Taboos Are The Ways Christians Try To Control Us
Of the many emails I received about the taboos post, only a handful were not of the form, "you are a right wing Rush Limbaugh douchebag." Wrong at least two times. You fail.
Here was one of the nicer ones:
So, you're saying to not publicize all your wrong-doings, because there are small pockets of people to support you, no matter what you've done. But, you seem to love Tucker Max (or at least his jokes?) who has basically done that for his ENTIRE life. What gives?
The person who wrote that is a woman in the sciences whom I've emailed a few times, i.e. if she misunderstood the post, it was my fault. So:
So, anywhere you can get support, including the NYT, by all means go. This isn't about getting support, and these individuals aren't getting support. They don't care what you think. That's not what they're doing.
You don't need me to tell you what's right and wrong and anyway I'm hardly an expert on morality. But what I am an expert in is the psychological tricks we play, and their consequences to you. You may be able to live with the consequences, but they exist nonetheless.
Guilt, unlike shame, was always about You vs. Yourself. But what's changed is that You-- the guilty party-- has found a loophole in the system. That loophole hurts everyone.
I.
What did Epstein do wrong? Incest and infidelity. He did both, right? What's happened in the press? The incest's severity has completely erased the infidelity. At no time does Epstein have to confront the internal guilt of infidelity, because he's battling an incest charge. I don't mean publicly-- I mean privately, he never faces himself about infidelity, only incest.
Now incest-- terrible, we all agree, but should the law really be monitoring the sex lives of consenting adults? Of course not. "Incest is wrong," I might say, "but we have no business policing it." What just happened there is that "Epstein" has managed to get me to partially support him. I may hate him, but irrelevant- "he" interprets my partial support as part of a global judgment of him, and thus has mitigated his guilt by converting it to shame, and the shame is lessened because some people are partially supportive.
I realize that HE didn't do this on purpose or consciously (though his lawyer is), and HE does not care about my support. But it happened nonetheless. That's the whole point of the media's involvement, our generational solution to the problem of guilt. This is what we will all be doing, the internet as confessional and for the remission of sins. Whether we do it on purpose or not, once a private guilt that (should) gnaw at you gets exposed as a public shame, and the public/whatever newspaper you have at your disposal/your facebook friends/etc start taking sides, that internal guilt is obliterated. Epstein still has to deal with the shame and social and legal repercussions, but not guilt.
What's the result? The result for Epstein isn't my interest, it's his life and it's not my right to keep his guilt alive for him. But now, FOR SURE, incest is no longer a taboo, it is no longer a matter of guilt, but of shame. Everyone is free to decide whether they can take the shame; everyone has become a Nietzschean superman, deciding for themselves if there are any taboos. Which, of course they were always free to do-- but they had the good sense not to try. Now it is possible to ask "am I free to have consensual sex with my adult daughter?" -- which, of course, you are free to do, and which, of course, you are never free to do. It's that simple.
Do you think it's a coincidence that 2010 had three big adult incest stories, but 2009 had none? They were occurring in 2009, but the gates of that taboo have lost their sentry: guilt. So now incest is a matter of shame, not guilt. If you can take the shame and your daughter's hot, enjoy.
Many in the comments accused me of being an old codger, a "these kids today are immoral" uptight Rush Limbaughlite. If you think that, you're missing something truly important: these aren't kids. These are middle aged professionals who have kids. I expect-- want-- a little Nietzsche in the 20 somethings of the world, to fuel them to do something with their lives. But these are people who should know better. Instead, they've convinced themselves, after 4 decades of life, that they deserve to be happy, that their happiness is more important than anything.
I'm not free of guilt. But the difference is that whatever guilt I have I don't let infect other people. If I am incesting or cheating on my spouse, I would still have the human decency NOT to try and publicly mitigate that guilt by conversion to shame because I know that if I succeed then it becomes okay for someone else. I may have the "right" to do whatever I want, but do I have the right to make it okay for others? How I deal with guilt has an effect on how someone else will. What could I ever say to console my daughter if her husband cheats on her, when I'm in the NYT saying cheating is a matter of "finding a soul mate?"
Every one of our actions has a blast radius, and there are other people in it. KABOOM. Count the bodies.
II.
Would you trust Epstein or Tucker Max to babysit your five year old daughter? It's not an idle question, there will come a day where you will be asked to choose between X or Y and without any kind of architecture to guide you you will choose what my idiot generation has chosen, which is to choose nothing-- "I'm not letting my child out of my sight" and you'll end up like those parents at the park who use their kids as human shields to avoid connecting with any other parent. Result? Your kid doesn't get kidnapped by the Unabomber but he has learned you think all people are evil. Enjoy their adolescence.
"Not a fair comparison, Blackbeard, we're talking about consenting adults. Who would you trust to chaperone your 24 year old wife, Epstein or Tucker Max?" That question is a lie. That question really worries about who would be more successful with your 24 year old wife, and of course that's not a comment on their trustworthiness but on your wife's. If she can't keep some alternative penis out of her vagina then the problem isn't the penises.
But to answer the question, of course I would trust Tucker Max more because I have a sense Max's limits are at X point-- has he slept with all his friends' wives? has he cheated on his wife? (1) -- and David Epstein's limits are only his own physical limitations. Nothing but the law contains Epstein, which is not any kind of containment. If I'm right he does not feel guilt-- that means anything, including eating a baby, is possible. "Are you saying he'd eat a baby?" No. But what's stopping him?
III.
There are a few people commenting who doubt the relevance of guilt, or the need for it; who openly decry it as a tool of the Christians or the establishment as a means of social control. I haven't tracked the IP addresses, but I'd wager big money that those are the same people who want to think Goldman Sachs is evil.
I'd also wager gigantic money that none of these people are carrying around any terrible secrets. None of you supporting Epstein are in the market for adult incest.
What infuriates you is the idea that anyone or anything has control over us. You don't like to be told they aren't allowed to do something. "As long as it doesn't hurt anybody, I should be allowed..." You want complete freedom-- which you will use to conform to very ordinary standards of living that you impose on yourself.
But this isn't a moral issue that I am describing, it is an architectural problem: the very thing that allows you to exist in a world of complete freedom is those internal controls and not the social controls-- laws and shames-- that you think bind you.
Shame will never be enough-- when your identity is "strong" enough nothing shames you, not a sex tape or a prison term, you'll take that scarlet letter and put it on a tight tank top and wear it ironically, not to mention hotly.
The laws will never be stronger than you. Wall Street may need more regulation but it won't reduce the corruption at all. If they want to find a way around the law, they will. Always. The more laws you have, the less relevant guilt becomes. The laws are exactly the same mechanism as Epstein's shaming: externalizing the rule affords you the opportunity to explore the grey areas. The only thing that will stop corruption is people not wanting to be corrupt.
The new factor is our access to the media, our connectivity. No matter how hard you try, it is impossible to completely block out the judgment of others-- and you won't want to if that judgment is to your benefit.
I am not trying to stop progress or technology, I'm telling you to be careful with your lives. Riddell and Epstein may have dodged huge psychological bullets, but those bullets hit the rest of us right in the face.
---
1. Maybe this isn't the place for a textual analysis of I Hope The Serve Beer In Hell, but he's not so much disrespectful to women as a master of a kind of dialogue with them, one that both of them are completely aware of.
"You're a slut."
"No I'm not! and I'll prove it by sleeping with you."
"Whatever. Let me get my coat."
At least within these kinds of interactions, labeling him "disrespectful" or "sexist" misses the woman's active participation in this kind of dialogue. It's a game, she knows it's a game, she's seen this game before, and she wants to play that game. Interestingly, it's probably correct to say that your missing the woman's active role in the game reveals an implicit assumption of male dominance in social interactions, i.e. you're kind of a sexist.
Digg | 
del.icio.us | 
StumbleUpon | 
Reddit | 
Yahoo! | 
My favourites
December 29, 2010 12:35 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"What infuriates you is the idea that anyone or anything has control over us....the very thing that allows you to exist in a world of complete freedom are those internal controls and not the social controls-- laws and shames-- that you think bind you."
Ding ding ding. This is why I love your blog Alone. The prol's transference of their hatred for their (failed) parents knows no bounds. When we are given everything we want, we fail to get what we need. Continue!
Score: 34 (40 votes cast)
December 29, 2010 12:37 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This makes considerable more sense to me than the original post. Thank you for simplifying the point, which I agree is valid.
The notion that externalization (or crowdsourcing) of conscience as a vehicle for personal abatement of morality is something I've observed in friends, family and coworkers for the last decade.
My personal view was that the more anonymous we become (our email addresses and user Id's are just a step removed from anonymity) the less we're compelled by social contract.
Humans need faces and voices and community to co-exist. It's why meeting in person always trumps a conference call. Its also why smaller communities of known individuals have stricter moral expectations than cities.
When everyone is an actor or playing a character (particularly on the broad stage of the internet) it becomes possible to extricate, at least in part, our obligation to operate within the confines of morality.
Thank you for the perspective and insight.
Score: 29 (29 votes cast)
December 29, 2010 12:41 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Thanks for this. It has enlightened me a bit.
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
December 29, 2010 12:49 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It seems that you are saying that we need external morality to keep society in check, but that the media is functioning (or being manipulated) to justify a collapse of traditional morality instead of strengthening it?
I don't buy it. My friends and family matter vastly more as external judges than the media - we're an interconnected community that isn't easily moved. Popular culture has been making infidelity and divorce acceptable longer than I've been alive, but it would still be a terribly weak excuse for me breaking my word to myself, my friends and my wife or the potential damage I would do to my family by cheating.
Surely healthy human beings don't actually depend on the media as a moral compass?
The NYT's portrayal of cheating has no more bearing on my beliefs than idiot local TV scare stories that would have me lock my 13 year old son away, instead of trusting him to be able to ride his bike to friends' houses or the park to skate or play tennis even though we live in the middle of Atlanta.
Score: -8 (22 votes cast)
December 29, 2010 1:27 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This type of behavior and the trend toward lack of guilt in society scares the hell out of me. At what point does it stop or revert? Does it? At least most guys are wimps now so the problem isn't compounded.
Score: -2 (10 votes cast)
December 29, 2010 2:51 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Using external approbation to assuage internal guilt? I don't know. Sounds kinda' weak. I'll discuss it with my priest the next time I go to confession.
Score: 30 (38 votes cast)
December 29, 2010 3:08 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I agree that if I was the only one that understood your point in your original article then you have a problem. I suppose it's my problem too since I can barely detect any difference in explicative power between this article and the original. It seemed perfectly clear and sensible to me.
The notion that 20 somethings should be ubermensch to "do something with their lives" is interesting. It's especially interesting you put it that way rather than saying they should transcend the neuroses and abuse inflicted by their parents. I take it you're not a big fan of deMause and Miller's theories of childrearing?
I also wonder what your take is on the 'emerging adulthood' concept for 20 somethings. It seems solid theoretically, but I wonder whether it has any practical utility. And then there's its currency.
Oh yeah. I wouldn't worry too much about adult incest since I *am* an expert in morality and psychology both, and I can't detect any problems on the side of morality. On the psychology side, the problems are slight, amounting to no more than some power inequality and retardation of individuation. The power inequality is overwhelmed by the massively increasing equality (between genders and generations) of our age, one of whose lesser known effects is the disappearance of rape.
The infidelity is a far, far bigger problem. On the other hand, the real divorce stats aren't as disastrous as they're portrayed to be (mostly it's young and childless couples divorcing) and open, overt sexual ethics mitigates against that.
Score: -15 (21 votes cast)
December 29, 2010 3:23 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I find the comments about what "humans need" based on traditional or "genetic" considerations to be particularly asinine. These people evidently don't know that we can thank widespread pornography for the effective disappearance of rape in our generation. And I bet they would be appalled to learn that internet child pornography will be responsible for the disappearance of actual pedophilia in coming decades (as the only empirical study on the subject suggested decades ago). Apparently, humans have always desperately needed the internet. Who knew? It certainly doesn't fit the stereotypical "we need face to face contact and small tribal communities" narrative. But whatever. They can keep their traditional rape and pedophilia and child abuse, there are always cults spawning in the boondocks ready to accept them, and I'll live in modern society without these abominations.
Score: -6 (34 votes cast)
December 29, 2010 3:31 PM | Posted by : | Reply
richard you are a frigging idiot. Pornography has not made rape disappear, how can you believe something so fucking stupid.
Also, people will be appalled to learn that "internet child pornography will be responsible for the disappeareance of actual pedophilia". What the fuck are you talking about you fucking jackass, are you from the fucking future? This piece of shit talks about supposition about the future like they were scientific facts.
Anyway Alone's article was interesting, as always.
Score: 13 (35 votes cast)
December 29, 2010 3:49 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I don't really see how any of this is new... The idea that confession is good for the soul has been around how long exactly? Since the dawn of time?
Score: 8 (14 votes cast)
December 29, 2010 3:52 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDYZOaTaK2A
Start at 1:30
Richard is wrong but he's right--rape has not entirely disappeared, but it's gone down significantly: (85% decrease in rape/attempted rape between 1980 and 2004)
Score: 3 (9 votes cast)
December 29, 2010 3:59 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Anonymous, I will watch that video, but I already heard about that research\study\theory.
My point is this: general crime went down dramatically between 1980. Should we think that pornography stopped crime too? Or is it just a coincidence that pornography use and production increased as crime went down?
Think, my dear friend. In these 20 years, probably the criminals (rapists et all) got fucking killed or fucking incarcerated. That's the more sensible explanation to the decrease in crime and rapes. Because we got rid of the criminals.
And\or people actually got better. But come on, pornography stopping rapes? It just doesn't make any sense.
Come on we can't possibly
Score: 1 (21 votes cast)
December 29, 2010 4:01 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"the only thing that will stop corruption is people not wanting to be corrupt."
This is one of those times when alone's observations are why I love this blog and lament it's lack of a wider audience.
Although, I guess if alone is 'right', then this blog will never have a widespread audience. Not for, like, 100 years anyway...
Score: 17 (19 votes cast)
December 29, 2010 5:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
... and how does that make you feel?
