Categories
creepy dozens of upvotes men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny oppressed men pedophiles oh sorry ephebophiles reddit

New Reddit theory: Girls develop early in order to entrap guys and send them to prison

So someone on Reddit posted a video showing time-lapse video of a girl from infanthood to 12 years old. Naturally, Redditors responded with creepy pedophilia jokes, and one Redditor (speaking for many, judging by the numerous upvotes) took the opportunity to complain about just how hard it is for dudes to not have sex with underage girls. Apparently these girls deliberately develop earlier than boys as part of an elaborate plot to entrap guys and send them to jail.

Thanks to ShitRedditSays for pointing me to this latest bit of egregious Redditry.

693 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
kirbywarp
kirbywarp
12 years ago

… I didn’t know I was a NOW member…

Viscaria
Viscaria
12 years ago

I checked manboobz since I am just curious to see your reactions… It is always interesting to converse with the lobotomized retarded schizophrenic feminist NOW members, with a Tourette syndrome, which frequent this site.

The webbernets couldn’t find me an ableist Bingo card 🙁 which is sad, because I think I would have won! That would have been productive enough, yes?

Also, I’m not a member of NOW, but I am a member of a monthly tea club. Better/worse?

dicipres
12 years ago

@Viscaria

What is the gender of the tea?

katz
12 years ago

It’s sort of like picking up a small, angry animal, like a baby lizard, and it’s hissing and trying to bite you and it REALLY REALLY wants you to be scared of it but it’s only 2 inches long and can’t even get its mouth around your finger.

Except I’d feel bad about teasing a baby lizard.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
12 years ago

If anyone’s curious and doesn’t want to get behind the pay wall, I found this site that shows the data from the study. As you can see, the error bars are larger than the data set, which doesn’t bode well for the significance of the data.

In any case, since the sample wasn’t very diverse, it may say more about the culture than about women in general.

/takingthisshitseriously ^_^

dicipres
12 years ago

@Viscaria

Sorry, I meant, what is the sex of the tea?

IMO we should expand the gender wars to plants as well… think big.

hellkell
hellkell
12 years ago

Dicipres, I know you’re lonely over there on that tundra you call a blog, but your insuts are weak.

Viscaria
Viscaria
12 years ago

@dicipres

Sorry, I meant, what is the sex of the tea?

Good question, I’m happy to help! <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camellia_sinensis&quot😉Camellia sinensis is a flowering plant, and therefore produces both egg cells and sperm. You can read more about the reproduction of flowering plants here.

IMO we should expand the gender wars to plants as well… think big.

The “gender wars” are an imaginary thing in your head! 😀

Viscaria
Viscaria
12 years ago
Lady Zombie
Lady Zombie
12 years ago
Pecunium
12 years ago

An abstract, with no way to read the paper (I’m not paying 31.50USD to read it), is not much in the way of refutation to four papers one can actually see the data, and the conclusions from.

But Ruby now has someone one on her side. Perhaps not the ally she might want, but one makes do.

I will point out this sentiment from Steven Pinker: The argument, as presented in the summaries, fail two basic tests of scientific credibility: a control group

This idea, from one of the big names in EvPsych, cannot be stressed highly enough. Quite apart from the facile claims in the abstract

This result cannot be explained by possible confounds such as women’s age, health, happiness, educational attainment, relationship duration, wealth difference between the partners, difference between the partners in educational attainment, and regional location. It appears consistent with the view that female orgasm has an evolved adaptive function.

the conclusions they seem to be presenting are circular.

1: We must assume an adaptive aspect of female orgasm (which isn’t possible. A far better, being parsimonious, explanation can be found in the principle of homology).

2: We have to assume that the self-reported increase in orgasms is bound only to the “wealth” of the partner.

3: No, apparent, control for social differences in the “wealthier” men seems to be present. Is this consistent for new wealth vs. old? By what manner is wealth being determined? How large was the sample size (they claim to be controlling for region. China is large, both in terms of population, and region).

4: How is wealth defined?

5: It appears this is a study derived from data mining a survey done by the Chinese Gov’t. What methodological controls were conducted to deal with biases which may exist in the questions.

5a: By whom, and to what purpose, was the translation of the survey conducted?

5b: What fluency, and how attained, do the writers of the study have of Mandarin?

5d: How were the various confounding factors eliminated in a study based on a survey the authors of the study had no control over the design of?

6: What did the controlling for the wealth of women consist of?

7: How do the authors of the study manage to make equivalent the modern concept of “wealth” in China, to the the evolutionary pressures of 5,000 years ago, and the transition to agriculture.

