How to get 800 upvotes on Reddit: Offer an evo-psych explanation of why vaginas are icky, preferably including the phrase “wet hole.” Here, watch a master at work:
Well, that proves it. It’s SCIENCE!
We Hunted The MammothBucking the Backlash
We Hunted The MammothHow to get 800 upvotes on Reddit: Offer an evo-psych explanation of why vaginas are icky, preferably including the phrase “wet hole.” Here, watch a master at work:
Well, that proves it. It’s SCIENCE!
Is NWOslave saying that feminists on average believe in feminine intuition? I’ve been reading feminist blogs for a while now and it hasn’t really come up. I guess there must be a few who believe it (the Earth Mother hippy-dippy types) but for the most part, I thought of it as a patronising 1950’s “women may not be bright, but they do have a certain natural intuition” sort of thing.
I know I’ve only encountered the term in old sitcoms. I like the Dick Van Dyke Show a lot, but I don’t think it was particularly feminist…Oh wait, Mary Tyler Moore wearing pants?! The conspiracies are true! It all makes sense now!
Yeah (note the spelling, NWOslave?), VoiP, it was an adulterer, not a prostitute.
I don’t know about VoiP, but I’m an atheist. How does it feel that an atheist knows more about your religion than you do?
I’m Russian Orthodox.
As I’ve heard, atheists tend to know more about Christianity than Christians themselves, since most atheists in this country have converted from some form of Christianity, and in attempting to learn more about it, find so much stuff of which they disapprove that they leave. Also, atheists tend to be more well-educated in general.
@Spear
Pssh, you guys are using reading comprehension and paying attention to that mushy “love people and be a good person” crap. More smiting!!! That’s the part of religion Slavey likes. SMITE ALL THE THINGS!
Owlyslave, she was an adulterer, not a sex worker. And no one (not even I!) is in support of adultery. And the point of the story is that you shouldn’t be cruel to sinners, because everyone is a sinner.
And yes, there is sympathy, justice and charity for men. I’m an advocate of it.
What is this “nature” thing that you speak of NWO? You have yet to define it, or to tell me why I should care if I defy it.
@kladle:
Science A) tries to find testable theories, which must be supported by evidence and B) applies these theories to predict or explain something in nature.
Evolutionary psychology mostly does B) because the theory is already there, it’s Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection. So evolutionary psychology tries to explain why certain behavioral traits are common (for example: Why is heterosexuality so common? Because it’s needed for reproduction.) or it tries to make backward inferences and speculates what benefits certain traits could have had in the past.
So while evolutionary psychology may in practice often border on pseudoscience, the basic idea is undoubtedly valid.
Ultimately I think to believe in evo-psych isn’t more problematic than to believe in these theories about rape culture.
@KathleenB:
If they dress, say ‘slutty’, why do they do this? Probably to attract attention from men in the most cases, attention towards them as sexual beings. Sex is a part of the animal life of humans, and so NWOslave, as I understand him, thinks those women behave like animals. Put that a little poetically and you have “dress like animals”.
@ozymandias42:
You would be shocked if you knew how common fantasies of sexual torture are.
To be capable of enjoying violent sex doesn’t make you a rapist, but it’s probably a necessary condition in many cases. If you take people like the Neelleys, they abducted a 13-year-old girl, sexually tortured her repeatedly and gave her multiple injection with drano. If you can enjoy that, injecting someone with corrosive drain cleaner, you have to enjoy violence by itself very much. Even to be totally egoistical and ruthless, to do whatever you like regardless how much harm you cause, is still not enough to descend to such levels of depravity.
I also think it’s hilarious how negatively the women here react to being told their bodies are disgusting. That’s what the mainstream media tells men every single day
Are you trying to suggest that women don’t get told the exact same thing by the media all the fucking time? Because that’s hilarious.
Also, whose favorite part of the bible isn’t 2 Kings, it is full of random horrific violence like this
Of course, there’s always Psalms:
NWOslave
Could we see a picture of your movember mustache? How much money did you collect?