Score: 4 (8 votes cast)
December 29, 2010 6:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This ludicrous notion (I can't credit it by calling it a theory) that evolution gets rid of criminals over time is unutterably stupid. There literally are no words either in English or any other language for how stupid this is.
If it were even remotely true, warfare and other risky behaviour would have evolved out of humanity tens of thousands of years ago. Go take a hike in black Africa you moronic fucking jackass and then you can tell us how efficient evolution is at weeding out objectively disadvantageous behaviour.
Beyond insulting your crushing idiocy and blatant inability to implement the most basic of reality checks before spouting your ignorant beliefs, I don't intend to interact with you as I don't take you seriously at all.
Score: -3 (21 votes cast)
December 29, 2010 7:21 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Penn & Teller, really? That's the best you could do? Are you just incredibly lazy or did you intend to undermine the truth by having these two bozos front it?
http://www.slate.com/id/2152487/
And rape didn't just decline over the last few decades. It's *continuing* to decline and WILL CONTINUE to do so for AT LEAST fifty years. You see, the most RELEVANT statistic for our purposes is the incidence of rape for the very youngest women. As the older generations grow old and die, their nasty habits will die off with them.
And the only empirical study (actually measuring rates of molestation and rape in the real world as opposed to doing bogus theoretical "lab" work) of the effect of child porn, done when Sweden or Denmark legalized it for a brief period, found that it reduced rates of molestation.
When sex is involved, there is roughly 100 times as much bogus "experiments" done in a lab in completely unrealistic conditions by people with an axe to grind and an agenda backed by money, as there are real experiments by actual scientists who want to know the truth.
This blog centers around people putatively interested in psychology, yes? Then pull up a photo of Andrea Dworkin and tell me that man-hating feminazi bitch didn't have an axe to grind against men because of her ugliness.
All the anti-pornography rage is psychology wedded to power politics. Women who suddenly found themselves deprived of their traditional sexual power over men. Apparently, genuine sexual equality and freedom was never in the cards. They wanted the fake kind where they got all of the advantages of equality & freedom and men got nothing.
There is so much hypocrisy and lying on the subject of women in the name of politics it makes me sick.
Score: 4 (38 votes cast)
December 29, 2010 8:12 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Not sure what the data source is on the rape thing, but if you calculate it as a percentage of the population using FBI states, it's remarkably stable, running at between 0.00004% and 0.00005% of the population for, oh, 70 years now. In fact, the only thing I can deduce from the FBI stats is that the population grows over time and rape is (like the poor are, as Jesus put it) ever with us, and that it is, being larger than zero, always too high. Alas, saying "here's your stable incidence rate, no explanation comes to mind" is far less entertaining than a *theory*, a *narrative*, which helps one express approval or disapproval of something, let alone contrarian approval or disapproval.
Score: 25 (25 votes cast)
December 29, 2010 8:15 PM | Posted by : | Reply
As for the answer to the question, "what causes rape?" this is way out there, but my money's on "rapists."
Score: 25 (27 votes cast)
December 29, 2010 8:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
P&T anon here:
Lazy (check), fronting (no). Who wants to read a boring journal article anyway. At least you get to see tits in my video.
I am on your side on the entire porn debate, but it's still fallacy to think that association IS causation. There are _issues of directionality_ (e.g., is less rape associated with an increase in pornography viewing or is an increase in pornography viewing associated with less rape?)
And _third variables_:
1. No one's talking about the decrease in serum testosterone/impotency due to putting a cell phone in your pocket. Do a quick search on pubmed and you'll see the studies that show a _casual link_ between cell phone exposure and a decrease in serum testosterone/sperm. Unless it's a study funded by a cellphone carrier company. Then there's nothing to worry about.
2. No one's talking about impotency due to synthetic chemicals (e.g., bisphenol A and pesticides). Exposure to these chemicals during the developmental phases of male humans can 1) render them impotent/with serious sexual dysfunction or 2) flat out kill them before they're born (e.g., Sarnia, ON). Many of these chemicals pervade our environment, water supply, food, etc. The research is pretty clear on this unless its funded by synthetic chemical companies. Then there's nothing to worry about.
The sperm count of the average western male today is about 5x less than what it was from the average male who fought in WWII. But that doesn't matter because WHO standards for classifying a man as infertile have moved downwards (e.g., used to be 60million/mL; in the present day it may be moved to 10mil/mL).
Point is: porn might have something to do with decrease in rape, but to say there's a casual link is to take the research out of its context. Keep your phone out of your pocket and remember that there's greater threats to the male sex than anti-porn feminists.
Score: 5 (15 votes cast)
December 29, 2010 9:36 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Sorry to interrupt the argument about something unrelated, but I've got a pretty basic question: Does the conversion of guilt to shame drive the thing people do where they tell their spouses about an affair when there's no external need? Is the basic notion that many people find an interpersonal conflict preferable to internal conflict?
I ask because I only follow Alone's argument imperfectly, and think I need remedial education here.
Score: 16 (16 votes cast)
December 29, 2010 9:39 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Who is the girls in the photo?
Score: 4 (20 votes cast)
December 29, 2010 9:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't think it's a lack of guilt, just an extreme in narcisism. If you think that you're the center of the universe and you can somehow justify an action, it's OK. I think the media stuff is mostly after the fact. People who are ashamed of having done something -- or guilty about something -- tend not to go and tell everyone about it. They tell BECAUSE they have no guilt or shame, not so that they don't have to feel guilty about it.
I do think shame is somewhat better -- shame is about how I failed others. I failed my family, thus I feel shame. I only feel guilt if I violate my own standards. I don't think it's good that a person should be the sole interpreter of his own morality. We need to be less individualistic, not more.
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 2:26 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Confession is a terrible analogy. How does sharing with the whole community compare with telling a priest (or psychiatrist?) The purpose of confession is to acknowledge guilt and ask for forgiveness. The adulteress couple in the NYT article weren't asking for your forgiveness. They were telling you why they don't need it.
Score: 14 (14 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 4:41 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Some of you people seem to be forgetting that rape has nothing to do with sex.
How can impotency have anything to do with less incidence of rape? That's just a completely fucked up notion.
In fact, experiential data points to the opposite, and worse. Have a look-see at Andrei Chikatilo if you need a very very clear example.
But, oh gee, I guess his case doesn't count, since he couldn't get it up to put it in, so slashed them to bits instead. So no real 'rape' involved, right?
Less rape = more murder?
Rape can't be looked at by itself in a vacumm without looking at the dynamic around it. The statistics don't count for shit and are worthless. Lack of power in one area just shifts into another.
Score: 3 (13 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 4:49 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I would say so. The only difference between confessing to your spouse vs confessing to the NYT is in scale.
And yes, it can be considered a narcissistic (the good or bad type, I'm not sure) thing to do, assuaging your guilt by converting it into shame, displacing your internal pain onto your partner so you can feel better about yourself. They feel awful knowing you cheated, you feel slightly relieved by being honest.
People who do this may think it's an honorable thing to do, being honest, open, upfront. Apparently the pain you inflict by confessing is not as important as your own honor.
And yes, I'm aware of the paradox of the honor of honesty vs the dishonor of cheating.
Score: 3 (9 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 5:14 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Not to mention confessing to mitigate an even worse potential situation of having the spouse find out by other means.
"It's the lying that hurts me more than the cheating," the jilted/cuckolded party will usually say.
With this is mind, perhaps it's better to confess when there is no immediate need to, therefore is not so narcissistic.
(Sorry for the triple post)
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 6:02 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Medusa: "rape is not about sex" is just a bullshit feminist meme, all that power dynamic stuff is worthless bullshit.
Pornography dude, Richard Kulisz:
you are not making any sense. I didn't say anything about evolution. I'm saying that a more probable cause of the decline of rape in western civilization could more probably be the fact that actual rapists got arrested and or killed. So there are less rapists around, is that so complicated?
There has been a general decline in crime in the last 20 years. And that is probably because the criminals either died (in their line of work) or got arrested and rotting in prisons somewhere.
Also make no mistake, I'm not against pornography, I'm just calling bullshit on the notion that it can stop rape.
Score: -7 (21 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 6:26 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Not sure what planet you are on, but "rape is not about sex, but about power" is not a feminist invention. It is not an invention at all.
Plenty of people can go out and have consensual sex, but decide to rape instead. Don't tell me that's simply about getting laid and being horny. Bundy was a pretty hot and charming dude and could have had anyone he wanted, with consent, and it would have probably taken a whole lot less effort than raping. (Lots of rapists are hot and charming, it often goes with the whole narcissistic thing, actually.) How can you possibly twist that to fit into your silly caveman views?
I can tell a lot about you and your past from your opinion, you are that transparent. And the picture you inadvertently paint of yourself is not a pretty one. At all. Not to mention that I bet you would have had a much different response if I had chosen a male or gender-neutral username.
That is all I am going to say about this, because this blog deserves better than to waste space repeating this whole stupid argument which is already all over the internet. Some people prefer to remain, literally, retarded, and there's nothing to be done.
Score: 6 (26 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 6:48 AM | Posted by : | Reply
The only link (and a very casual one at that) I see between less rape and more porn is that people can have an outlet to express/experience their needs (whatever that truly is) without having to involve other people. By proxy.
For some people though, that will only be sufficiently satisfactory for so long. One possible reason is that the desire plus the private expression of said desire may (but not necessarily) feed into itself, thus magnifying said desire. That was Bundy's (bullshit in his case, I think) excuse.
Score: 0 (6 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 8:21 AM | Posted by : | Reply
That girl in the photo is HAWT. I love this blog. It's got pics of HAWT women. YUM!
Score: -1 (13 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 9:00 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm not making sense to you because you're stupid. How difficult is it to understand that when people jack off to porn they aren't out in a bar slipping rohypnol into a girl's drink?
Score: -10 (12 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 9:12 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Medusa, I didn't react in that way to your post because you are a female. Please observe how I responded to Richard Pornography posts. In the same fucking rude way.
You are so unobservant, yet you claim you can read me through a couple of internet posts. Sure you can.
Anyway, I think rapists rape because they are evil, because they are rapists.
Score: -3 (17 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 9:13 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
if that would be true, wouldn't pornography also reduce the number of people having sex at all?
Score: 10 (10 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 9:14 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Your wankish anecdote-backed theorizing about "some people" flies contrary to the STATISTICAL evidence of MOST people. For MOST people, so long as there's porn available, they will NEVER go out and rape. Thus the incidence of rape is reduced. And thus the availability of porn reduces rape.
You try to minimize this blatant causal relationship, the DISPLACEMENT of rape by pornorgraphy, by calling it "very casual", because you are a fucking idiot. You'd rather hang on to your stupid feminazi lies about "rape is about power" than stare the facts and the COMMON SENSE in the face.
Now there's an excellent subject for this blog! Just what the fuck is the psychology that supports utterly ridiculous tripe like "rape isn't about sex, it's about power". I would really like to know how the fuck this kind of ass-backwards delusion HELPS anyone.
My guess is that it's post-facto trying to take the sexual arousal out of women's rape fantasies and rape victims' experiences. Well, you know what? It's an utterly pathetic attempt that can't possibly hope to work. If you want to eliminate women's rape fantasies, then tell girls as they grow up that being sluts is okay then wait a generation. Oh and surprise, this isn't hypothetical, it's what actually happened.
I've always hated lies (even Santa Claus, and especially Jesus) and I've always hated liars. Liars are uniformly stupid, uncreative people. And the more and more blatantly you lie, the stupider and more rigid it proves you are.
Score: -16 (28 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 9:15 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Medusa I forgot to say this. You admitted in your post that you consider rapist charming. Come the fuck on, and then I would be the horrible person?
Of course I don't think you are horrible: I just think you are spewing bullshit without thinking about it carefully. Or you are just ignorant.
Score: -18 (22 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 9:18 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
And this is actually happening. Funny thing, eh? When you actually start using your brain instead of screaming "say it ain't so! say it ain't so!!" then you start uncovering connections. In Germany they're talking about how men are less attracted to women now. The sexual desperation that used to define men is just gone. Men are now ... choosy.
Score: -6 (8 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 9:24 AM | Posted by : | Reply
slow down. I don't want to win the argument at all costs, and I'm not saying that pornography has not REDUCED rape in some modest manner. I just think that there are a thousands other factors that contributed to the decrease in rapes. Like the reduction of overall crime resulted from the physical elimination of criminal or their incarceration.
Anyway that stuff about men being less attracted by women sounds interesting. And even then, are we sure that's caused ONLY by pornography?
Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 9:25 AM | Posted by : | Reply
also I noticed I keep forgetting the s for plural words. Fuck me.
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 9:35 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
FBI man, you are remarkably retarded.
FBI stats aren't about rape. They are about ARRESTS for rape. And they are stable because the police arrests men on more and more dubious charges of rape. Including charges from testimony of women who repeatedly get blind drunk and lose their memories of what happened.
The rape stats showing a decline are from the National Victimization Survey which is the LARGEST survey of ANY KIND in the USA. And thus way more reliable than some selected FBI stats. And this was clearly mentioned in the article I pointed to.
This wouldn't be the first time the FBI fubared their stats. For instance, any stats derived from their DNA database are fubared. And the FBI has a POLITICAL INTEREST in charging and convicting as many people as possible, regardless of guilt or innocence. To treat the FBI as some kind of authoritative third party is ridiculous in the extreme!
In another blog post about how schools raise children to be narcissists in the USA it was also mentioned how they inculcate learned helplessness and utter dependence on the authorities. Relying on the FBI to say the truth about how many men are actually guilty of rape ... just how fucking stupid are you? And yet completely unsurprising given the "utter dependence on authorities" part of the equation.
Maybe you should do less condemning of people having a "contrarian narrative" and take some lessons from the same contrarians so you can start to *think for yourself*?
Score: 1 (17 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 9:51 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
> A 10 percent increase in Net access yields about a 7.3 percent decrease in reported rapes.
So a 100% increase in Net access yields? This isn't "modest"!
