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.
Over
nine, I mean one thousand!!!!1@pecunium,
I was admittedly a little off in my recollection of what it was that he posted, but being that it was a few months ago, I may have gotten the specifics muddied with other of his rantings and ravings since then. Anyhow, I posted at 4:50pm, approximately 5 posts prior to your 7:05pm posting, that I managed to find the posting of his to which I was referring. It was a paragraph within a fairly lengthy post, and I extracted said paragraph He makes it sound fairy tale-ish, but I would be hard pressed to believe that it is purely fiction.
i think the toad thing was supposed to be a metaphor for how feminist women are just jealous of all the angry, selfish sex theyre missing out on. its hard to tell though because its not like dkm’s prose makes sense to begin with.
Pam: There is a soupcon of truth in that. I think it’s probably pretty much the truth.
CassandraSays:
“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.”
What I don’t get is why he thinks that women would allow any of this willingly. I think you’d need a great deal of state coercion to set up and maintain this kind of system. It’s so repressive I can’t imagine that women would willingly adhere to it. The idea that this isn’t just about sex seems to have escaped him too. This is about freedom to use your skills and abilities, education, work, even just leave your house. The only way to make sure that one’s daughters aren’t “available” is to keep them locked up within their homes, most western women would hate that and most fathers would never do it to them, much less hand them over to brothels for being recalcitrant. I don’t think he even thinks of women as independent people but as some kind of attachment to a man, so he doesn’t have the first clue what we’re on about.
The level of violence necessary to enforce this nonsense would be simply mind-blowing because most people would want none of it.
I think he’s counting on the assumption that all men will be happy to help enforce this system, using as much violence as necessary, and that after a few generations women will be too scared of violent retribution not to comply. In fact, I suspect that he’s merrily wanking away each time he comments over that very prospect.
True democracy (if that’s what anarchists aim for) is hell on minorities.
Sorry that wasn’t meant to be implied, but drawn in parallel.
Authorities reacted similarly to Hartford, Tonypandy/Rhondda, and Sheffield during the labor movement. (As well as Seattle and Oakland recently)
CassandraSays:
He flat-out denies that but I can’t see it happening otherwise. Especially after a period of relative freedom for women. People can’t unlearn stuff and we know now that women function just as well as men do, even at traditionally male work. While the MRAs may hate feminists there are lots of men who find being in a relationship with an adult with her own ideas, opinions, education and money to be quite rewarding and acceptable. Lots of men don’t seem to want to be married to the psychological equivalent of fourteen year olds who are completely dependent on them, which seems to me to be what Meller advocates. It seems really creepy to me and not healthy for anyone concerned. It makes me wonder if he’s ever entertained the idea of actually being friends with a partner of spouse without all the dominance/submission bullshit.
Honestly, I hate having a dependent partner. And I’m a BSDM domme, so it’s not like I’m craving the opposite, it’s just that having someone be very dependent on you is stressful, and puts a lot of stress on a relationship. Why would anyone want to inflict that burden on an entire gender regardless of whether they wanted it or not?
I really think one of Meller’s underlying issues is that he’s unable to accept that his kinks are in fact kinks, and not necessarily shared by most other people. For some reason he feels compelled to universalize them. It’s really weird.
CassandraSays:
“Honestly, I hate having a dependent partner. And I’m a BSDM domme, so it’s not like I’m craving the opposite, it’s just that having someone be very dependent on you is stressful, and puts a lot of stress on a relationship. Why would anyone want to inflict that burden on an entire gender regardless of whether they wanted it or not.”
That’s it exactly. It is stressful having that kind of responsibility and it seems rather abusive of both partners to have those roles enforced externally regardless of the wishes and personalities of the people involved. One may be a domme in the bedroom but that doesn’t mean you have to be dominant everywhere else. How exhausting!
“I really think one of Meller’s underlying issues is that he’s unable to accept that his kinks are in fact kinks, and not necessarily shared by most other people. For some reason he feels compelled to universalize them. It’s really weird.”
Yes, he can’t seem to understand that people are individual and they interact with one another according to their own needs and desires. You can’t project them or adopt a ‘one size fits all’ approach. Just because he’d prefer a Living Doll for a partner doesn’t mean the rest of us do. Some of us like to have conversations and feel a little (or a lot) of resistance from our partners so that we know we are really communicating with them and they aren’t just ‘playing possum’.
Firstly, the “prostitution” you cite regarding the uses that sexually loose women would be put to is simply a natural and voluntary application of, and extension of, what they (the floozies) are doing anyway. The only difference is that they would be doing it in a safe, clean and protected environment. It is possible that after a while, there would not even be moral judgements on the sextoy/hostess type woman (or the establishments that employ them) since they would be just as much a part of the community as the tradional wife, mother and homemaker virginal women.
As far as women doing men’s work, I see no reason why some unusual or mutant women (who may well be lezzies, anyway) might not be gainfully employed in occupations or professions–even predominantly male ones–outside the home, although needless to say, there would be no crackpot snivel rights affirmative action or “goals-and-timetables” quotas to help them, either with getting such employment, still less in supervisory, executive, or professional positions. If they could do such work, fine (this includeds, I guess, test pilots, astronauts, deep sea explorers, et al) for all I could care less!
Most of the work for the fair sex, outside the home, would be ‘female-friendly’, from daycare caregivers and kindergarden teachers to wedding planners or fashion designers (although gay men would offer stiff competition there), from office receptionists to singers, dancers, or actresses–which, I should think, would arise quite naturally from the men’s entertainment houses (brothels?) anyway. No compulsion, no coercion, and everybody’s happy! Any and all of these women are fully entitled, of course to the full and unilateral possession of any wages or gratuities earned in the course of their employment.