Lian Li: But NWO’s theory seems to be that all women dress like sluts all the time – which is kind of demonstrably not true. Unless the definition of dressing like a slut is ‘a woman wearing clothes. Or, you know, not wearing clothes,’ looking outside will show that many women are not dressed in anything resembling a slutty way. AND EVEN IF THEY WERE, neither you or I have any idea why they do so – perhaps they’re on their way to a date with a fellow sexy lady? Or simply felt like looking sexy?
MRAs get so pissed off when they think feminists are generalizing about men, but this kind of shit seems just fine to most of the ones I’ve interacted with. Are you seeing the HOWLING FUCKING HYPOCRISY here?
Luan LiScience A) tries to find testable theories, which must be supported by evidence and B) applies these theories to predict or explain something in nature.
Evolutionary psychology mostly does B) because the theory is already there, it’s Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection. So evolutionary psychology tries to explain why certain behavioral traits are common (for example: Why is heterosexuality so common? Because it’s needed for reproduction.) or it tries to make backward inferences and speculates what benefits certain traits could have had in the past.
Now, pay attention, because while this is simple, it’s perhaps not easy.
kladle (and many of the folks here) know that. Some of them (e.g. kladle, IIRC) do science for a living.
Those applications you say EvPsych does, have to be testable, or they aren’t science. They have to be replicable, or they aren’t good science. While the underlying idea of EvPsych isn’t bad, the present applications (and all those I have seen an MRA, cite) aren’t bordering on pseudoscience, they are pseudoscience, because they aren’t testable.
Saying, “Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection” isn’t an answer, because this is an issue of mechanism, not overall theory.
If they dress, say ‘slutty’
Lot of power in that word, “if”. Who is defining slutty?
I’ll take, for the purposes of this discussion, your definition, if you are willing to define it. But it’s the one we are going to work with, no redefining it later.
Well all the guys come over and we laugh our asses off at the comments from the gang.
Are any of them named “Ashley” by any chance?
So we’re not real people? xD What do real people sound like NWO? Cuz so far only you sound out of place here xD (and rly anywhere, outside of maybe the Spearhead, I don’t meet people who talk like you ANYWHERE else xD )
Perhaps if you show us places where there are more people like you? :3
I thought you were the brave loner that saw the truth neways xD Unless now you’re saying that belief in the Illuminati and various other conspiracies is now very common xD Weren’t you the brave rebel who nobody listened to and everybody oppressed?
Now you’re the 99%? xD Then why are you complaining? EVERYBODY agrees with you. It’s shocking that the illuminati haven’t been exposed, and you don’t have the government you want when you have 99% of the electorate xD
“Perhaps if you show us places where there are more people like you? :3”
I’m thinking most of those places you probably need a special pass to visit, and a nice security guard to walk you around.
NWO’s “all the guys” seriously made me sad. 🙁
“So we’re not real people? xD What do real people sound like NWO? Cuz so far only you sound out of place here xD (and rly anywhere, outside of maybe the Spearhead, I don’t meet people who talk like you ANYWHERE else xD )
Perhaps if you show us places where there are more people like you? :3”
Yes! Seconded! Where are all these very normal dudes??
You know, for a guy who claims to care so much about suicide and depression in men, NWO seems to rly NOT care about it and think it’s ALLL ONE BIG JOKE xD Is this what you tell the guys you claim to care about when they are suicidal or depressed? “Suck it up, I don’t want to kill myself you p-“? e_e
There’s lots of guys suffering from depression, and other mental illnesses, on NSWATM, I have yet to see you tell any of them what you’re telling Ozy. Is this a msg you want to convey to them? Lots of them are lurking here too (so I’m told neways).
That’s very kind of you Pecunium, but I don’t do science for a living. 🙂 Maybe someday. I did my undergrad degree in philosophy and cognitive science and we spent a lot of time on these sorts of issues, which is why I can blab all day about them.