We've been executing, exiling and jailing people for murder for the past 3000 years at least. Has ANY of this furious activity done a whit to reduce the rate of homicide? No, no it has not. Yet suddenly in the last 30 years, homicide goes way down like some kind of holy fucking miracle straight from God. And you say "oh it's the police finally getting off their ass after being ineffective for all 2970 years they've been invented". Or wait, did you get the impression police got invented in 1970? Or maybe that we only started taking murder seriously in 1970? What do you imagine happened to a murderer before then? A SLAP ON THE WRIST?! A sign of the cross on their foreheads and "go forth my son and sin no more"? No! THEY GOT FUCKING EXECUTED.
It isn't the cops and jails you fucking moron because WE HAVE ALWAYS HAD COPS AND JAILS! But it just might be porn and violent movies and violent video games, and yes even first person shooters. As much as first person shooters teach real life situational thinking and combat tactics that actually help in REAL combat situations, they probably also DISPLACE violent activities.
And no you can't lay the credit on this to childrearing changes since the USA's childrearing style hasn't changed much in the last 100 years. You THINK there's been a big change because you're stuck in the details, but there hasn't been. The big changes in the last century in the USA were 1) wealth, 2) education, 3) television, 4) computers.
Score: -2 (8 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 10:01 AM | Posted by : | Reply
crime has always had cycles. The decrease in rape of these years is a consequence of the rise in rape in the decades past. If you go further back in time you would notice crime decreasing, increasing, and decreasing again.
Keep in mind that people had WHORES before pornography, so if you wanted to get laid the most sensible thing to do was shelling out a few bucks to fuck a real woman.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 10:04 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I forgot one big change in childrearing style that happened in the 50s. Patriarchy's gone out the window and it's no longer considered acceptable to whip or belt children. It's still done mind you, but it's no longer APPROVED of. So children have gotten the message that it's because their parents are fucked up and not their own fault. As a result of that, they're no longer internalizing that violence is okay. And the predictable result of that is that violence is down.
Score: 0 (6 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 10:12 AM | Posted by : | Reply
cycles. Crime will eventually rise again, you watch.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 10:15 AM | Posted by : | Reply
The patriarchy notion is bullshit. Criminals nowadays are as violent as ever. There are simply less of them around.
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 10:18 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You obviously know fuck-all about REAL history if you're brandishing this idiotic "crime has cycles" bullshit about. Crime has been on a steadily downwards decline for millenia, with very few anomalies veering away from the general downwards trend. I think the biggest anomaly was maybe the 18th century of peace in europe but I forget.
The only things that're cyclical are the CONCERN ABOUT crime and the PUSH TO CRIMINALIZE things. So for instance, in your empty head, the rate of rape in the medieval era would have been rock bottom since it was LEGAL so long as you married the woman afterwards.
The TRUTH of course is that medieval cities had gangs of roving street children that would gang rape young and adult women. And that this was a common experience.
The truth is also that watching someone burn to death would have been considered a fun-filled Saturday afternoon and a fit lesson to teach one's young and impressionable children.
The truth is also that burning a cat to death in a tavern would have been jolly good fun for the amusement of all the patrons.
You might want to consider the overwhelming change from "overwhelming concern about gang rape in 1500s" to "overwhelming concern about DATE rape in 1990s" and yet according to you both of these are just "crimes". Gang rape, date rape, what's the difference, right?
The crime wave of the 1980s in the USA wasn't part of any cycle. First of all, it was confined to inner city young blacks. And second of all, it was the result of their getting into the crack cocaine market. That "crime wave" was about drug dealers killing each other.
Score: 6 (14 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 10:20 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
For MOST people, so long as there's porn available, they will NEVER go out and rape.
I may take you seriously if you could come up with something real to back up your claim that there is some direct correlation. The 'blatantness' of your claim is only in your head, I assume because it fits nicely into your weird world view. How you can say something is 'casual' yet at the same time 'blatant' is beyond me.
Still waiting for someone to tell me how Bundy's extracurricular activities is simply about being horny.
I have no problem with rape fantasies, because they are just that: FANTASIES. Which have a psychological purpose for the female, not the male. It's representational of something else besides merely sex. They have no purpose for the female in a real-life situation. Huge difference.
You can only argue surface-level and black and white. It's incredible to watch.
Troll. Go get some education.
Score: 6 (14 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 10:24 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You admitted in your post that you consider rapist charming.
Lol, is your brain okay? How do you think Bundy got girls into his car? Because he was charming. How do you think sociopaths and narcissists get away with so much crap? Because they are charming.
Fucking trolls.
Score: 11 (17 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 10:35 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Anon 10:18. Finally, someone with some sense. I was about to post similar stuff, but I'm glad you did it so I don't have to. Thank you.
Score: 0 (6 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 11:02 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Your trying to reverse the directionality of the porn-rape anti-causal link is about as credible as trying to reverse the causality of car accidents and court cases. To wit, do car accidents REALLY cause court cases to happen or do drivers smash their cars into each other because they want to go to court? My mind boggles.
Porn was simply not available to adolescents before the 50s and until the internet it was never EASILY available to small children without the slightest hint of guilt or shame. Your trying to pretend otherwise does you no credit.
You blame the decrease of serum testosterone on bisphenol A. I blame phytoestrogens in soybeans and the green movement. You know why? Because I have a very, VERY simple algorithm to decide whether to believe something everyone else believes in. Especially after climate "research" was proven to be non-scientific bogus data manipulated by people with agendas. Something I knew for a fact years before it made the headlines.
1) do the advocates of this theory WANT it to be true?
(Any dramatic doomsday scenario? Yes. Contact with aliens? Yes. Faster than light travel? Yes. Violations of the laws of physics? Yes. Anything pushed by anti-industrialization eco-zealot freaks? Oh hell yes.)
2) does the subject domain involve a Highly Non-Linear Complex System that our science barely understands?
(The atmosphere's interactions with the oceans and forests? Yes. Nutrition? Yes. Economics? Yes. Society? Yes. The human mind? Yes. The human body? Yes. The three-way interactions of the biosphere, the industrial economy AND the human body? Oh hell yes.)
And if the answer to both of these questions is 'yes' then I treat the evidence involved with the same level of suspicion as I would a proof of God's existence. So now you understand why I will treat you and your evidence as I would any religious fundamentalist's.
On the subject of chemicals' toxicity, you might want to look up 'radiation hormesis' which is not a theory but known verified empirical fact. And THEN consider that high exposure to chemicals may have a completely different effect from micro-exposure to chemicals. You see, you simply have no evidence. What you do have is a lot of doomsaying fearmongering supposition and hysteria.
Score: 0 (14 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 11:04 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
can you please stop day dreaming about bundy's supposed charm?
Are you curling your hair as you think about how he charmed these young women into his van?
Fucking disgusting. What a rapist lover.
(bundy was rejected by women like there was no tomorrow btw. Fuck your disgusting and pathetic "rapists are charming" bullshit theory of bullshit)
Score: -9 (17 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 11:05 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Here's one explanation for an assumed reduction in the numbers of rapes:
They are able to satiate their need for power and control by being trolls instead. With the added benefit of it being legal. Yay, internet.
And I'm only sort of being tongue-in-cheek.
Score: 10 (14 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 11:09 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
crime has been in a constant downward spiral for centuries. But pornography has been so mainstream for what, 40 years at best?
There have been other forces at work that reduced crime over the centuries. And the decrease in crimes of the recent years is a consequence of the spike in crimes.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 11:10 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
well you think rapists are charming so I guess I should feel good for this comment. But unfortunately I'm not your ideal man (a rapist) so you are out of luck I guess
Score: -8 (12 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 11:14 AM | Posted by : | Reply
btw I know you don't really like rapists, I'm just making fun of the stupid shit you are typing
Score: -7 (11 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 11:17 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
My mind boggles. So long as I post a comment with my name in it, you dismiss everything I say and all the references I've posted. But if I get tired of re-entering my name in this web form all the time, then I make perfect sense and you publicly agree with me.
Did you consider that the one singular article I posted with its STATISTICAL evidence totally trumps your ANECDOTAL evidence and that as such my ONE piece of evidence trumps your ZERO evidence? In fact, have you ever even heard that the plural of anecdote isn't statistics, and that as such, you aren't even in the game and that I'm not taking your demands seriously?
It really doesn't matter how many anecdotes about rapists you have. It doesn't even matter if they're officially stamped by a psychiatrist's seal of approval. Because we're not talking about individual rapists. We're talking about the POPULATION of would be rapists. And the ONLY thing that can be considered RELEVANT to a population is STATISTICS. Archetypal profiles are only pedagogical aides, they're only GUESSES. They're NOT FACTS. And they aren't even any good AS guesses unless you back them up with statistics showing what proportion of the population the archetype represents!
You have nothing. And it is quite projective and hypocritical of you for YOU to tell ME to educate myself.
Score: -4 (10 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 11:24 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Statistics are always skewed, my friend, by nature. No such thing as purely objective statistics; it's an impossibility. They are not facts. That's why I ignore all your crap about them.
As Mr. Twain said:
"Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable."
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 11:34 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Oh and just in case anyone's wondering, I knew EXACTLY what I was doing when I hijacked this discussion.
It is a far, FAR better thing to discuss whether rape has been disappearing and why, than to let this discussion devolve into some crazy shit about whether we all should live in small tribal villages looking to our sorcerers to be the final arbiters of morality.
By ruthlessly hijacking this discussion, I made it obvious to everyone how *unthinkable* and *utterly fucking ridiculous* it is to try to turn back the clock. What I've achieved is made it crystal clear that anyone arguing to turn back the clock will be branded a would-be rapist. And yes, I am quite proud of that.
FOR PROGRESS, motherfuckers!
My fondest wish though is for someone here to learn by example and be able to repeat what I did. But it's really quite simple. Whenever anyone, for ANY reason, talks about the Good Old Days of Yore, then bring up the fact that rape is disappearing. You don't even need to ask them "so, you're for more rape, are you?" because the implied accusation is so obvious.
Score: -12 (18 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 11:40 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Statistics are less easily skewed than narratives. Or did you learn nothing from reading 'Infidelity And Other Taboos, Media Style'?
Incidentally, the physicists at CERN learned that their statistics were skewed because humans were judging the photographs. So they switched to computers to collect and analyze the data, and now their statistics are accurate.
But you want to go the OTHER way by injecting MORE lying humans into the equation. How does that make sense?
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 11:45 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Heh. I completely agree with your last post. I absolutely don't believe in the concept of "progess" as I have stated in the comments on the previous "taboo" blog post.
I don't feel like going back to re-read all these comments, but I don't recall anyone pining for the days of yore here, though someone did indeed do that in the previous "taboo" post and I promptly laid into them.
Pat yourself on the back if you feel like it, but your "ruthless" hijacking is kind of lame and not really very badass, but part of me does admire it a little bit anyway.
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 11:55 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Statistics can still be skewed even when done by computers. You know why? Because humans are the ones who decide what kind of data goes into the computers in the first place, and humans are the ones that decide what data is relevant.
Also, statistics are useless in a vaccumn (hence experiential data is needed to go along with them if you want them to be even remotely meaningful)... because, surprise surprise, statistics describe humans.
If anything, statistics are only useful in figuring out which questions might be worth asking at any given moment, but they are not useful in answering any.
Score: 3 (7 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 11:58 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
In Western Europe, which is far less narcissistic and egotistical, husbands there will cheat with a clear conscience and will never think twice about confessing. They also won't engage in flagrant "want to get caught" behaviour. Apparently, they take seriously the notion that as long as their wife doesn't know, it REALLY won't hurt her. So I'd say yes, confession really is tied very strongly to guilt. Whether confession is narcissistic though, well you can be the judge.
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 12:02 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Hey, slow down "puppet master".
No fucking body wants to go back to the day of yore. But one thing we should not forget, is that people in the past had morals, sense of honor, religious beliefs shit like that, that helped things going progressively better.
If there were no good people with self imposed moral imperatives rape and crime thing would have been so completely shitty by now.
The problem today is that not only people have weak or no morals, is that they boast about their immorality making it increasingly okay to behave with no considerations for others. This will not be good.
Anyway, nice "I'M A PUPPETMASTER LOL" technique you employed there, after you got put in the corner by logic and facts.
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 12:09 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
But one thing we should not forget, is that people in the past had morals, sense of honor, religious beliefs shit like that, that helped things going progressively better.
Which 'past' are you talking about? I can think of many eras in human history where moral values were running amok. What's happening now is nothing new under the sun.
Amorality may be the trend now, and will most suredly become more and more so over the next few years, but just you wait a few years more (or decades, or centuries, who knows) and morality will become cool again.
Rinse, and repeat. Ad nauseum. Until the aliens come down and put us out of our misery. Or some shit.
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 12:14 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Dude, hijacking someone else's blog comments to blindly argue about your personal obsessions with people interested in THIS blog and what its author writes about is just kinda lame (since all it says is that you need to try to be hostile/aggressively manipulative in someone else's blog post comment section to get any attention). Not to mention that it's kind of clear that you're targeting someone here and projecting your ongoing personal obsession onto them so you can make this comment thread all about you and your personal obsession. I can see why you need to do it since clearly your own blog isn't providing you with the audience and response you seem to feel you need/are entitled too so you're seeking some, any, attention for yourself and the ideas you're obsessed by. I don't think anyone is surprised that you feel no guilt or shame for your actions (or that you seem to need to put others down to feel superior), and feel entirely entitled and even clever for how you've behaved. Who you think you are and who you express yourself to be seem pretty far apart and even in conflict (not that this isn't rather common in us humans...but it's worth saying since you seem to consider yourself grounded in "reality" - and to strive to be - and this is perhaps one of the biggest and the most basic of delusions that prevents us from seeing further than our own ego.)
Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 12:17 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yeah, I also wonder a little bit if that whole 'ruthless' shtick explanation was merely a retroactive convenience employed after the fact to neutralize a true beat-down and save face.
Doesn't matter much, really.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 12:23 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
So you don't believe in progress? I suggest you read History of Childhood by Lloyd deMause. That will cure you.
http://www.amazon.com/History-Childhood-Master-Work/dp/1568215517
Make sure to have a box of kleenex and a bucket handy. You'll cry and want to vomit.
