Category: douchebaggery

Categories
antifeminism creepy douchebaggery evil women misogyny MRA penises reactionary bullshit that's not funny! the spearhead

David K. Meller on women getting cancer: “HA HA HA HA HA…LOL!”

Not reallly the appropriate response to someone else getting cancer.

Those of you who aren’t regular readers of the comments here may not appreciate the true genius of David K. Meller, an excitable and exclamation-point-loving MRA I’ve mentioned once or twice in my posts, but who shows up in the comments here with some regularity – ending each comment with his trademark “PEACE AND FREEDOM!!”

Mr. Meller is a great lover (not physically) of men:

Men, by and large, are a wonderful sex! We are more intelligent than women, more creative, at least in the areas outside the home. We are, also, as a rule, physically stronger as well …

He claims to love women, too – though not feminists, whom he seems to consider something other than human:

Women ARE people, and often wonderful people at that! Feminists, on the other hand, AREN’T! …

Women are people, and properly raised, educated, and loved,, are beautiful, charming, and lovely!

Despite his alleged love of women – at least the non-feminist ones – he often says utterly horrible things about them. The examples are too numerous to catalogue. But let me draw your attention to one rather telling comment of his I found recently on The Spearhead.

In the midst of a discussion of Sharon Osbourne’s now notorious comments about a woman who cut off her husband’s penis, Meller offered the following musings on the subject of women and cancer. I am having trouble finding much love of women in them:

It is .. possible that the breast cancers (not to mention ovarian and vaginal cancers) have a psychosomatic aspect to their development. … The feelings of vicious sadism, brutality, and callous indifference to another’s pain in such harpies must inexorably work on the molecular, genetic, and cellular level to generate consequences! I hope that you girls find these consequences as hilarious as I do when you annoy me with your next women’s health campaign against cancer!

Maybe women don’t strictly speaking, DESERVE cancer, but it will be hard for me to stop laughing at them …

Isn’t the thought of cancer-ridden women going under the knife amusing? Isn’t thought of women losing part, or all, of a sexual organ that is precious to them FUNNY? The pain women experience when recovering from surgery (and radiation or chemo, which is almost as bad) is still less than the agony which that poor man underwent when he underwent castration at the hands of a deranged, sadistic, and vicious she-weasel (my apologies to weasels)!

[F]or every man who is abused and tortured by his woman, it almost warms my heart that the same hatred and spite characteristic of the female human(?) sets THEM up for a similar fate down the road, as that bitterness, vicious sadism, and bloodthirstiness so characteristic of those who would LAUGH AT the suffering caused by a “woman” committing such a vicious crime predisposes them toward cancer, and (I hope) a similar fate!

Karma is always there, girls, and it is a bitch!! HA HA HA HA HA…LOL!

PEACE AND FREEDOM!!

David K. Meller

That “PEACE AND FREEDOM!!!” always gets me.

This being The Spearhead, Meller’s comments garnered more than a few upvotes. Not as many as he usually gets, admittedly, but some.

At some point I will do a Best of David K. Meller post, highlighting some of his “best” comments here. He is one for the ages.

Categories
douchebaggery men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny oppressed men pussy cartel reactionary bullshit

Science Corner: Why some self-obsessed douchebags hate the ladies so much

I'd do me. Why won't those bitches?

Well, this explains a few things:

Narcissistic Heterosexual Men Target Their Hostility Primarily at Heterosexual Women, the Objects of Their Desires, Study Finds

ScienceDaily (July 29, 2010) — Heterosexual women bear the brunt of narcissistic heterosexual men’s hostility, while heterosexual men, gay men and lesbian women provoke a softer reaction, according to psychologist Dr. Scott Keiller from Kent State University at Tuscarawas. This is likely to be due to women’s unparalleled potential for gratifying, or frustrating, men’s narcissism, the author concludes. They are crucial players and even gatekeepers in men’s quests for sexual pleasure, patriarchal power and status.

More here. The actual study here (subscribers only).

Yes, like a lot of psych studies, it was based on a relatively small sample of college students (104 undergraduate men, to be exact). But after this post yesterday – and, you know, the entire content of this blog — it’s hard not to think that Keiller is on to something.

Categories
douchebaggery drama MRA reddit threats

Breaking News: Men’s Rights mod on Reddit is kind of a dick

So, funny story.

Earlier today, some guy on the Men’s Rights subreddit made a not-so-vaguely threatening remark about me. I sent the mod a message about it, and, well, this was his response:

Yeah. Pretty sure that’s not exactly the way Reddit wants its mods to behave.

