will require a hell of a lot of serious violence to set up and enforce. There’s a huge difference between women choosing their own partners and enjoying their own sexuality in a responsible way, for it’s own sake and being a prostitute who’s only purpose is to service and/or entertain men. Especially in a system where women are given to brothels because they don’t want to toe the party line in the first place. You don’t seem to see the difference. I think thevast majority of women would hate this system and the violence that would be necessary to maintain it.
Freedom for men to do as they like, and either domestic or sexual slavery for women. Vile.
Oh my gracious, I do believe you’ve stumbled upon the end of the energy crisis. Clean, discreet, and profitable TREMENDOUS energies from female sex emotions!
I can’t even tell you how much I like that phrase. Female sex emotions.
Kyrie, I regret to inform you that MRAL argued in all earnestness that older guys should be able to bang 14-year-olds because it worked out for Daenerys Targaryen.
SaruGoku, you reminded me. If we take a trip in the way way back machine, DKM said:
and
My vagina: it is not available “for use”. I am, however, happy to enjoy sex with other individuals (or, at present, one individual) despite not being married to them. Sharing an experience with someone is not the same as being used by them.
Viscera:
So we, in fact, have a two tiered system where women of wealthy families are protected from the depredations of male sexuality, while women from poor or statusless families are free for sexual use by men.
That’s scary. I wonder if the women of either tier get any say in the matter or do we just have wealthy women, who are not available or poor women who have to be.
I really loathe this assumption that 1. Women are objects to be “used” as men see fit and 2. The complete lack of control that Meller seems to deem necessary so that all women don’t become “sluts”. Heaven forfend they should actually have a choice in how they live their lives! Freedom for men, slavery for women. I wonder if he realizes that the moment he uses the word “used” to refer to women who should be active agents in their own lives, he reduces them to objects and makes any argument he makes from that point completely offensive.
Sorry, Viscaria. My iPad decided all of it’s own accord that your name should be spelt “Viscera”. I’ve just told it off and told it to mind it’s own goddamned business!
It’s just as well, SaruGoku! Viscera is a suitable name for my slimy, twisted, disgracefully unfluffy self! And it describes my grotesquely visceral nature, doing things because they feel good and having no regard to how many people I will mildly scandalize on the Internet!
That’s really what it all seems to come down to with Meller. He’s deeply offended by any societal arrangement in which women are not in some way defined as being for “the use” of men. He wants virgins and sweetly submissive women to be used kindly, but he still wants them to be used. Any society in which women exist for their own purposes is unacceptable, as is any society in which women get to have sex with men they choose for themselves. Bsically the central feature of any societal model he approves of is that women are the property of someone. Which he thinks is “freedom”, and he also thinks that everyone who isn’t a feminist agrees with him.
He’s so convinced of this ridiculous idea that he actually thinks that fathers would be willing to “hand over” their wayward daughters to a life of forced prostitution. For real, he actually thinks that most families would be OK with this if the woman in question wasn’t a virgin.
You have to wonder if he’s ever talked to a father who has daughters, since the fact that most fathers love their daughters doesn’t seem to have occurred to him.
(Cue rant about how if a man REALLY loved his daughter he’d want to PRESERVE her sacred hymen and ENSURE that she was properly transferred to the guardianship of a suitable husband, because REAL MEN all feel the way he does. Seriously, dude, don’t even bother, we already know what you’re going to say. You couldn’t be more predictable if you tried – the only real surprise from you has been the fact that you talk to dolls.)
Thanks Katz. And eww, especially because I had not realized the character was so young (the actress is about 20 years old, which is way less creepy to see)
This is why, when he predicted that my wife would leave me in a few years (citing countless Spearhead sob stories as “evidence”), I made a point of emphasizing that she was also my best friend.
I genuinely don’t think he’s capable of grasping that concept.
The young characters in the show are uniformly about 3 years older than they are in the books, so I’m guessing Show!Daenerys is supposed to be about 17.
Which make the original scene “yeah, sister has boobs, I can marry her” even more creepy now I think of her as a teenager.
I think he might grasp it, but he eschews it as maladaptive to his vision of proper social order, where women exist solely to serve and entertain men (who I am certain he views as god-like….well, “REAL men”,anyway), either as private property (virginal, submissive wives) or as public property (prostitutes and/or exotic dancers).
It was some time ago, and I don’t currently have the free time on my hands to seek it out, in a posting in one of the threads here that DKM mentioned the event that really served to turn him against feminism/feminists. He realized how vindictive, spiteful and hateful a movement feminism is by the way that his feminist then-partner (didn’t specify if she was girlfriend or wife) reacted when she learned that he had had an affair on her.
Well, I dunno ’bout you, but I certainly can’t imagine anyone other than a feminist becoming spiteful, hateful, vindictive, etc., when they’ve learned that their partner cheated on them. /sarcasm
You know, my dad *does* “use* me for something on a regular basis. He “uses* me as his business manager. He bought a business when he retired and then realized he had no freaking clue how to run a business, and he now e-mails me from approx. 8am to 11pm every day asking me how to do things. It’s fine with me, he’s been letting me live in a property he owns since I lost my job, and I’m happy to do this for him. Interestingly, he also employs both of my brothers in the business, but he needs my ladybrain to do the things like IT management and financial management, but you can knock all three of their manbrains together, and they’re still all in there painting the place and helping the customers.
And I do it all without being even remotely fluffy!
Both @Wetherby and @Pam: wow. Pam, your story is several layers of screwed up, and Wetherby, who the hell is he to comment on your marriage? Angry face is angry >: -(
I wonder if part of the whole sexual “use” thing is because DKM is one of those who can’t see heterosexual sex as something both parties enjoy. Men have sex for fun, REAL women have sex out of wifely duty. Maybe those slutty women(?) actually derive some pleasure from it, but that’s because they’re freakish. And he can’t see any reason for the freakish women(?) to be selective about their partners since now that they enjoy sex, they will be equally interested in anything anybody’s willing to shove into them.
Sorry, that was much cruder than it needed to be. Something about telling people in good relationships that their marriages will fail just… it really gets to me. No more rage posting for me!
Please don’t be angry on my account – I laughed out loud at the suggestion that my wife would leave me and take the kids.
In fact, we have a running joke about our impending divorce, and she seems pretty clear that she’s getting the house and I’m getting the kids.
Hopefully the sarcasm behind the comment about “our impending divorce” was obvious, as I’d hate to see anyone taking it literally.