You think you're so tough because you read how some violent psychopath cut up adult women in a clean sterile modern society? That was nothing.
There is nothing the least bit messy or complicated about a psychopath. More to the point, there is nothing to empathize with because they are incapable of empathy.
Go on, go read The History of Childhood and you WILL cry. And then tell me you don't believe in progress!
Incidentally, men are solely and uniquely responsible for OVER 99.99% of all technological, scientific, industrial and political progress in all of human history. Now don't you want to know what women are good for? If you don't read that book, you'll never know.
But I suppose it's easier, LAZIER, to claim "I don't believe in progress".
Score: -13 (15 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 12:24 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I was talking about the "moral are responsible for evil viewpoints". I think that's wrong.
I suppose people were a lot more stupid back then, and a strong morality was necessary to avoid civilization collapsing into a pool of rapes and crimes.
Now we probably are smart enough to design our own moralities. We should be smart enough. The problem are people who don't even want to face their own consciousness, who want to be happy at all costs without the judgment of anyone, including themselves.
You have to be accountable to at least yourself, in my opinion. And an increasing number of people are not even that.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 12:25 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Either way, it's still an ego thing way more than it is an educational thing, no doubt about that.
Don't fool yourself into thinking it's not, Ricky.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 12:25 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"In Western Europe, which is far less narcissistic and egotistical, husbands there will cheat with a clear conscience and will never think twice about confessing. They also won't engage in flagrant "want to get caught" behaviour. Apparently, they take seriously the notion that as long as their wife doesn't know, it REALLY won't hurt her. So I'd say yes, confession really is tied very strongly to guilt. Whether confession is narcissistic though, well you can be the judge."
What rubbish, cheating spouses in Western Europe don't hide their behavior and not tell to protect their spouses, they do it to protect themselves from the consequences of their actions. Only a narcissist would tell themselves what they're doing is okay if the person they're betraying doesn't find out. Why? Because, automatically, by lying about this they're removing the ability of the spouse who is being cheated on and lied to make their own choice. It may be a painful choice but at least then both spouses are dealing with reality rather than some fantasy relationship that doesn't really exist.
Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 12:28 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I don't assume anything about the FBI's method of counting "rape" (arrests, whatever) except that it is the same method over time. That seems a plausible assumption as a starting point. So I still ask: why would whatever they are counting represent roughly the same percentage of the population over 70 years if the well they are dipping from is changing relative to population (because of the availability of pornography or some other change)? It's a simple question. Now there *might* be some separate variable explaining the *continuous* increase in prosecution relative to the *alleged* decrease in the total size of the pool, but recall, it's *continuous*, over *seventy* years, so an ad hoc "I'll bet that it's X" probably won't work, unless of course you have hard evidence, also spread over seventy years.
I have no stake here, I claim no expertise, I simply responded to the claim out of curiosity by a quick glance at a useful source of data (not because G-men are superhonest but because whatever they do probably doesn't change much in terms of *how* it skews things over time; this is the same as the assumption that one can make statistical inferences based on random selections from a population; because the data goes back so far). I had assumed that your claim was correct but it now appears not to be on the face of it.
I'm just saying that I don't buy it without more. I do find the idea that certain basic types of crime would represent stable percentages of the population plausible, what one would expect. (Maybe the incidence is due to the incidence of a gene for sociopathy? Who knows?) But the idea that this type of crime declines because of declines in certain mores is *also* plausible. I was curious, which was why I checked a statistical source.
So here's what you need to do: you need to get the period of time during which the data you're citing shows the decline, the data you're relying on. And then you need equally credible data supporting the claim that some change in some feature of law enforcement during that period explains why, nonetheless, the ratio of arrests to population is stable. Then we can evaluate your intriguing hypothesis.
As for the characterization, yes, contrarian hypotheses are more fun. All else being equal, fun is a form of reinforcement. No shame in that, we all do it. But that's why we have to be so careful when making politically important arguments based on social science claims.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 12:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Are you referring to the beat down YOU were receiving?
You're not even remotely capable of logic, are you? That's why you don't believe in statistics because statistics are a form of math, and in order to process math you have to be able to process logic.
In case you didn't get it, I was declaring Game Over.
Score: -8 (12 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 12:34 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
you know what richard, people are always crying about the evil nature of man kind by referring to the horrors of the past.
But I have another view point. I realize that we WERE nothing more than beasts, yet we were able to overcome our bestial nature and start a civilization where the weak are protected. I'm proud of being human.
I do realize that we had to start somewhere, and that start was "cruel, blood thirsty animals" and that's amazing, really.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 12:38 PM | Posted by : | Reply
An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious. For in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.
Seeing as how none of us has bios on each other (except for those who can read minds and history via a paragraph of text), I'd say the second part doesn't apply.
Curling your hair indeed.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 12:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I see you are baiting me again. I'll bite, because I have nothing else to do at the moment, and I find this entertaining.
I've read deMause. It's interesting that you assumed I that I haven't. Are you pissed for some reason that a female has an interest in serial killers, so you have a need to come off as more badass than I am? Who's the one who really has the need to come off as a badass here?
I'm interested in what I'm interested in, I'm not sure why you care about the reasons why.
men are solely and uniquely responsible for OVER 99.99% of all technological, scientific, industrial and political progress in all of human history.
Someone said this to me elsewhere yesterday, exact same wording even. (Interesting. Do I know you?)
Obviously, the reasons for that are various. But I'll give you a couple of simple and obvious ones: women weren't allowed to do anything, learn anything. When women did, despite it all, do the things you speak of, they were ignored and/or not written into the male-authored history books. Funny how that works. And duh.
Score: 6 (10 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 12:46 PM | Posted by : | Reply
do we really want to start a man vs woman argument? Please. Who cares. There are plenty of sites on the net where one can have these sort of discussions.
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 12:47 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"No fucking body wants to go back to the day of yore. But one thing we should not forget, is that people in the past had morals, sense of honor, religious beliefs shit like that, that helped things going progressively better."
I didn't see it going on here but quite a few people DO want to turn back time to some fantasy past where people had "a sense of honor, religious beliefs shit like that". (This is the appeal of both fundie religion and the new age...two sides of the same coin really.) You seem to have internalized the same fantasy about the past and to be quite blind to just how many people still have "religious beliefs shit like that" and how religious organizations actively fight against human rights (or are involved in damaging human rights) and technological progress.
"If there were no good people with self imposed moral imperatives rape and crime thing would have been so completely shitty by now."
Ever occur to you that some (maybe even most) don't need "self imposed moral imperatives" to prevent themselves from raping others. As for crime, that's a landscape that's shifted according to society. Setting cats on fire is now a crime, it used to be entertainment. Beating your wife is now a crime, it used to be perfectly okay in the UK if you used the inappropriate tool to beat your wife. If we hold people from the past, even 50 years ago, to the same criminal code we have now then a lot of them would be criminals.
"The problem today is that not only people have weak or no morals, is that they boast about their immorality making it increasingly okay to behave with no considerations for others. This will not be good."
Behaving with no consideration for others is hardly new or simply a product of contemporary society. In fact, we've created laws to try to mitigate our culture's long history of not treating others with any form of fairness or consideration. (Though we did like to pretend that the people we were treating badly weren't even really human - non-white people, women, children, etc.) Sure we glorify narcissism now but we used to do it back in the day too, so much so that people think that prior times/people were more heroic and moral than even basic evidence suggests. It's a form of historical amnesia, not to mention that it illuminates the power of propaganda and creating a dominant narrative (he who writes history, etc). When we stop buying into some mythical past and mythical "good" human (always compared to contemporary "bad" humans), and simply accept that people (including ones that do heroic or world changing things) are a mix of good and bad, altruism and selfishness, etc, then we will have grown up and dealing with reality.
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 12:47 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
...statistics are a form of math
Lol. You are retarded.
I'm now convinced for sure that your 'ruthless' game explanation was bullshit. Because you are still trying to do it. Either that or you're not just retarded, but severely retarded. I am amazed you are able to form words.
Score: -1 (5 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 12:49 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I just looked up the Victimization Survey you mentioned, and I see that the numbers you were referring to were per population, so if we go by that, you seem to be right. The discrepancy with the FBI data is puzzling though. I'd be troubled by that, since the methodology of the victim survey, however it's done, is going to be more *complicated*, which introduces more epistemic risk potentially.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/viortrdtab.cfm
What do you make of the fact that the same decline you cite is seen in all the other categories of violence (except murder) too? Does access to pornography also disincentivize robbery? I mean, sure, maybe, but it seems a stretch, because then, instead of the old saw about rape being a crime of violence, it turns out that every crime is a sex crime. Hmmm.
I also seem to recall a rather famous hypothesis that the *overall* decline in crime was due to increased access to abortion a few decades before the decline, i.e., that we are culling criminals. I've never been particularly happy about that hypothesis, but it fits the data better than yours.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 12:51 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"In [Franklin Zimring's] study of the 1990s crime decline, the professor found multiple possible contributors to the decline – including unprecedented economic gains, favorable demographics in terms of a drop in the high-risk population of teens to 29-year-olds, and an increase in incarceration -- with no single factor playing a dominant role."
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/uoc--nrr021207.php
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 1:00 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I am not interested in a man vs woman argument either, believe me. I fucking hate it, I fucking hate feeling forced to talk about it. But it's impossible to get away from it. Re-read that dude's deMause post and tell me that there is no sense of feeling threatened in there.
"You think you're so tough because you read how some violent psychopath cut up adult women in a clean sterile modern society?"
Uh, don't most dudes like to read about serial killers and crime at some point in their lives? Why mention 'toughness' if it's not about gender, as I highly doubt that one guy would assume another guy is trying to be a badass by mentioning some non-arcane information about serial killers that was extremely relevant to the discussion. It was directly related to the conversation. We were talking about rape, for fuck's sake, and I alluded to well-known rapists whom everyone knows about in order to say what I wanted to say without having to type out some whole backstory.
And while I'm at it, don't forget, we were talking about rape. There is no way to talk about rape without talking about gender.
The only way to avoid the gender thing is if I just shut up and went away. And I just don't feel like going away, so just deal with it.
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 1:00 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"There is nothing the least bit messy or complicated about a psychopath. More to the point, there is nothing to empathize with because they are incapable of empathy."
For someone who claims to be logical you fall short continually (which makes you look rather ridiculous when combined with the way you express yourself). Logically, a psychopath's inability to experience empathy has nothing to do with another person (who can experience empathy) being able to be empathetic towards a psychopath. Just because someone doesn't experience empathy it doesn't mean they don't suffer, feel pain, anxiety, relief, etc. It simply means they don't feel other people's feelings and/or care about them.
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 1:02 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"In [Franklin Zimring's] study of the 1990s crime decline, the professor found multiple possible contributors to the decline – including unprecedented economic gains, favorable demographics in terms of a drop in the high-risk population of teens to 29-year-olds, and an increase in incarceration -- with no single factor playing a dominant role."
yeah, figured as much.
Anyway the abortion theory comes from the author of freakonomics, but I think it's a bullshit theory like the pornography one. It's more probable that the criminals got killed (either by each other or the police) or got incarcerated, resulting in a overall decrease in crime.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 1:14 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
ok fine. But I don't think the toughness argument had anything to do with gender
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 1:15 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Gender and identity is something that Alone writes about quite often so hardly that off topic for TLP. That said, the man vs woman trolling that goes on here is tedious. And it is trolling so there's no point in actually trying to converse with someone who claims to be uber logical and seems to sincerely (emotionally) believe they are being rational/logical when what they write is peppered with the most basic of logical fallacies. Blinding hate and blaming the Other for all of one's personal failings, it's not gender specific.
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 1:22 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Noted, anon 1:14 and 1:15.
It's possible I got knee-jerky about the toughness business, sure. But it's pretty incredible how often I come across crap like that all over the place. Especially the past couple of days, so I am a bit on-guard right now.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 1:26 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
> That seems a plausible assumption as a starting point.
It is a ridiculously implausible assumption considering that the criteria for performing arrests is known even to you to have changed over the last 30 years. In the 50s to 70s, women would be discouraged from pressing charges. Now they're encouraged to do so even in blurriest cases of date rape. The entire DEFINITION of "rape" has changed as far as the FBI and all other police departments are concerned. You're using stats which exactly 30 seconds of thought would have told you are hopelessly flawed. And you are refusing to admit that even after it's been slapped in your face.
You want an explanation for why the rate of arrests is constant? Easy, 1) coincidence, 2) because they're determined by the number of police, prosecutors and judges. While rape itself is completely apolitical, rape ARRESTS are 90% politics. And I don't have to explain this, let alone prove it, because I'm not interested in police politics and it's an entirely different subject from crime.
And I will note here that you CONTINUE to ignore the National Crime Victimization Survey, which is by far the most authoritative neutral resource. You continue to ignore it because you DON'T WANT to learn. And do you really think for a single moment that you can lay an obligation on my attention and my time by being stupid?
But whatever, I LIKE to educate. So I'll say the FIRST THING you should know about statistics is who made them and what's their agenda. When AT&T, Apple and IBM sponsored a study in 2000-2001 that determined the number and quality of friendships online people had was inferior to the friendships offline people had ... that was important. Of course, that study was censored in the USA and I read it in Le Monde. Had the study found the *opposite*, it wouldn't have been significant at all.
> I do find the idea that certain basic types of crime would represent stable percentages of the population plausible, what one would expect.
No, this is what YOU would expect. It is certainly not what any modern sociologist or psychologist would expect. They would be ASTOUNDED to learn something like rape is constant over the past 70 years. And they would say BULLSHIT.
The fact that you're completely and willfully blind to the changes society has undergone in the last 50 years means there is something deeply wrong with the way your brain works. I cannot even guess at what is wrong with your brain. If you were a rabid arch-conservative, that still wouldn't explain it.
You're trying to say that murder and rape "just happen", that they are "just human nature" and immutable. So what does that make you? You know, not even the right-libertarians believe that since they're liable to believe technology changes people's actions. Your views are so fucked up I can't even guess at any political ideology or faction that represents them.