 

Categories
antifeminism crackpottery douchebaggery misogyny MRA oppressed men racism reactionary bullshit reddit terrorism

Manosphere blogs: Hey, that Breivik guy has some good ideas!

The "thoughtful" Breivik in custody

Earlier today I wrote about some Men’s Rights Redditors who endorsed the views of Norwegian shooter Anders Breivik – without knowing that the views they were endorsing were his. But others in the manosphere have stepped up to defend Breivik’s manifesto (if not his actions) plainly and explicitly, in full knowledge of just whose ideas they are endorsing.

On In Mala Fide, blogger Ferdinand Bardamu praises Breivik’s “lucidity,” and blames his murderous actions on the evils of a too-liberal  society:

[A]nother madman with a sensible manifesto. Another completely rational, intelligent man driven to murderous insanity. And once again, society has zero introspection in regards to its profound ability to turn thoughtful men into lunatic butchers.  …

He’s not being sarcastic here. He continues:

That makes HOW many rage killers in the past five years alone? And not just transparent headcases like Jared Loughner or George Sodini, but ordinary men like Pekka-Eric Auvinen or Joe Stack who simply weren’t going to take it anymore. No one bothers to ask WHY all these men suddenly decide to pick up a gun and start shooting people – they’re all written off as crazies. Or the rage killings are blamed on overly permissive gun laws …

Here’s an idea – sick societies produce sick individuals who do sick things. Anders Breivin [sic] murdered nearly a hundred teens (not children, TEENS – they were at a summer camp for young adults) and must pay the price, but the blood of those teens is ultimately on the hands of the society that spat him forth. He is the bastard son of a masochistic, degenerate, rootless world that pisses on its traditions and heritage to elevate perversity, mindless consumerism and ethnic self-hatred to the highest of virtues.

(Bolded text in original.) That final reference to “ethnic self-hatred” seems to be Bardamu’s euphemistic way of complaining that not enough white people are white supremacists.

Then he adds this repulsive final thought on Breivik’s victims:

[S]top acting so fucking shocked that Breivin murdered “children.” As William Rome pointed out, it’s been de rigeur for all of human history for political revolutionaries to kill the heirs of their enemies alongside the enemies themselves, to ensure that the old system would stay dead and buried. … That doesn’t make what he did excusable, but it does make it understandable.

Meanwhile, Chuck of Gucci Little Piggy offers what appears to be a somewhat more restrained, if ultimately more puzzling, defense of Breivik’s manifesto – or at least that portion of the manifesto that Breivik borrowed from the writings of far-right blogger Fjordman.

Chuck complains that Hugo Schwyzer and I are “try[ing] to blame Breivik on MRAs” in our recent posts showing the similarities between Breivik’s ideas and those of many MRAs. Never mind that neither Hugo nor I referred to Breivik as an MRA. I described him as an antifeminist, which is an undeniable fact,  whose views are “strikingly similar to many MRAs.” (Emphasis added.) Hugo stated explicitly that he didn’t blame the MRM directly for Breivik’s actions, noting that “[m]ost MRAs – perhaps almost all – reject violence and mass murder as a political tactic.”

Evidently Chuck feels that to even mention the MRM in conjunction with Breivik is some sort of egregious smear, especially since the shooter spent “only” 23 pages of his manifesto writing explicitly about feminism.

Weirdly, after trying to draw a sharp line between Breivik and the MRM, Chuck goes on to apparently endorse Breivik’s (and Fjordman’s) notions about the ways in which feminism “greased the wheels to allow Islam into his country.”  The rest of Chuck’s post elaborates on, and seems to fully endorse, Breivik’s/Fjordman’s argument that feminism’s “emasculation of Western men has taken the organic policing mechanism out of the hands of men in society” and thus rendered Western society helpless before the Islamic cultural invaders.

I’ve asked Chuck to clarify if this is indeed what he means to convey in his post. If so, I can only say:  If you’re trying to draw a distinction between your ideas and the ideas of a murderous terrorist, you don’t really advance your case by agreeing with the central thrust of these ideas pretty much wholeheartedly.

Categories
antifeminism douchebaggery evil women misandry misogyny MRA oppressed men penises rape rapey reactionary bullshit we hunted the mammoth

A man and an old lady get in an elevator

Those "sweet" old ladies are anything but.

Another elevator joke for you all:

So Pierce Harlan of the False Rape Society blog gets into an elevator ….