Women would have the same right to leave a brothel to get married or become a love mistress as anyone would have to leave any position of employment. The number of sexually active women in almost any society or private-law laissez faire community is enough so that she could be replaced with another one quickly and cheaply, although their training and experience would be time consuming and at least for newcomers, rather expensive. Again, these are very generous opportunities for floozies and sexually active women, and they (and their loved ones would be fools for neglecting or scorning it). Add to that, the fact that they and their houses help to protect good and pure women, and the fathers–and other family members– of daughters of uncertain virtue in “mellertopia” would have good reason to support my scenarios! It is certainly infinitely better than what awaits such girls in today’s post-feminist world! Heard any good “human trafficking” stories lately? Maybe women are not as suited to so-called “equality” after all, are they?
Just because superficially similar insitutions here have (until now) had a loathsome odor of slavery and coercion about them, doesn’t mean that this is the only way. It is quite possible, that, once clearly understood, the benefits of fully legalized sexual entertainment. It is even possible, that if a entertaining sex-tart falls in love with a customer (not likely, but stranger things have happened) she could make a far better marriage for herself, and her family, than she ever could have by being a “nice girl”, although HIS family would probably have second thoughts, if not a few apoplectic fits, to say the least!
There is no need for coercion when a greatly superior alternative presents itself. All that is needed is to remove prejudices and obsolete thinking!
CassandraSays
“I hate having a dependent partner…”
Cassandra, you are the woman. To the extent that any partner is dependent, it is supposed to be the female. That is why BDSM “mistresses” are so rare, and why you are, as a rule well paid. The dominant role IS very unusual for a woman, and hence is likely to be stressful when adopted, even professionally.
Again, I am not telling you how to enjoy yourself! “Everyone to her own taste, says the farmer’s wife, as she kisses the pig under the tail…”
But there ARE perfectly sound reasons why you are experiencing a high degree of stress, and being a modern woman doesn’t help either!
DKM, do you ever get tired of being a complete idiot all the time?
Why should women be dependent?
Why should a man be required to earn all the money?
Because change makes DKM feel sad.
Lauralot-it takes one to know one…
PFKAE (and complete idiot–see above)
Women, as a rule, are simply better at being dependent. Men, as a rule, are simply better at earning money. It is nature, not whether DKM “feels sad” or not!
Happy days. :<)
Oh, Mellertoad! You managed to pack so much awfulness in there. You’re just ignorant.
Hope your Thanksgiving is sad and lonely.
All that is needed is to remove prejudices and obsolete thinking!
David K. Meller said this. Seriously?
DKM, you do realize none of your interactions with dolls can count as proof of the nature of REAL WOMEN(tm), surely?
If so, why does feminism exist?
There are basically two types of women hardwired into the human genetic template, that is, women who are essentially “wife, mother, and homemaker” type of women, approximately “doll women”, who are, at their best, useful and pleasurable to men, especially when properly trained, which is unfortunately none too often nowadays. The other kind is the over-educated, arch-competitive, often bitter, perpetually envious of men and male power, either frigid or almost pathologically oversexed, and a just plain all-round mess…FEMINISTS!
Type one, which used to predominate among womanhood, sought out and encountered men, creating families, and (for the most part) domestic happiness. They took satisfaction from making their husband happy, and raising healthy, hearty, and happy children, and creating the foundations of a prosperous and vigorous household.
Type two, on the other hand, created conflict, instigated trouble, provoked divorce, stuffed the prisons, drunk tanks, and mental asylums, and their failures as women inflicted hell upon the entire society! They demanded the right to substitute “equality’ for real human quality, and everything was reduced to its lowest common denominator. Instead of associating cause with effects, these women–and the renegade men(?) who helped them, saw the bad results and proceeded to blame the rest ot us for not having ENOUGH equality, and the disease was mistaken for the cure. More equal rights notions were enacted into law, and things got even worse…
What we ended up with, was feminism! Frankly, I prefer little lady lovelies (collector dolls) and perhaps fluffies (stuffed animals) like HelloKitty anytime! Put feminists in the nearest mental asylum where they belong!
That is the second biggest load of horseshit I’ve read today.
Remember, there are two types of people in the world–those who classify people into two groups, and those who do not.
What are you basing this on? Gut feeling or actual science?
If it is gut feeling, why do you assume that your feeling is the correct one? What has made it you believe that your feelings supersede reality?
If actual science, please provide us with links (if any), names of books and/or articles and/or studies.
And finally, how do you plan to help men cope with the feelings they get when they are forced to assume all financial responsibility for their families? Or the feelings of isolation they have from their children because they had to work so much and miss so much of their child’s life.
I know you will ignore what women actually want or desire so I want to know what you will do to help men cope with the incredible stress you will be forcing on them.
Ah. I see. Wanting a career means you’re a lesbian. It… all makes sense now.
DKM, you do realize that as a slut I am not having sex with any comer? I am, in fact, fairly selective of my partners. Sex work implies a certain amount of fucking people one does not actively desire to fuck, and while a valuable profession is not the same thing as sluthood at all.
Ok, we get it, we’re a bunch a frigid slutty mean bitter women (and manginas) So, what happen to us, in mellertopia? (knowing that most of the feminists won’t like either of your options)
We get thrown in a asylum or a jail for wanting a career like a man? I get you think you think we shouldn’t want that, but I also thought mellertopia was a libertarian place of (presumably fluffy) liberty?
So what is now, are we free to live as we see fit or do we get thrown to jail if we don’t like the fiancé nor sex work?