Or maybe you're just really, really young. Maybe you're a very intelligent, but very naive, and very ignorant 15 year old. But that doesn't fit either because you're not really acting like an intelligent person desiring to learn.
Congratulations, nobody has left me as completely flabbergasted as you have.
And just so you know, the USA has twice the background rate of psychopathy as more collectivist countries like China and Japan. And psychopathy is a diagnosable psychiatric disorder.
And *furthermore* some of the symptoms of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome look an awful lot like psychopathy. You might want to think on that when you ponder the possibilities of genes for sociopathy.
You may also want to ponder that "sociopathy" isn't a diagnosable psychiatric condition and that the word has no established rigorous meaning. That it's just a euphemism for psychopathy. And a horrible euphemism since there is precious little interpersonal (socio-) in the mind or actions of a psychopath.
> As for the characterization, yes, contrarian hypotheses are more fun.
Contrarian hypotheses are only more fun for contrarians. Almost all people prefer mindless group-think. It's a shame but it's true. Well, if you think contrarianism is fun, you're probably redeemable. You're just going to have to cultivate it.
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 1:30 PM | Posted by : | Reply
1. It's amazing how many people know what the crime "statistics" were "centuries" ago.
2. Every generation has bemoaned the lack of morality their children and children's children exhibit.
3. When looking at rape, it's important to look at the projection of power as being not only the act of rape, but the ability to emerge unscathed. The laws and the approach to enforcing those laws have changed profoundly.
4. When looking at rape, it's important to acknowledge the massive changes in societal values around this issue, which have been fueled at least partially by education. Here's a simple example: Rape in America is not seen so much as a shaming occurrence in a woman's life as it being a crime, period. Here's another: if a rape is reported, the onus is on the police to investigate as opposed to the victim to prove.
5. Which brings up laws. Laws and the prosecution of those laws actually do have an affect on certain behaviors. Accidents/death due to drunk driving is an example of this phenomenon.
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 1:38 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"Taboos are the way Christians try to control us"
That's a bit of a weird title. All religions use morals/rules to try to control believers, not sure about the taboo part since taboos aren't necessarily religious. Morals are essentially religious rules of behavior. The way I see it the control that religion historically exerted (and still exerts upon many people today) is due to two things - the tension created by religious rules that essentially contradict natural urges (religion makes all prosocial natural urges the domain of god and from the divine, while all the antisocial ones become the domain of man/beasts/evil) and the idea of the panopticon (you're always being watched and judged, you may even be struck down by lightening for immoral thoughts). Well that and promising people if they give up everything to the church, including their wealth, power and autonomy and are good little Christians then there'll be a special treat for them once they're dead. (Incidentally, the reason why the Catholic church made suicide a one way trip to limbo was because too many people were tempted to take the shortcut of death, which wasn't very useful in terms of wealth creation or available labor and/or soldiers.)
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 1:43 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think the title is a tongue-in-cheek commentary in and of itself, because that's the argument that the non-thinking tend to use instead of having to look at it on any deeper larger-picture level.
They hear it somewhere, it 'sounds good' and 'makes sense', and so they repeat it to others.
Alone tends to do that kind of commentary-within-commentary stuff a lot. That's one of the main reasons why I enjoy the writing here.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 1:45 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Plus, I bet it's an effective way to get google hits.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 1:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
> Just because someone doesn't experience empathy it doesn't mean they don't suffer, feel pain, anxiety, relief, etc. It simply means they don't feel other people's feelings and/or care about them.
If you knew what the fuck you were talking about, you might know how wrong you are. As is, I will have to educate you.
One of the key items of Factor 1 in Hare's model of psychopathy (the more important factor and the one that actually defines psychopathy) is
* Shallow affect (genuine emotion is short-lived and egocentric)
In other words, no there really isn't anything to empathize with in a psychopath. They really DON'T suffer like human beings do. They sure as fuck don't suffer like *I* do from my over the top empathy.
Every time I'm reminded that disease, poverty, stagnation and child abuse exists on this miserable worthless planet, I suffer from it. I get angry. I get FURIOUS. At you miserable fucks for allowing it to happen. For NOT CARING that it happens. And don't pretend, I know you don't care. I know you only care about pretending to care.
But you've got empathy and you can LOVE so you can suffer when your family dies or your friends hurt. Psychopaths don't because they're incapable of feeling emotional pain. Anxiety, anguish, guilt, shame, attachment, love, all of the HIGHER EMOTIONS are completely beyond them.
Mere physical pain is not enough you see. After all, ANTELOPES feel physical pain when they get eaten by crocodiles, and guess what? I don't give a fuck. Because mere animals are not capable of higher emotions.
So I repeat myself: PSYCHOPATHS HAVE NOTHING FOR ME TO EMPATHIZE WITH.
I suppose if you were a cop physically torturing a psychopath, I would stop you. And then I would take the opportunity to inform you it's your moral obligation to shoot the creature in the head. But let's face it, that doesn't happen in the USA. You guys LOVE psychopaths. Do you know who you DO torture physically? Arabs.
Score: -4 (6 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 1:53 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Medusa - I think the whole "toughness" thing was meant to be insulting or at least provocative. Dude essentially just admitted he was trolling and being dishonest in his discourse with you. Every hostile troll (as differentiated from the prankster troll that can be very entertaining) considers themselves a puppetmaster rather than being merely a sockpuppet to their own denied (but very active) needs and desires.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 2:02 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Dude, you really are a mess. The image of yourself you keep promoting here is continually contradicted by your behavior. But your claim to be more empathetic than everyone else, which is so obviously just another self aggrandizing claim on your part and pretty clearly contradicted by what you say/how you behave, is highly entertaining.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 2:06 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Once again, you are misinformed. I don't blame you though, because most people, so called 'experts' included, are misinformed about psychopaths.
I spend a large amount of time around, talking to, and researching sociopaths/psychopaths (I use the terms interchangeably), and I have an access to them that most people do not. They do indeed have very strong feelings. They do indeed 'suffer, feel pain, anxiety, relief', just as much if not more than 'normals', but for different reasons, and they respond to such feelings in themselves differently as well.
Also, just so you know, all of Hare's information comes from criminals in prison, so his take on things is pretty limited. Incarcerated sociopaths make up a very small percentage of the actual sociopathic population, and are generally 'low-functioning', and are not all that intelligent or self-aware in any real sense.
I don't see how you can get reliable information from people who have little to no insight into themselves.
Give up, dude.
Score: 4 (8 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 2:10 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I will lay out the moral calculations here for people's edification.
1) morality says psychopaths ought never exist
2a) morality says you ought never murder
2b) because it reduces your empathy making you more into a psychopath
3a) morality says to end a creature's suffering
3b) because it reduces your empathy making you more into a psychopath
But if you are ALREADY physically torturing a psychopath, then you've already irreparably harmed your empathy. So 2 ceases to have any relevance and only 1 and 3 apply, and BOTH of them say psychopaths ought to die.
Then of course you ought to go to prison for torture and murder. Because you're far too close to a psychopath.
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 2:15 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
1. I'm not American or a nationalist of any stripe so your attempt to bait in that way is ineffective on me. You really don't have anything to offer than tired trolling tactics do you?
2. Your grand claims about psychopathy are just hot air and an attempt to make your entirely irrational claim seem rational (though, judging by how you express yourself here and react, you're very clearly someone who is much more emotional than rational). Your understanding and ability to use science is no more robust than your abilities vis a vis logic.
3. You're clearly using the suffering of others to try to pretend you feel and care more deeply than other people do (and to inflate the importance of your own suffering). You know, using other people's suffering to try to make your own suffering appear to be much more grandiose and noble than it actually is. You know, other people's suffering isn't all about you...it's about them and their suffering, no matter how much you try to make it all about you and your suffering.
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 2:19 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I am done giving you attention with this final comment, dude, which is obviously the #1 reason why you are here and continue posting. The more you talk and try to defend yourself, the stupider and more illogical your comments get.
You wear your desperation on your sleeve like a blood stain on a white shirt, but you are color-blind so you can't even see that the stain is there. Everyone else does, though, and it makes you look like a slob with bad aim.
Have fun typing into the void that is your own psyche.
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 2:28 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Almost all of my information on psychopaths comes from accounts of business executives who harm far FAR more people than the low-functioning kind of psychopath.
(When I think 'psychopath' I think of Factor 1, and I automatically discount Factor 2.)
With your experience being illogical and believing all kinds of things that are untrue, you'll understand that psychopaths are where I draw the line.
I don't care whether they have feelings, I CHOOSE not to empathize with them. Truth is one of my most important core values, but so's empathy.
Psychopaths ought not exist because they are simply incapable of being non-negative contributors to any society. So I refuse to accept that there are any empathizable feelings in a psychopath.
When you can reliably and directly see the mind operating behind someone's eyes, that matters way WAY more than their face. Being homo sapiens sapiens was never enough to qualify somebody as human.
Score: -1 (5 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 2:33 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Richard Kulisz apparently mistakes the reaction he continually gets by being abuse/rude for being the same as others get for presenting provocative/controversial ideas. A bit sad really, as it always is when hubris and trolling meet and humor is stomped out by Serious Internet Business. Then the question becomes, is it actually trolling or just a manifestation of someone's pathology? Using one's real name online, particularly when trolling, is often a sign of the latter.
Score: 7 (9 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 2:34 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Well, it may be pleasurable to believe that I refused to admit that I was wrong, but I get the impression that I did precisely that, as soon as I looked at the NVS you mentioned (21 minutes later). My view changed from thinking that your position is absurd because rape stats are stable to thinking your position is absurd because all stats in your preferred data source fall, including crimes that have nothing to do with sex. Anyway, calm down, Walter. Not everything has to do with Vietnam.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 2:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Medusa - "I think the title is a tongue-in-cheek commentary in and of itself, because that's the argument that the non-thinking tend to use instead of having to look at it on any deeper larger-picture level."
Maybe it is. I thought it may be from one of the emails he received. Whatever the source, it's an odd title.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 2:46 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
> women weren't allowed to do anything, learn anything. When women did, despite it all, do the things you speak of, they were ignored and/or not written into the male-authored history books. Funny how that works. And duh.
You lie. And it's a self-serving lie too. Women have always cooked, but only men became great chefs. Women always played the piano, but only men became concert pianists. Women always DID things, but they only ever did them for their FAMILIES.
And you want to know why? It isn't because they "weren't allowed" to, because that's a bullshit excuse. It's because they DIDN'T WANT TO.
Men become scientists, engineers and mathematicians, why? Because these jobs DON'T PAY WELL and DON'T ACCORD SOCIAL STATUS. Men are the ones who take the risks. And women are the ones who play it safe.
And the proof of it is simple. Look at gendered professions in the West versus Eastern Europe. Women in Eastern Europe became doctors. Women in Eastern Europe became ENGINEERS. For fuck's sake, women in IRAN are the majority of engineers. You know why? Because there, THEY GET STATUS FROM IT.
GUARANTEED and AUTOMATIC status. That's what women want.
And neither "guaranteed" nor "automatic" is at all consistent with PROGRESS and ADVANCE, both of which are RISKY.
Women weren't allowed? BULLSHIT.
In all of human history, there has never been one, not a single one, matriarchal society. There have been societies that are CALLED matriarchal because they have NO politics and since women rule families they get to rule the non-politics by default. But that's hardly the same.
Why do you think it is that men in all of human history, in EVERY nation, in EVERY country, and in EVERY tribe were the ones that DECIDED who was allowed to do something and who wasn't? It's because they WANTED TO. And because women were content with their lot.
Until lesbians came along in the 1800s. Thank goodness for lesbians, otherwise there would never have been a suffrage movement.
--
And no, we don't know each other. If you DID know me, there would be absolutely no doubt in your mind.
And to answer your question, I presumed you hadn't read History of Childhood because it is statistical and you said you don't believe in statistics. But I see now when you said "I don't believe in progress" you were just lying. I had made the mistake of assuming you were telling the truth about what you do and don't believe.
Score: -8 (14 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 2:59 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Re: "But now, FOR SURE, incest is no longer a taboo, it is no longer a matter of guilt, but of shame. "
I do see your point. When Epstein's lawyer points out that the legality, morality, and tabooity (I think that's a real word) of something don't always go together, he's actually trying to achieve the opposite effect. He is trying to cement in the public's mind the belief that since incest is morally neutral (who is it hurting?), it shouldn't be illegal. And since it shouldn't be illegal then the implication is that it shouldn't be taboo, right?
Wrong. Maybe if we were dealing with some other taboo, a case like this might erode away at that taboo. But the taboo against incest is one of the most pervasive ones out there, as it serves such an important evolutionary purpose. I just don't see it going away, like taboos against homosexuality, divorce, or eating meat on Friday. And even those taboos might make a sweeping comeback in my lifetime.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 3:01 PM | Posted by : | Reply
men rules and are the best. But do we really want to have this discussion? They are not going to change their mind, and even if you convince them of the truth of men superiority- then what? What the fuck would change? What the fuck would you expect from them? I'd say it is better to avoid the whole discussion.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 3:01 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't base myself on the NCVS' raw data for my theories of rape. I only used that to show how stupid your stats are. I provided another reference above, you might want to check THAT out. It starts with http
Score: -1 (5 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 3:04 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Kind of funny that you seem to be involved with computers but make grand claims about women never inventing anything...talk about laying bare your own ignorance! Ada Lovelace, a woman, is generally considered the world's first computer programmer. Just because you don't know or want to recognize women in the history of science doesn't mean they don't exist. Besides, the idea that any of the great discoveries and inventions of science happen in the vacuum of the mind of a lone genius is a totally Modernist pop culture idea/fantasy of how science actually works.
Score: 2 (8 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 3:15 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Dude, lesbians didn't "come along in the 1800s". Now that's funny! Clearly you just make any old shit up. Seems like you're desperately jealous of TLP and hope that you can redirect some of the attention that comes Alone's way onto yourself. Not that it takes much skill to create conflict by being a dick in the comment thread of someone else's blog (particularly one that doesn't ban trolls).