I know what science does, sillypants, and I said that I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the evolutionary psychology program in itself. Pecunium mostly covered things, but I’ll repeat myself. Evolutionary psychology has some testable aspects. For example, Thornhill and Palmer, as well as some others, claim that men rape because it is an adaptive reproductive strategy. If it is an adaptive reproductive strategy then this means that men who rape ought to have more children and grandchildren then men in comparable situations who do not rape, that propensity to rape is heritable, that the benefits of rape outweigh the potential costs to the rapist, etc. There is little to no actual evidence supporting any of these claims. Furthermore, T & P make claims like “women shouldn’t dress provocatively because all of what we’ve shown about rape being a reproductive strategy means that rape is really about sex, so women shouldn’t flaunt their sexuality” when the data on rape and women’s clothing has shown that there’s no correlation between the two. So they’re outright factually wrong about that. They’re also making normative judgments which is a big no-no.
My problem with evo psych in general is shit like that– shady science used to back up shady moral judgements. Not the idea that the human mind has been shaped through evolution. Using your A and B criteria, it’s that
A1: It sometimes doesn’t even have testable theories. What Pecunium said, basically– there’s no way for us to test whether rape was adaptive 100,000 years ago because we don’t have enough information about human culture then from our current position.
A2: The theories that are testable have either not been tested or the evidence hasn’t supported the theory.
B: The theories don’t have predictive value because they are either wrong about the facts (P&T on “dressing slutty”) or they are so vague that any state of the world can be shoehorned after the fact into a prediction of the theory (If men prefer thin women it’s because thinness is an indicator of health. If men prefer fat women it’s because fatness is an indicator of health.) If you are familiar with Popper, this is similar to his criticism of psychoanalytic theory.
Clothing in humans has a huge variety of social signalling functions. Signalling availability for sex or evoking sexual attraction is only one of them. Others are defining in-group and out-group boundaries (gender, religion, ethnicity), displaying status or wealth, expression of creativity, use as symbols of authority (military garb, “lab coats”, suits), ritual uses, etc. Many of these things are things that non-human animals don’t really do– I mean, other animals don’t even clothe themselves at all, even for warmth or whatever. So it doesn’t really make sense to say that you can “dress like an animal”, since dress always has a number of functions in humans that go way beyond anything any other animal does. And in any case everything is part of the “animal life of humans” as humans are animals, they’re just weird ones.
I love to imagine NWO hanging out with a group of other dudes who all share his crazy theories, all hanging around not drinking tap water and writing in upper case.
Oh, and people wanted an example of good evolutionary stuff. I like Kate Clancy’s blog, she “studies the evolutionary medicine of women’s reproductive physiology, and blogs about her field, the evolution of human behavior and issues for women in science”. She’s more of an anthropologist than a psychology researcher, but whatever. She has some really good posts about myths about menstrual cycles & some nice takedowns of terrible evo psych. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/context-and-variation/
@KathleenB:
Yes, true, if he said “all women”, he’s wrong.
Could be, but it’s not exact science, we’re making broad assumptions here, which are only probably true. And few women dress sexy if there’s nobody who can see them.
@Pecunium:
Depends how you define ‘testable’ and ‘replicable’. If scientists say, that there was a natural fission reactor in Oklo, which was active 1.7 billion years ago, then this is a time long gone, so long gone not even simple sponges did exist. 😀 So we can’t directly test this claim, it is absolutely impossible without a time machine. Yet it’s not unscientific to make such claims and to accept them as true. Most theories of nuclear physics are supported by overwhelming evidence, they are also testable and replicable, but it’s only the inference and the application of these theories that supports the claim “There was a natural fission reactor in Oklo 1.7 billion years ago”.
The idea that natural selection makes traits more or less common in a population is, even if it’s not a theory, definitely a scientifically proven statement that can be used to make predictions or to explain things.
Very difficult, I didn’t bring up that word. Probably “a very revealing (worn in situations where it’s not necessary to dress that way) or suggestive outfit”.
And few women dress sexy if there’s nobody who can see them.
How would you know? You can’t see them.