Well, OK, not a joke. In his latest post, Harlan offers a reaction, of sorts, to the whole atheist elevator incident –- by relating an anecdote of a recent elevator experience of his own.

EDITED TO ADD: Harlan has now deleted the post in question. It can still be seen, at least for now, in Google’s cache of the original page, which you can find here. Grab screenshots! Back to the story:

Seems he was riding a hotel elevator with a sweet old lady. Neither one said anything to the other (Harlan apparently hates talking to sweet old ladies) but when he got off the elevator – well, let’s let him explain:

I glanced back at her and saw that … she was immobilized with fear. In fact, she was practically cowering in the corner. Her eyes couldn’t have been wider if I had whipped out my dick and lathered it up with Grey Poupon.  Hers was the face of utter, unbridled fear, and she was watching me like the scardest of scared deer. She said not a word but her demeanor practically pleaded, “Please don’t rape me, sir!”

Now, Harlan seems to have what you might call a taste for overstatement. He describes feminists as “screeching banshees” and “extremist loons allied with the sexual grievance industry.” I doubt he could describe a chicken-salad sandwich without resorting to angry hyperbole. (That was a little bit of overstatement on my part.) But let’s just assume that there is at least a kernel of truth here: this woman was creeped out by Harlan.

So what was Harlan’s response to this woman’s obvious discomfort?

 [N]o one has more empathy for his fellow human beings than I do. The first thought that came to my mind in response to the obvious fear on the face of this pathetic, sweet looking, older woman — who probably never hurt anyone in her entire life — was fuck you!

Obviously we are supposed to ask just what it was that drove Harlan – the self-described world’s most empathetic man – to say something so seemingly callous? Well, as is usually the case with those we write about here, it all comes back to man-hating ladies and their male allies, with their evil insistence on sexual assault education (sorry, “indoctrination”) and their callous demands to “’take back the night,’ although the night has always been theirs.”(I don’t quite know what that means, but it sure sounds selfish of these women to want a whole extra night just for themselves.)

Ours is, Harlan says, “a culture marked by crass, hysterical fear-mongering about male sexual predation and violence.” (Evidently some guys haven’t gotten the memo on this.)

But all this evil misandry seems to have left poor Mr. Harlan in an uncharitable mood towards, well, almost everyone — though he directs his worst opprobrium at sweet old ladies.

Fuck them all. The paranoia of the woman in the elevator is her problem, not mine. Ironically, the elevator, the hotel itself, the car she rode in and the roads she rode on to get to the hotel were all undoubtedly conceived, designed, and built by men — men she’d fear just as much as me if they were standing in that elevator with her. I felt no guilt or shame or bewilderment over the fact that she fears me because of my birth class. Let her fear me. I can’t change it, and I have too much to do to worry about it.

And maybe, just maybe, it’s good that some people fear us. Maybe we should exult in the power we wield by reason of their paranoia. One thing I know: I will never do anything to alleviate their paranoia. In fact, I’m just fine with it, thank you very much. If someday, my riding the elevator causes some old woman to have a heart attack, that, too, is not my problem.  Blame it on a culture that I don’t approve of. Blame on sweet looking, older women who give in to the paranoia.

Truly the world’s most empathetic man.

Harlan goes on to talk briefly about the Rebecca Watson elevator incident. Needless to say, he adds nothing interesting to the discussion.

Categories
alpha males antifeminism bad boys creepy douchebaggery I'm totally being sarcastic mad libs manginas nice guys sex thug-lovers vaginas

Man Boobz Mad Libs #1: Love is a battlefield

Chicago New Wave pioneers Phil 'n' the Blanks (pictured above) want you to FILL IN the blanks.

Last night, 540-or-so comments into the Atheist Elevator thread, Ion took a moment to school us all in the cold, hard realities of love in our time.  Offering his own formerly flailing but now highly successful sexual career as evidence of this theories, he explained why it’s better to be called creepy than courteous. And apparently, acting like a five-year old will score you heaps of hot poon. Who knew?

As much as I learned from Ion’s  autobiographic account, I feel as though there is much more wisdom to be gained from reading the stories of other commenters here. So, using Ion’s tale as a template, I would like to offer the first in what I hope will be a long and successful series of Man Boobz Mad Libs. Simply fill in the blanks in the text below to tell your own tale of heartbreak and triumph, and post your results in the comments below. We will all be the wiser for it.