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 3:17 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes of course, women make up 51% of the population and 0.1% of great scientists, radical engineers and inventors, and that makes them equal. Did you actually pass your grade 9 math class? Or are they not compulsory in the USA?
We are dealing with human beings here, and unlike you I am well aware that for ANY trait there will always, ALWAYS be exceptions. If I said "all living humans have a head" I would say it with the certainty that there is an exception somewhere. I don't get hung up on the exceptions.
Incidentally, I just looked and couldn't find any case of a human body living without a head. Now a head without a body apparently lives (and responds) for 30 secs to a putative 2 minutes. Oh well.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 3:22 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Oh, and your friend was right to chide you for liking Tucker Max. Since you started doing textual analysis of 'I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell,' would you care to enlighten us on these quotes.
On women:
- “She may be a vacuous slut with no taste, but at least she’s not a stripper.”
- “I’d rather mainline Drano than listen to another minute of your whore prattle.”
- “Your gender is hardwired for whoredom.”
- “I don’t like her because she’s a negative fucking bitch, not because she has tits.”
- “Fat girls aren’t real people.”
- "Cum dumpsters."
On fun:
- “Ready to get shit-faced and grab some titty!?”
- “We can’t all go after the girl with low self-esteem.”
On what women are good for, beyond fucking:
- “I will gut you and grind you into pig fodder.”
- "Get away from me or I’m going to carve a fuck hole in your torso.”
- “I want to shoot every one of these bitches.”
- “The only way I can cut you deep is with a battle axe and a running start.”
- “Rape’s not funny, but murder can be.”
Seriously, you can tie just about anything to narcissism, but not this? And what about the consequences of a book/movie like this? As you said yourself, "Every one of our actions has a blast radius, and there are other people in it. KABOOM. Count the bodies."
Score: 4 (10 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 3:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
A few things:
1. All the crap you just spouted is for the same reasons I already outlined. Women didn't have the option, and whatever options they did have were confined. It doesn't matter whether they wanted to do something or not.
2. I recommend checking out page 16 of the National Security Council's 2008 Global Trends Report. Google it, it's easy to find. This is the number one source for policymakers and other game-changers to consult regarding long-term trends. Not sure how you will be able to argue with the most informed, educated, influential and intelligent minds out there and expect to be taken seriously.
3. After checking out #2, you should be able to see the relevancy and accuracy of the following statement:
4. Women are soon going to be the judges and police and bankers and professors and lawmakers and everything else in 20 years in equal numbers as men, if not more. Keep on polishing your public record as a misogynist, because that record will bar you from participating in society in any meaningful way when the future comes to pass. And that will be good for all of us.
5. How does that makes you feel? Do you tremble at the thought? Does it make your penis suddenly impotent? It's okay, just tuck it between your legs like you've been doing all morning. Funny though, that might make it look like you are one of the very same females who you say aren't made to do anything in this world on a large scale. And that's most certainly what you are, because it's clear that you are not a real Man.
6. Get out from under your father's thumb. It's a big world out there.
7. I'm done with you. And pretty soon, so will the rest of the world.
Score: 1 (9 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 3:32 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Boy, you are either one weak ass troll or in need of some help with your hostility and grandiosity. Either way, you seem to spend more time trying to get someone to pay attention to you at TLP than you do on your own blog so it's pretty obvious your blog is a failure at getting you the attention you seek so desperately (let alone in popularizing your wacky ideas). Not to say that there haven't been some particularly entertaining moments (the grandiose claim about empathy and then total lack of empathy or compassion for psychopaths being one). Really, I'm starting to wonder if you're a psychopath that's in denial about your psychopathology because your claims about yourself and your behavior are so contradictory. Most telling was that grandiose claim about superior empathy, which is not upheld at all by your behavior or even how you discussed it when you made the claim.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 3:43 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
So let's be clear, you don't consider police arrest procedures to be complicated? You consider them SIMPLER than someone calling up a household, asking "have you been the victim of a sexual assault in the past year?"
I would dearly love to know what kind of mental world you live in. It seems fascinating. I say this neither to flatter nor insult, but sincerely. I really don't get you, and that doesn't happen often.
> What do you make of the fact that the same decline you cite is seen in all the other categories of violence (except murder) too?
It isn't. Rape is the category that fell the most, by far. Other categories declined, rape crashed. And that's during a social shift that caused rapes to be more likely reported.
Also, the constancy of the homicide rate hides the fact that a greater rate of gunshot and knife victims have survived thanks to advancing emergency medical care. So in order for the homicide (successful murder) rate to have been constant, the ATTEMPTS have had to increase.
And the constancy of the homicide rate among the *general population* hides the fact that if you break it down by race and age, every category OTHER than young black men (even old black men) saw their homicide rate DECREASE. But not by nearly as much as rape fell. If I recall correctly, the downwards curve for homicide looks similar to that for other violent crimes. But it's been a long time.
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 3:44 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Sorry, National Intelligence Council, not Security.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 3:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Kendall's working paper, the basis for the Slate article? Ok, I'll take a look. Thanks.
I don't suppose that this will be news to you, but we had to get through a fair amount of unnecessary rhetoric to get to this point, and there is still no comment above that says "Todd D. Kendall, an econ professor at Clemson specializing in the economics of the sex industry, with a PhD in economics from U Chicago, has done a study which suggests that [blah blah blah], contrary to conventional wisdom" with a link to the paper I assume you've read closely and come to agree with. Your tone and disorganized presentation made you prima facie less credible, and the pity of it was that I was completely open to your hypothesis, curious enough about it to look into it. But I had to go looking for my own stats, not to prove you wrong, but to find out why on earth you would say such a thing. I can only assume that this roundabout approach was designed to bait and provoke (actually, if I'm reading you right, you have more or less stated above that your intention is to bait and provoke, yes? The "proud to hijack" stuff?), which is a shame, because a lot of people are perfectly willing to entertain a new idea if it is presented effectively and reasonably. No need to reply with a defense of your style; diff'rent strokes. Anyway, thanks for the lead. But you really don't make it very easy for people. Flies, honey, etc.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 4:14 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
> Women didn't have the option, and whatever options they did have were confined. It doesn't matter whether they wanted to do something or not.
Yeah right. And apparently, it's never occurred to you that MEN didn't care whether they were "allowed" or "given the option". They MADE the option. For men, the only thing that mattered was whether they wanted to do something or not. But oh no, for women it's "they weren't allowed" and "it didn't matter what they wanted". What rubbish. What self-serving mealy mouthed crap. Next you're going to start talking about how The Man is keeping you down. Oh wait, you already are.
> Women are soon going to be the judges and police and bankers and professors and lawmakers and everything else in 20 years in equal numbers as men, if not more.
Gee and by pure coincidence, marriage is breaking down so women now have NO CHOICE but to pursue professions. And of course other countries have to allow gender equality just to compete industrially and economically with the West. And families in third world countries have to allow double-income earners otherwise they're never going to achieve the economic wealth, power and freedom which Westerners have as amply depicted by television. So in 25-50 years, the West is going to achieve the same kind of gender equality which communist countries had 20 years ago. Kudos, congrats, you want a cookie too?
> Keep on polishing your public record as a misogynist
I'm also an anti-global warming "denier". Really, I'm remarkably arch-conservative for a communist and an anarchist. Have you ever met a communist in your life? This is probably the first time since I know it's illegal to be one in your country. You might want to look up whether or not it's legal for you to talk to a communist. So anyways, I'm sure you don't know anything about "my kind of people" but misogynism doesn't really fit into the Communist Manifesto or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Little known fact: communists created the UDHR. Yes it was a global communist conspiracy and this is the reason why your country refuses to subscribe to it.
> 5. How does that makes you feel?
Good. I say, it's about time you pulled your weight.
> Do you tremble at the thought?
Actually, yes. Mostly in the upper torso area from rhythmic exhalations of air. I believe you call this "laughter"? The internal emotion is one of amusement.
I got even more amusement out of your attempts to attack my gender identity. Which is hilarious because I don't have one. I don't have the slightest trace of a mental gender in my mind. If I suddenly gained a female body right now, I wouldn't care one whit. Except of course for the fact that it's valuable technology that I would try to replicate and commercialize.
Medusa, I am highly disappointed that it took so little effort on my part for you to drop your pretense of being a rational being. And I congratulate you on the fact you lasted 10 times longer than the average person.
Score: -4 (12 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 4:19 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Well, this is really neither here nor there, but what I was speculating about was that ascertaining whether or not someone *has* been arrested is far more straightforward than ascertaining what kind of conduct really happened. I should've spelled that out, but I thought it was kind of obvious. I had thought the extent to which the arrest incidence would fluctuate in relation to the underlying conduct would tend to wash out over large numbers over a long period of time, and I knew nothing about the methodology of the NVS. But this is neither here nor there.
We now *know* that you're a fraud, because you take me to task for relying on FBI statistics instead of NVS statistics, and when I point out that NVC statistics don't support your thesis because they show that *all* crime falls, you fall back on (I don't know how else to characterize it) a Slate article which refers to an economics working paper, which you no doubt read, yes?
Which bases its entire analysis on, wait for it, FBI statistics. Which you are now obliged to concede *are* reliable, because without them, your whole argument collapses.
Oh Richard, you're a fraud. But thanks for playing. I *did* learn something as a result of this, and the only point that matters for you should still hold for you: you were right, because you read an article in Slate.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 4:34 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
My point wasn't that solely bisphenol A alone caused sterility in men, it was that it is a factor. Yes, soy might have something to do with it, too. So does cell phone radiation. There's many factors involved, in addition to the ones listed. The point is, men are becoming more and more sterile (e.g., sperm count now 5x less than WWII males). That's a real biological problem that needs our attention.
But you already know that, as they say, rage is blind.
If you're going to use shoddy debate tactics to try to win an argument, get lost. This is about sharing information to obtain a greater understanding of the world, not winning a petty argument.
I will look into radiation hormesis, just make sure you keep your cell phone out of your pocket.
And you can make your points to people without being such an asshole. That alienates people and entrenches them in their views even more. Mission accomplished?
Anti-porn feminists have not stopped porn from exponentially increasing. And they won't. But they do enjoy preying on the mentally afflicted.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 4:34 PM | Posted by : | Reply
With this nonsense, it's no wonder Alone never posts in the comments anymore.
Score: 12 (12 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 4:37 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You really want incest/CP = no-harm to be true, don't ya?
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 4:38 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The mistaken assumption you're operating under is you think I really care about rape, or even sociology. I don't. Sociology is maybe #13 in a long list of my interests. Behind systems design, psychology, philosophy, physics, politics, history, meta-mathematics .... yeah anyways. And those are just my intellectual interests, interests which I've more or less exhausted by now as I've moved from an intellectual to a practical phase of my life. I'm interested in bettering the world now rather than learning about it.
Now you tell me, am I going to have more of an impact on the world by teaching 10 people the solitary fact that rape has been disappearing over the past half century? Or just ONE person the *way of life* that truth is to be sought no matter how surprising it is and no matter how distasteful the person that presents it or the way it's presented? In fact, I want to know your opinion on this: how many people do you think it's worth it for me to avoid educating (by giving offense) if I manage to make just one person more likely to pounce on and ... savour every contrarian truth they smell?
I'm not wedded to any answer on this question because I've pretty much given it up as a tactic. I don't think it really works. I don't think it hurts either. I've spent long enough learning about the world that right now I have a few good ideas on how to REALLY improve it A LOT. So this, what I did today, this is what I *used* to do, which I did today because I got nostalgic and because it's fun for me. But, that doesn't mean I'm any less curious. Actually, it makes me more curious because I don't have any preconceived answer on the tradeoff ratio anymore. So you tell me, how many people do you think it's okay to dismiss or offend in order to help set one person on a new path in life?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 4:38 PM | Posted by : | Reply
that rk guy and his pretense of being a master psychological manipulator are ridiculous.
To Medusa: "Women are soon going to be the judges and police and bankers and professors and lawmakers and everything else in 20 years in equal numbers as men, if not more. Keep on polishing your public record as a misogynist, because that record will bar you from participating in society in any meaningful way when the future comes to pass. And that will be good for all of us." Future society should bar people on the basis of what they think or what they wrote on the internet? That sounds more fascistic than mussolini
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 4:43 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
(women are "this") + (men are "that") = gender neutral/Richard.
And you say you know something about math and logic.
You would be looked a lot more favorably (which is obviously your goal here) if you just sucked it up and admitted that you learned something new today from the 'other' side.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 4:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
you don't get it, he is so transcendetally superior that he looks at humanity from above.
That's why he can say human men and human women are like that, it's because he is the transcendent One
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 4:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I got a broader allegorical meaning from that. Namely, that the idiots of today will still be idiots in the future, and the people in charge will recognize it and act accordingly. Also a nice bit of karma, if you will.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 4:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
karma for what, expressing an opinion? That men and women are not equal?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 4:52 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Hooray, the Übermensch has finally arrived!
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 4:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Karma for being an idiot. Do you really think that him (and the gazillions of people like him, for he is merely a representation of something larger) and his opinions stops with text on the internet and does not bleed into his actions?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 4:56 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Congratulations on finding a contradiction in my argumentation Ken. It doesn't happen often and I am honestly impressed.
For the record, I hadn't read the paper of that econ guy so I didn't know it was based on FBI stats. I also don't have much respect for economists so I doubt I ever cared about the guy's credentials.
And as I said, I don't have much interest in the sociology of rape. I was playing a meta-meta-meta-game and if you think I was a fraud for misrepresenting, tough luck. Running up and down the meta-levels is the only way I can keep my mind engaged with most people.
Still, admit it, it was fun for you to win the meta-game, wasn't it? :D
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 5:00 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The KKK was a powerful force and influence at one point. Where are they now?
The idiots may sometimes come to power but always have their downfall.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 5:01 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
he said men invented more stuff than women. How the fuck should he be punished for that. What actions should result from that?
"Hey bitch, did you know that men are better inventors than women? YOU WILL NOW BE RAPED! AHR!"
please
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 5:06 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
And he finally gives in (however cloaked in post-postmodern bullshit it may be) after being told it would make him look good.