7a: How to they make it equivalent to the evolutionary pressures of the ice age semi-nomadic lifestyles of Europe, 10,000 years ago?

7b: How to they equate it to the nomadic lifestyles of nomadic hunter-gatherers of the N. African savannahs of 10,000 years ago?

7c: How to they equate it to the unknown lifestyles of more than 20,000 years ago?

8: What is the supposed adaptive value of orgasm, as related to wealth?

8a: How can they test this hypothesis against the situations present in the questions which are present in 7-7c?

9: What of these questions did the peer-reviewers for EHB ask? How were they answered? What, if any changes did those questions require?

Conclusion: the abstract raises more questions than it answers. As such the abstract is not a good support to the contention Ruby puts forth.

jumbofish
12 years ago

IMO we should expand the gender wars to plants as well… think big.

I don’t think you plan to indoctrinate plants with the mrm will work very well seeing as plants can’t talk or think.

Pecunium
12 years ago

And Kirby found an answer to some of my questions, futher calling the study into question.

Science, it’s so simple anyone can do it.

hellkell
hellkell
12 years ago

Jumbo, wouldn’t plants fit right in with the MRM since they can’t talk or think?

Falconer
12 years ago

ahhhhhhh you summoned him!!

Now we have to go on a continents-spanning scavenger hunt to assemble the tools and knowledge we need to banish him!

*sigh*

No, it’s all right. I wasn’t doing anything with my weekend, anyway.

Tulgey Logger
Tulgey Logger
12 years ago

I’m glad to know we manboobz commenters/NOW members all share “a Tourette” [sic] syndrome. It’s good to have community.

Viscaria
Viscaria
12 years ago

Omigosh, are we going on a tiny tour together? That sounds fun :-3

cloudiah
12 years ago

But Ruby now has someone one on her side.

One might hope she’d see the terrible company she’s in and flee back over to the side with facts and reason on its side. I am such a Pollyanna.

cloudiah
12 years ago

@Tulgey, Can I have the Tourette syndrome tonight? I have plans…

Falconer
12 years ago

@Cloudiah, aww, I was gonna borrow it. Fine. You can have it tonight if I can have it tomorrow night.

Pecunium
12 years ago

When did I join NOW?

Then again, how did I get into the Army with Tourette’s?

How does my Tourrette’s manage to manifest since I had the lobotomy?

Why does anyone find conversing with a lobotomised person who has Tourette’s?

FInd the answer to these questions, and more, on tonights episode of, Soap.

cloudiah
12 years ago

On that EHB article dicipres posted, here is the introduction to a later article citing it as a reference:

‘Wealthy men give women more orgasms’. This and similar headlines could be read in almost all newspapers around the world early in 2009. The finding was reported by Pollet and Nettle (2009) analyzing data gathered 1999–2000 in the Chinese Health and Family Life Survey. For scientists, it is natural to ask what evidence the authors can provide for such a finding. Pollet and Nettle [1] very carefully describe the data and the methods applied and their analysis meets the state-of-the-art for statistical analyzes of such a survey. Since the data are publically available, it should be easy to fit the model and derive the same conclusions on your own computer. It is, in fact, possible to do so using the same software that was used by the authors. So, in this sense, this article is fully reproducible. However, one fails performing the same analysis in R Core Development Team [27]. It turns out that Pollet and Nettle [1] were tricked by a rather unfortunate and subtle default option when computing AICs for their proportional odds model in SPSS. Herberich et al. [2] report on a reanalysis of this data set using a correct version of the AIC. It turns out that the male partner’s income now receives less importance compared, for example, to the education level of the woman.

Citation: Hothorn, T., Leisch, F. (2011). Case studies in reproducibility. Briefings in bioinformatics, 12(3), 288-300.

cloudiah
12 years ago

@Falconer, I’ll leave it under your doormat tomorrow morning.

Tulgey Logger
Tulgey Logger
12 years ago

You all can take it whenever, but I really need it next wednesday. Finals.

Definition of pseudo-science:

putting wolves, hyenas, and lions on the same ten-point scale without justification, mapping their mating habits based on no data, with the only source cited being a talk by a professor that itself cites no sources.

Pecunium
12 years ago

And the house of cards comes tumbling down.

I don’t fault them for the problem the default option caused (though the width of the error bars would seem problematic to me).

I do fault EHB’s review process for letting a paper with so weak a correlation to the data into the journal.

I also wonder if Pollet and Nettle have published anything explaining that the conclusions they came to are more suspect now, in light of this finding.

1 17 18 19 20 21 28