You know what’s funny? You try to come off as [    ] and [     ], but in fact, I actually used to think like you when I was younger and [          ]. I bought into all the “men are [     ], men are natural [        ]” crap spouted by feminist [      ] and their neutered mangina [       ]. I was concerned about not coming off as [      ] or creepy. I was courteous and [     ] and [       ], I respected women, but I forgot to respect [      ]. And while the [    ] boys, playa gangstas, and abusive [     ]bags were [    ]ing around town with an “I take what I want” attitude and a new [     ] on their [        ] every week, I was hearing “Wow, you’re a great [     ], but I like you as a [        ]. Well, see you later, gotta go have [    ] with the [      ] boyfriend I’ve been complaining to [      ] about!”

So you’re right about the [       ]-puffing part, but not so much about the being [      ]. I’m less [      ] now than I ever was. I put myself [     ]. I don’t apologize for being a [      ]. It took me a while to [      ] up, but I did. And let me tell you, things are better than [     ]. I got my first [         ]  after acting ‘inappropriate’ and going for a [    ] the night we first met. A day later, she was the one would wouldn’t [      ] me [        ]. So much for “[      ]  give in because of [       ] pressures”, I guess. Second [     ], in college, I [      ] like a five-year old [       ]. Totally out of character, even I was ashamed of my [        ]. Afterwards, she was [       ]  me to hang out. Sometime later, I met [         ] I really [      ]. Like an [     ], I decided to play it cool, be [    ], be [    ], take [    ] slowly. Guess what? Zero interest. Learned my lesson then and haven’t [      ] back. As for “friends who will [      ] me”… I don’t know what the [      ] are like where you live, but the [      ] I know just don’t fit your [        ] [        ]. Also, currently half my friends are [        ]. Weird, huh. But uh, keep telling yourself you’re so much better for being a neutered [       ]. I’ll be busy having [    ] in the [     ] world meanwhile.

 

Categories
douchebaggery evil women I'm totally being sarcastic men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny patriarchy

Douchebags of History: T.M. Zink and the Zink Womanless Library

Today we celebrate one of history’s greatest, the largely unheralded misogynist douchebag T.M. Zink, who managed to stick it to the ladies even after he died. As Time magazine reported shortly after his death in 1930:

At Le Mars, Iowa, the probated will of T. M. Zink, deceased attorney, revealed:1) His $100,000 estate is to be placed in trust for 75 years; 2) In A. D. 2005 the accumulated principal is to be used to establish, equip and maintain a library on whose shelves will be no woman author, on whose catalogs will be no woman’s name, over whose portal will blaze: “No Women Admitted”; 3) To his daughter went $5; 4) To his widow not 1¢.

As he explained in his will:

My intense hatred of women is not of recent origin or development nor based upon any personal differences I ever had with them but is the result of my experiences with women, observations of them and study of all literatures and philosophical works.

2005 has come and gone and sadly, at least from the point of view of misogynist bibliophiles, the Zink Womanless Library was never built. As a piece in The Guardian noted, his family successfully challenged the will, I’m guessing on the grounds of Quando podeces te regi eorum fecerunt?  (“When did you become king of the assholes?“)

Categories
creepy douchebaggery I'm totally being sarcastic men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny PUA

Sunny side up

Sexy!

Good news, horny straight dudes! I can now report that the best, most efficient, most SCIENTIFIC way to score with the ladies is to figure out when they’re ovulating – and then act like a dick towards them!

Don’t take my word for it. Take the word of KRAUSER PUA, a guy so suave and superior his whole name is in ALL CAPS. As he explains in a recent blog post:

One of the things I’ve been meaning to do for months is to start tracking my targets with more scientific precision. …

It’s pretty clear that girls in peak ovulation are the best bets for first-time sex. It’s also clear they respond well to douchebag / aloof asshole game.

So here’s what I’m doing. I’ve just set up a spreadsheet to track all my active / still alive targets. Each one has a four rows representing each week of their cycle. Whenever I get any evidence to suggest they are in one particular week I’ll input it alongside the date. …  Examples of evidence:

Week 1 – Bleeding: tells me she’s on the rag, allows sexual touching but stops me at her panties, wears trousers, smells funny

Week 2 – Normal: no unusual behavior

Week 3 – Ovulation: dresses sexy, talks and flirts, initiates touching, responds well to everything, allows escalation, gives back in sex chats, wisfully seeks excitement, goes clubbing

Week 4 – PMS: frumpy, lack of makeup, confused, bad moods, rejects all alpha / gamey banter, lack of interest in returning texts and calls

Seems like a foolproof strategy to me!