Kudos.
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 5:14 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
> You would be looked a lot more favorably (which is obviously your goal here)
I am not so limited. And I'm contrarian enough to abuse my followers until they stop.
The game - arguing with facts and logic to prove a point.
The meta-game - proving a point so as to shape one's reputation.
The meta-meta-game - shaping one's reputation in order to reshape discourse.
The meta-meta-meta game - reshaping discourse in order to effect a quantitative change in society.
And that's where it stopped today because it was just for fun. If I had been playing seriously, there would have been another meta-level to it "effecting quantitative changes so as to reshape the permanent direction of society".
But really, thinking there's anything you can say in a discussion forum to reshape the direction of society is quite conceited. Of course, it says something about me that it took me years to learn that lesson.
This lesson I'm now teaching falls under the category of "effecting a quantitative change in society". I'm really hoping to open a few minds. Not expecting but hoping that some of you get 'this is what you could be doing' and 'there are no limits to your power if you think hard enough on it'.
Score: -2 (6 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 5:19 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Medusa, I'm wondering whether Alone's entire blog might not describe you. Throughout our entire argument you've been incapable of logic and you've projected your own failings on me. You got royally ass kicked and you still thought you were winning. Now it happened AGAIN but not only that, you think it's all about "looking good". I'm really starting to wonder whether you're not a narcissist.
Let me be explicitly clear: I don't care to look good, bitch. I only care to look like myself.
Score: -1 (9 votes cast)
December 30, 2010 10:35 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Mr. Z.,
I feel less empty now
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 31, 2010 12:14 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
How can you say that: "the problems are slight, amounting to no more than some power inequality and retardation of individuation" and even add that: "infidelity is a far, far bigger problem"?
For an expert you sure do present some problematic conclusions, and quite frankly I don't agree.
Rape has not disappeared! And gender equality won't make it disappear either!
Porn on the Internet may help some, but people will always try to get the 'real thing', it's in the nature of things. You don't suddenly become satisfied with watching cooking programs on TV when you're hungry just because they're there! It doesn't make your hunger go away!
Where on earth have you cooked up your ideas? ... 'Infidelity a greater problem than retardation of individuation', I mean, c'mon!
.....
I see some of you mention the statistics that say rape rates have gone down. Personally I'm pretty sure they haven't, I think it's being reported more rarely, and that's all there is to it.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
December 31, 2010 12:30 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I didn't mean to be rude in that I chose not to comment on Blog Owner's article but instead to another reader's comment. I apologize.
I chose not to, because I can see we think very differently, and I don't think my views would add much to the debate, at least not at this point.
That said, it was an interesting meeting with a philosophy I hadn't been in touch with for quite some time. And well written too.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 31, 2010 12:57 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Pervert says what?
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
December 31, 2010 1:47 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
1) I am tired of people arguing rape has nothing to do with sex. Yes it fucking does. Rape is a sexual crime. Rape is often motivated by sexual drive on behalf of the rapist. When a 40 year old man, 80 year old grandmother, and 16 year old teenage girl take a stroll out at midnight at the wrong side of town in front of a bar full of drunk military guys, bikers, and sociopaths on parole, WHICH OF THE AFORMENTIONED CIVILIANS do you picture taking a trip to the ER for sexual assualt? Surely, if rape has nothing to do with sex, then the old woman, middle aged man, and virginal teenaged girl all have an equal chance at being raped.
Fucking retards. Rape statistics speak for themselves. 90% of rape victims are female, mostly reproductive aged (i.e. mid teens to early 30s). If you have a hoo-ha, and you have made it past your early 20s, you've reduced your chances of being raped by like 400% (as 80% of rape victims are females teens and early 20s)
Furthermore, I would invoke the COMMON FUCKING SENSE rule. In addition to the fact rape victims are almost always young women (i.e. fertile targets for sex), and we all INSTINTCUALLY tell our young women friends/family to avoid doing stupid shit (like walking alone, walking in dark places, going to clubs and drinking strange drinks)... in addition to this, rape is widespread in the animal kingdom. Ducks rape ducks, seals rape seals, dogs and cats don't exactly get consent, they sorta fight other males and then go at the queen in heat... and if the animal tries to run away they just keep pursuing her regardless of whether or not she is accepting him. Sex in animals driven by pheromone signals of ovulation/fertility which stimulate the male. The male doesn't give a shit if the female wants it or not.
Humans would then be the only fucking animal that DOES NOT rape out of sexual instinct, which just doesn't seem likely. We are nothing but beasts wearing clothes, after all. Rape is natural for male animals, it's LACK of rape behavior that is socialized into them.
2) His argument was not to say that impotency has any relationship to rape; his argument was to say there are bigger threats to masculinity/male power/male identity than a few cranky old women who want to eliminate porn... such as gazillion dollar corporations actively causing endocrinological disorders in modern humans resulting in infertility amongst other conditions (e.g. obesity diabetes cancers). You fail 6th grade reading comprehension. Topic sentence lost.
3) The fact one psycho did something psychotic says nothing about rapists in general or rape in general. In general, rape victims are exactly the sort of human a male should have evolved to want to stick his thing in. Young, possibly virginal, female. IN general, rape victims are fertile aged females. In general, rapists are males. To deny this fact is to DENY FUCKING REALITY YOU SOCIAL BRAINWASHED TOOL.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
December 31, 2010 2:00 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Just because many rapists can have consensual sex does not mean rape is not motivated by sex. Logic you fails it.
No one is arguing rape is exclusively about sex. Merely it is argued sexual interest, drive, stimulation, is a necessary prerequisite for rape to occur. This is why progesterone is an effective deterrent for sexual criminals. Progesterone, a female pregnancy hormone obliterates testicular function and sexual drive.
Progesterone is designed to make you unsexy, as women only make this in large quantities when she's infertile and already pregnant.
Many wealthy brats steal from stores for thrills, even though they've gold credit cards and can buy what they want (see: winona rider). Shoplifters are certainly motivated by the appealing goods in the store windows, but few would argue it is the exclusive determining factor in who does or does not commit this crime. Desire for the goods however is a necessary prerequisite. Why would you steal garbage? Sure, some people do that, but most shoplifters feel a twinge of desire and novelty and interest in the things they steal. I was a shoplifter as a youth, as were a few friends. We only stole stuff we impulsively wanted on whim. I would never steal anything that didn't appeal to me at all. Thrill of doing something bad, breaking rules, youthful defiance, and simply boredom are the other necessary components of shoplifting... but certainly DESIRE was a necessary prereq.
Certainly rape is way worse than shoplifting but I would bet boatloads that it's a similar formula. You need to feel DESIRE, plus other components (being a sociopath/a piece of shit dirt bag, being impulsive, having low harm avoidance, being turned on by control/pain in others etc).
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
December 31, 2010 2:04 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I don't know why anyone is taking this richard k. guy seriously.
"Porn use increased, rape (and all violent crime) decreased, therefore porn is a prophylaxis against rape".
I almost visualize this guy slack jawed with a trail of drool molasses-like down the non-dominant side of his face.
There is ZERO reason to investigate this claim. There is no hypothesized link or relationship to rape statistics (decreasing) and porn use (increasing). There is NO REASON to think this is connected.
You could just as well say that bitching about porn/rape has increased, therefore this is the reason rape has decreased. So all you cranky old feminists, keep at it, because we need to squash out the rapes.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
December 31, 2010 2:19 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Oh i love you man. You are like a parody of a person. Your logic is so fucking bad, I'm begining to wonder if you are not merely another run of the mill 20 something male alone groupie/tlp shut in basement dweller...now I"m wondering if you are having some kind of legit psychiatric episode. I've modified my slack jawed & drooling mental image to that of an eccentric skinny nut with unkempt beard/nails, disheveled clothing, with an odd tone of voice, odd uses of language/rate of speech, and other hallmarks of the burgeoning insane. Don't disappoint me, I've totally got leo dicaprio as a mentally decompensated howard hughes in my mind's eye.
Anyway, onward to your latest diarrhea mind dump of failed reasoning. Women and rape fantasy. Okay, yes, rape fantasy exists in some (not all) women... therefore, logically, women want to be rape, enjoy rape, and it is their utmost deepest wish to be raped.
Did you ever stop and think that maybe rape fantasy in women isn't so much a desire to be raped by some piece of shit psychopath, but is actually symbolic vs literal and much more complex than the simplistic bullshit conclusion you have reached?
Again, common sense: have you ever heard, anecdotally or otherwise, a woman confide " I was raped by this piece of shit, but I have to admit I have always wanted to be raped and really enjoyed it! Thank you, secret rapist man, for making my dreams come true!"
That has never ever fucking happened because real rape is not enjoyable and it is not a fantasy (for the victim). The "rape fantasy" women have is more about power and dominance in a consensual sexual act... much more like BDSM than anything like rape. As to why women often fantasize about power and dominance in their male partners, that is beyond obvious, and is like asking why men fantasize about big hips and breasts and youthful faces.
I can't even. I'm so totally done. GRRR.
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
December 31, 2010 2:31 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Hey, I've got an equally wacko theory as to why rape and violent crime are decreasing. COMPLACENCY. Today's young men are too fat and lazy from cheap corn and vegetable oil products to have the urge to steal, kill, and rape. Combined with numerous industrial chemicals (as well as obesity itself), many young men are now feminized apathetic sacks of dough perfectly content with sleeping on a bean bag chair with a playstation remote control in their generous thighs and gut, while chetos and coke polute the scene. It is absolutely a fact that obesity feminizes men, reduces free testosterone, increases estrogen, resulting in less aggression (thus hypothetically less murder/violence/rape).
Perhaps it's actually a good thing bisphenol A and shitty fast food is so common. Hypermasculine young men are no longer out doing what they do best: making trouble violating peoples rights and generally being sociopathic animals. ... and this is because hypermasculine are a lot less common now that the youth of today are a bunch of fat turds with man boobs.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
December 31, 2010 2:42 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You really are a fucking nut. Phytoestrogens from soybeans? Really? This is responsible for it all?
I do think there may be something to the fact that some component of modern living is causing endocrine/metabolic/physiologic dysfunction in modern humans, but it a) wont be confined to any solitary factor, b) definitely won't be something as god damn ridiculous as SOY BEANS.
With that said, if there really is a decrease in violent crimes (murder, rape)... I haven't verified this personally, merely speaking hypothetically assuming it is true... it's entirely plausable to relate the general declining health and lack of masculinity among young men (obesity) as being effective prophylaxis for aggressive criminal behavior. It's a simple observation testosterone increases drive, sex drive, and aggression. It's a simple observation obesity reduces testosterone in men (absolute sex steroid/testosterone output increases with insulin and body fat, but it is converted to estrogen and DHT by the body, which is responsible for man boobies and balding; high concentrations of estrogen in males result in SHBG being produced which actually makes testosterone less active, as a climbing estrogen level is the negative feedback inhibiting signal for testosterone production/activity in males, as high estrogen in a healthy male who is not eating corn and vegetable oil is always caused by making too much testosterone).
It very well may be that mountain dew and gigantic sacks of greasy french fries are the reason rape and murder has fallen out of favor amongst men. Hahaha, how ironic would it be that the very thing feminizing you (your porn-chips-pizza-soda-internet-playstation lifestyle) is the thing you cling to as symbolic of your masculinity (GRRR I PLAY VIDEO GAMES WITH TOUGH RUGGED MEN SHOOTING THINGS, AND I WATCH WOMEN WITH GIGANTIC SALINE BREASTS ON THE COMPUTER, THEREFORE I AM A MAAAAAN AND DONT YOU DARE TAKE AWAY MY GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO DO THIS BECAUSE I'M A MAAAAN AND THIS IS MY MAAANLINESS).
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 31, 2010 3:24 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You need to win some kind of award for being one of the most personality disordered psychos on this fucking blog, and that's saying a lot because we are a fucked up bunch.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
December 31, 2010 3:31 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Hahaha the lesbians being invented in the 1800s was my favorite part.
Is this guy manic or something? I am like watching a car crash and I just can't turn away even though I need to get off this idiot box.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
December 31, 2010 3:37 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Ahhh this comment gave it away. RK = david o'bedlam.
The whole gender bullshit was the deal sealer. I was suspecting it earlier int he discussion (given the hysterical and irrational borderline-like manner of reasoning, which is in line with D.O'B).
Man you're a nut. Get on medz, you need them, and I suspect you haven't taken them in awhile.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
December 31, 2010 4:15 AM | Posted by : | Reply
So, seriously... Who's the girl in the photo?
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
December 31, 2010 5:12 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Never mind, I should've just used the interwebs to work it out in the first place - she's Elin Grindemyr.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
December 31, 2010 6:12 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
See, you just needed to share your personal narrative - bingo, cured!
... now, about my fee ...
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 31, 2010 8:44 AM | Posted by : | Reply
nice response...i appreciate the extra details very much
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 31, 2010 2:15 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Of course there's sex drive invoked in rape, dumbass, but the main reason to rape is not sex drive unless the raper is literally mentally retarded and doesn't understand the concept of rape.
Saying rape is ONLY about sex is like saying wanting to be super crazy rich is only about money to buy food and shelter. I'd elucidate more but typing on my phone is really annoying.
Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
January 1, 2011 2:28 AM | Posted by : | Reply
No, a better example is this:
"saying rape is ONLY about sex is like saying wanting to be super crazy rich is only about wanting enough money to never work again and buy whatever you want... everyone knows the real reason people want to be super crazy rich is only to control people and it has nothing to do with a desire to not work/buy whatever you want whenever you want"
When posed this way, I think you agree that person is incorrect (the person arguing against the motives of the super crazy rich). It's beyond obvious people who crave huge amounts of wealth almost always are motivated by a gluttonous, extreme desire to indulge in material things whenever wherever and however they want to. Power over others is certainly another important factor, but materialism is the primary one, the one that ultimately makes them obsessed with money to this extent.
Your example is flawed because a desire to meet basic needs is common to all animals and humans, thus explains nothing. It would be like saying "a desire to be super crazy rich is about wanting to say alive". I mean, duh, who wants to die.