I think the only thing I would change is the wording. “Ovulation” has such a clinical, unsexy sound to it. I much prefer the slag term I just invented, “gettin’ eggy.”

It also makes the whole strategy much easier to remember. Just repeat the following “success mantra” every morning while you brush your teeth:

When she’s gettin’ eggy

It’s time to neggy

If all else fails, guys, you can always make a soft-boiled egg and fuck that.

Categories
alpha males antifeminism beta males douchebaggery I'm totally being sarcastic men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny PUA reactionary bullshit sex

Career women: A crime against nature?

She's trouble!

Quiz: Which of the following is an example of female infidelity? (Check all that apply.)

a)      A man and a woman are in a monogamous relationship; neither one sleeps with anyone else.

b)      A man and a woman are in a monogamous relationship; the man sleeps with someone else.

c)       A man and a woman are in a monogamous relationship; the woman sleeps with someone else.

d)      A woman, who may or may not be in a monogamous relationship, works hard at a job she enjoys.

ANSWER: If you answered c, congratulations! You are correct. If you also answered d, you are probably PUA guru and freelance internet asshole “Roissy” or one of his douchey fans. In a recent post Roissy argues, quite sincerely, that women who take their careers seriously are committing a sort of psycho-social-sexual crime against men.

In the post, Roissy quotes a reader of his who’d suggested that “female career obsession [is] a form of infidelity to the family and marrage.” Roissy seconds this opinion and goes on to argue that:

Women who place their careers front and center are committing a kind of betrayal of their sex’s biological and psychological imperatives. It’s like a big middle finger to everything that distinguishes the feminine from the masculine, the yin from the yang.

Is it possible that these women are just, you know, really into their careers? That they’re good at what they do and enjoy doing it? That they want to make a difference in the world? That they might have a family to support? Or that, you know, they simply like making a lot of money?

Of course not. For Roissy, careers are little more than psychological crutches for women who are 1) trying to distract themselves from loneliness and/or sexual boredom:

It’s quite possible that the worst offenders — the 14 hour day lawyercunts and the graduate school hermits — embrace the male-oriented rat race and achievement spectacle because it offers a welcome distraction from either spinsterly loneliness or boring beta male partners who, while intellectually are rationalized as good matches, do not viscerally excite them.

Or, 2) imagining themselves as the heroines in some glamorous romance novel:

Maybe, too, these careerist chicks see their jobs as a way to enter the world of the alpha male, to have a taste of what it would be like to be part of his life. The office cubes and doormen and glassy skyscrapers have given legions of plain janes the daily stimulation to mentally masturbate fantasy romances with the alpha males who run their companies or the alpha salesmen who greet them at the front desk with a twinkle in their eyes.

Or, 3) trying to magically ward off the case of the uglies that apparently infects each and every woman when she hits the age of 40:

When a woman’s SMV [Sexual Market Value] inevitably craters in her 40s, her career might be all she has to lift her spirits, especially if she has no husband she loves, no kids, or even just one kid who spends most of his time playing CoD or robbing convenience stores.

Of course, in Roissy’s mind, these women aren’t quite women to begin with, even before they get hit with the 40th birthday ugly stick:

 [T]here is something “off” about women who are excessively devoted to their careers and to obtaining an acronymic parade of pointless credentials. Careerist shrikes are some of the most unpleasant, unfeminine women to be around. They must have more androgen receptors than normal women to be so grating to the male sensibility. Sure, they can fuck like Viagra-laced male pornstars, but as soon as you relieve yourself in them you will feel a second powerful urge to escape their aggro nastiness.

Yeah, somehow I’m guessing that urge to flee is pretty strong in these women as well, as soon as they realize that they guy they’ve just had sex with is a pretentious narcissistic windbag who hates women.

Roissy continues, revealing far more about his own sexual insecurities than about any actual career women:

The women for whom career success is their comfort and their purpose are some sort of weird, monstrous amalgam of man and woman, halfway between both worlds, their sexual polarity askew. These types tend to attract either intense short term flings with alphas or plodding marriages with dweeby, effete kitchen bitches.

Roissy is vaguely aware that feminists – not to mention pretty much anyone who isn’t a complete douchebag misogynist – might have a few issues with his theories here.

The dumbfuck feminists will naturally ask, “Why doesn’t this same theory apply to men? Aren’t they escaping sad love lives by retreating to their careers?”

Don’t you know it’s different for guys? Unlike women, men are evolutionarily programmed to be resource providers for women. It is not a betrayal of a man’s innate purpose in life to ambitiously pursue achievement and accolades. In fact, just the opposite; it’s an affirmation of that ancient purpose.

Remember this, you ungrateful career ladies: WE HUNTED THE MAMMOTH TO FEED YOU!

Categories
creepy douchebaggery men who should not ever be with women ever misandry misogyny penises rape rapey scott adams sex vaginas

Scott Adams: Male Chauvinist Peg

Sexy!

Oh, Scott Adams! Can you write anything about that whole man-woman business without being a creepy douche about it? In a recent blog post titled “Pegs and Holes” – which refers to exactly what you think it refers to — Adams offers his take on the powerful men who have been in the news lately because, as Adams puts it, they’ve been “tweeting, raping, cheating, and being offensive to just about everyone in the entire world.”

After noting that the “current view of such things is that the men are to blame for their own bad behavior” and that this “seems right” to him – gee, ya think? – Adams decides to get all philosophical on us. (When you’re Scott Adams, this is a very very bad idea.) He writes:

The part that interests me is that society is organized in such a way that the natural instincts of men are shameful and criminal while the natural instincts of women are mostly legal and acceptable. In other words, men are born as round pegs in a society full of square holes. Whose fault is that? Do you blame the baby who didn’t ask to be born male? Or do you blame the society that brought him into the world, all round-pegged and turgid, and said, “Here’s your square hole”?

I’m assuming that Adams doesn’t actually think that baby boys are born with erections, and realizes that it is biology, not society, that hands out penises and vaginas to babies in the first place. I’m just trying to understand the whole pegs and holes metaphor.  Why does he think “round” penises and “square” vaginas are somehow incompatible?  In the context of consensual sex, after all, penises of all shapes and sizes generally fit into vaginas quite nicely.

As far as I can figure it out,  the round-vs-square analogy simply refers to the fact that men can’t simply stick their “round pegs” into any conveniently located “hole” whenever they feel like it. The fact that these “holes” aren’t accessible to any random guy thus renders them “square.”  This seems to frustrate Adams, who goes on to complain that “society has evolved to keep males in a state of continuous unfulfilled urges, more commonly known as unhappiness” and that “society is organized as a virtual prison for men’s natural desires.”

Looking at  Hugh Hefner’s marital history – he’s been married and divorced and just got stood up at the altar – Adams concludes that:

For Hef, being single didn’t work, and getting married didn’t work, at least not in the long run. Society didn’t offer him a round hole for his round peg. All it offered were unlimited square holes.

What does this even mean? I suspect that over the course of his lifetime, Hef has had about all the sex he could possibly want, and then some. Is it somehow unjust that he couldn’t force his latest fiancée to actually marry him? Or that some women are sexually unavailable – that is, square holes – to him?

It goes without saying that Adams’ notions of human sexuality are profoundly insulting to both men and women . On the one hand, he’s suggesting that men are basically all potential rapists walking around with, er, turgid pegs;  and, on the other, he seems to regard women as little more than passive (if stubbornly recalcitrant) receptacles for these male “pegs.”

And so it’s hardly surprising that his grand solution to the conundrum he’s invented is a rather depressing one. After noting that it really wouldn’t be a good thing for men to go around willy-nilly raping women and/or, as he puts it, tweeting their meat, he suggests the real solution is for men to be chemically castrated.  And no, I’m not making that up. Here’s Scotty:

I think science will come up with a drug that keeps men chemically castrated for as long as they are on it. It sounds bad, but I suspect that if a man loses his urge for sex, he also doesn’t miss it. Men and women would also need a second drug that increases oxytocin levels in couples who want to bond.  Copulation will become extinct. Men who want to reproduce will stop taking the castration drug for a week, fill a few jars with sperm for artificial insemination, and go back on the castration pill.

That might sound to you like a horrible world. But the oxytocin would make us a society of huggers, and no one would be treated as a sex object. You’d have no rape, fewer divorces, stronger friendships, and a lot of other advantages. I think that’s where we’re headed in a few generations.

Is he being serious here, or is this all some satirical “social experiment?” Who the fuck knows. Though I suspect if I accused him of being serious, he’d claim he was being satirical. And vice versa. Because that’s just the way he is. 

Also, while I’m at it: the idiomatic expression about pegs and holes posits a square peg and a round hole, not the other way around. Why did Adams reverse this? Why!? Why!!?? Is he trying to drive us all mad?

EDITED TO ADD: Check out Feministe for more on Scott Adams and his peg.

EDITED AGAIN: And Pharyngula as well.