My example is better because only SOME humans are extremely materialistic (i.e. interested in owning lots of things, and the ability to own lots of things whenever they want to)... and this very specific drive is a crucial component of those who go into business and try to make lots of cash. Not all materialistic people are entrepreneurs (in the way that not all humans who have a high sex drive + are sexually attracted to young women are rapists), but it is a necessary component almost all who go into business. And it is the primary motivating factor for these people.
Let me give a better example.
A desire to escape/numb/escape your problems is a necessary prerequisite for being a drug addict. However, not ALL people who feel this way become drug addicts, because there are other crucial components required (such as: impulsivity, poor capacity to delay gratification, low harm avoidance, social factors). These other, unrelated personality characteristics are decisive in who does or does not end up a wasted emaciated junkie hooking on the corner with trackmarks up and down the arms with endocarditis and hep c. Even though these personality characteristics are instrumental in one becoming a wasted junkie, ultimately ALL JUNKIES were originally motivated and must require a desire to feel high, get high, escape reality, float on a cloud of chemical happiness and such. It is the HIGH that ultimately makes people use heroin, drives them to do it in the first place.
Rapists are like that. It isn't "about control", it is about sex (and control as well). To deny this is to deny reality, deny the animal kingdom, and shows a breathtaking capacity for social brainwashing. Though (most cases of) rape are ultimately about a guy wanting to have sex, sexual drive, urge... only a special sort of monster/cretin will become a rapist even though sexual attraction to young women is extremely common in men. You must be a psychopath. You must not care about other's pain or suffering. You must have an abnormal indifference to consequences of your behavior (i.e. low harm avoidance). You must have poor control over your urges and needs (i.e. poor impulse control).
So, ultimately, out of all the men in the world who eye up 16 year old, 20 year old, 22 year old girls walking down the street in dark places alone, only a very small percentage of men will behave like animals, because most men are not that animal like. Only some are.
And animals, as I stated, merely rape other animals when they feel sex feelings. When a dog picks up the pheromone cue that a queen is in heat, guess what? that dog starts trying to mount, even if she tries to run away. When an elephant seal wants to mate, he does not give a shit if he kills the (much smaller) female. Ducks have actually evolved elaborate genitalia because rape is such a problem in these creatures (i.e. male ducks are quite good at raping), so much is it a problem that it prevents females from being selective (as females need to be due to the nature of their reproductive strategy)... so it was actually selected for amongst females to have elaborate reproductive anatomy that escapes successful (i.e. reproductive) rape, which gives the female an advantage of choosing a more environmentally suitable partner.
It just really really really really really bothers me when brainwashed tools say rape has very little to do with sex. IT's a problem for two reasons.
One, it's simply untrue and it prevents society from effectively preventing rape (because if you believe rape has nothing to do with sex, interventions to deter rapists will not be effective). Ultimately we do realize rape is heavily motivated by sex, which is why severe/extreme sex criminals are often given chemical treatments to kill their sex drive. These treatments are effective when they are used. If the feminist social scientist retard crew would stop with the bullshit (that rape isn't about sex), maybe we could make such chemical castration treatments more common punishment to be used against those disgusting men who frequently rape women and children and men and boys (i.e. whoever they are sexually attracted to, which is usually women and little girls, but is also men and little boys sometimes if he is of a homosexual orientation). If chemical castration for sex offenders was more common of a practice, the rape rates would TANK overnight.
Two, the second reason this myth is offensive is because it prevents young women from protecting themselves. "Gee if rape isn't about sex, then it is perfectly alright for me to be flirty, wear tight clothes, get drunk at a frat party, and generally engage in irresponsible completely mind blowingly evolutionarily counterproductive dangerous behaviors...it's okay though because rape isn't about sex, so i can be as reckless as i want to be!"
But deep down we all know thats a bullshit lie (we all really do know rape is HUGELY about sex)... so when our teen daughter goes to college, we tell this girl don't drink strange drinks, do go places alone, don't get drunk with guys, always bring girlfriends with you at clubs and stay together, lock your doors and your windows at night, etc etc etc. We don't tell our teen son that, we don't tell our grandmothers that, we tell our TEENAGED FEMALE RELATIVES AND FRIENDS that because young girls are the victims of rape, almost all the time.
I mean, what are you trying to even prove? By "you" i mean the stupid brainwashed (usually women) who keep promoting this garbage idea? Is this your way of being equal with men - by pretending as if the sexual inequality between men and women isn't real? (sexual inequality - the fact that men are stronger, men desire sex more, men can take sex from women if they want to, and this is all evolutionarily logical for males).
It doesn't make you equal to say mind blowingly ridiculous things (that rape has nothing to do with sex)... it just makes you ridiculous, and it suggests that you feel so powerless and are so afraid of being powerless that you live in a bubble denial cloud world which everyone else but you can see is nonsense.
Score: 2 (8 votes cast)
January 1, 2011 10:46 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Everyone got stuck on the argument that porn reduces rape and maybe overall violence. But in the same post he argued that child porn will reduce child sexual abuse. Why didn't anyone point out that child porn REQUIRES child sexual abuse.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
January 1, 2011 12:36 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
because we assumed that he referred to drawings or cg generated pornography. At least we hope.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
January 1, 2011 12:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
medusa, I ask you to please at least consider that the power angle is pure, evil bullshit.
Rape is committed by evil or insane men who can't or don't want to control their urges.
The whole "rape is about power" is a convenient way for the feminist to say that raping is not about mental illness or pure evilness, but to say is a wide spread societal problem caused by society itself, and this is because society is male-centric, so it is the fault of all men, so feminist has another reason to justify its existance, so they can ask for funding, acquire influence and political power and so on.
Rape is, in a way, about power. It's about feminist power.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
January 1, 2011 12:58 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think the reason we didn't point out that child porn requires sexual abuse is because it's pretty obvious that richard k/david obedlam is a nutjob degenerate.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
January 1, 2011 12:58 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
yeah very nice and true. In hindsight even discussing it was wrong. Pornography as a cause for the reduction of rapes is clearly bullshit, and we have absolutely no data or other evidence to even consider it.
Mr Richard Pornography go fucking die or something ya fucking piece of shit scumbag child pornography watcher
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
January 2, 2011 12:53 AM | Posted by : | Reply
While on the subject of rape (rape being primarilyh about sex, the "control" theory being a social sciences feminist MYTH)... at this junction I would like to point out that chemical castration with progesterone is a fabulous cure for not only male sexual deviants, but also male violent criminals in general. Testosterone is the reason male animals are violent and oversexed, and it is also the reason male humans are sociopaths (thus violent oversexed impulsive selfish/lacking in concern for others). Killing and stealing and violating would come to a rock halt if we simply routinely depot injected high doses of progesterone into the muscles of criminals.
Stories abound of these disgusting pervert male criminals who cannot handle having testosterone in their bodies, who routinely rape and kill teenaged girls, children, and adult women. Also, males who are prone to violent aggressive behavior and attack, assault, and murder men and women do so out of their inability to handle having testosterone. Simple solution: DEPO-PROVERA. It may not work 100% but the evidence is clear it is hihgly effective.
Look at it this way. Men and women born with mental illnesses that produce psychosis are routinely, ROUTINELY forcibly injected with depot haldol and other strong antipsychotics. The risk profile for antipsychotics is equal to or WORSE than that of depot progesterone.
WHY THEN is this not a social policy? Why do we have such double standards, forcibly treating the mentally ill who are usually only a danger to themselves... but NOT forcibly treating the socially dysfunctional males among us who are a danger to our friends and families?
Few answers as I can see it:
1) Treating mental illness is big bucks and all htese fat worthless drug company ceos and physicians would be out of another gold walking stick if we didn't forcibly treat the mentally ill. However, treating criminals is far less profitable and only indirectly so (via politicans?) Therefore no one is heavily lobbying for treating criminals as if they had a disease, even though evidence suggests their brains are fucked up just like crazy people.
2) Men set social policies. Men would not and will not accept a treatment which eliminates masculinity in a person. A very few intelligent forward thinking men do, but MOST men are reflexively adverse to any policy which essentially amounts to killing ones testicles.
No one is looking at criminality (murder rape assault molestation) as a male specific disorder, strongly related to male hormones. The male policymakers do not see it from this perspective as they themselves are male. Therefore, very few people are thinking chemical castration cure for criminality, because most people trying to reduce crime are themselves males.
Just as craziness is related to abnormal regulated dopamine/serotonergic activity, criminality especially sex crimes and violent crime is strongly related to testosterone activity. If we forcibly inject haldol into the arms of crazy people who have hurt no one but themselves, it's not at all unreasonable to castrate a disgusting pedophile, a man who rapes teenage girls, a man who has killed 10 people on different occasions, etc.
These people have forfeited their right to live in free society, and have demonstrated they cannot handle having a male endocrine profile, so it's only reasonable that society prevent these deviants from hurting more people.
Score: -6 (10 votes cast)
January 2, 2011 3:44 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Why waste money on prolonged treatment? One well-placed bullet or one big injection of a barbiturate will fix an asshole forever, and we can always use the carcasses to feed pigs and zoo animals. There are too many people infesting my planet anyway.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
January 2, 2011 6:43 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You know what, I would rather have you raped to death and then raped again than let you and the psychos who think like you go around injecting chemical stuff into males before they even have committed a crime.
Testosterone is the CAUSE of crime? That's so blatantly stupid and without any kind of verifiable science behind it. Seriously what the fuck do you know about testosterone or what bring someone to commit a crime, whore?
And, if someone commit a crime, let's just incarcerate or sentence him to death. What the fuck is your problem with you and your elaborate castration fantasies?
Seriously, go get raped whore
Score: 0 (6 votes cast)
January 2, 2011 1:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Where the fuck did you come up with this bullshit and what motivates you to come up with this twisted fucking fantasy you little bitch?
If you are a male, you are either a troll or a mangina. If you are female then you are nothing but damaged goods who hates men and blames men for all your problems. Either way, I have no tolerance for people like you. Go fuck yourself.
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
January 2, 2011 4:04 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Speaking of shame...it's a shame that TLP's comment section has been consistently devolving into juvenile and hostile ad hominem attacks. Apparently some people think this is equivalent to Alone's snark, it isn't. There's a difference between being a troll and a provocateur. From what I've read, Alone is a provocateur. He's not actually advocating you think the same as he does (or at least doesn't seem to be), he's trying to get you and I to think for ourselves. Trolls do the opposite, they use ad hominem attacks and hostility/derision in a way that is emotional and reactionary - it's a strategy that's intended to make someone emotional and defensive and to shut down rational thought. Too bad, Alone's got some interesting (if not entirely original) ideas that would benefit from intelligent discussion (as do most interesting ideas).
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
January 2, 2011 11:59 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
3:44,
The problem with killing worthless people is that it is really hard to get the wishy washy whiners among us to go along with it. I am TOTALLY in favor of shooting pedophiles, rapists, and murders in the head, unfortunately we have a lot of sheltered punks who can't stomach the thought of increasing the rate of people put to death.
On the other hand chemical castration is something that one day could actually pass as policy, assuming the hippies among us were sufficiently reducated. All it takes if pharma bucks to reframe violent/sexual criminality as a disease/disorder strongly related to testosterone levels in certain people's brain, the way psychosis in schizophrenia is considered a disease/disorder caused by a chemical imbalance. Everyone is on board for forcing crazy people to take their depot neuroleptics because it's a "chemical imbalance" caused by too much dopamine and serotonin, right? We just need some commercials for new depot progesterone treatments and androgen blockers, and a few cute graphics showing testosterone activity in the brain resulting in crazed behavior in animals and people... viola, now criminality is a disease and people can totally accept the treatment.
Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
January 3, 2011 7:25 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"Everyone is on board for forcing crazy people to take their depot neuroleptics because it's a "chemical imbalance" caused by too much dopamine and serotonin, right?"
No, not everyone is on board with that.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
January 4, 2011 12:20 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
6:43 ...
You're really nuts and fucked up and didn't read anything I wrote apparently (injecting stuff into men who havent even commeted a crime? wha...?)
But one thing did come across clear fomr your response: you want to rape someone to death, and then rape the corpse. Which suggests you are one of the males with this unfortunate disorder (sexual deviancy, hyperaggressive behavior) and will probably one day end up destroying the gi/urinary tract and murdering an infant via violent rape, beat your spouse, rape a child, jerk off to child porn, etc etc etc. You show strong signs of being a male deviant.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
January 5, 2011 8:27 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
See, I understood your point very well the first time: you want to castrate men on the basis of your fucked up diagnosis. I know you didn't write that explicitly, but it is what you meant (and what you mean) and you know it.
You are judging me as a deviant from a short post I made on the Internet. That's your criteria for choosing eligibles for castration? Also the real deviant is you, the one who is fantasising about mass scale castration.
I don't want to rape or kill anyone, much less rape a corpse (while you would have men castrated for your insane complexes and manias). I just think that if I have to choose between your insane fantasy and you being raped to death, I would obviously choose the latter.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
January 5, 2011 8:32 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"and will probably one day end up destroying the gi/urinary tract and murdering an infant via violent rape, beat your spouse, rape a child, jerk off to child porn, etc etc etc. You show strong signs of being a male deviant."
Do you fantasise about this much, whore? Maybe that's why you are so paranoid about men, you are scared that we are as fucked up as you are, hence the paranoia.
What a miserable, crazy whore you are
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
January 5, 2011 8:36 AM | Posted by : | Reply
maybe I should not call you a whore. I have nothing against them actually. And there is nothing inherently bad in being a whore. The right words for you are insane, pathetic, piece of shit, deranged. Do the world a favor and die.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
January 5, 2011 8:37 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Really, people, have you no better way to spend your time than arguing with strangers?
I say 'people' - I'm assuming there's more than one of you still posting, but you're all 'Anonymous' so who knows?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 5, 2011 2:35 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Dear Dan,
The truth of the matter is that you're my imaginary friend.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
January 5, 2011 3:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Aw thanks, that's great - it's been so hard for me to make friends since I became a solipsist.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 1, 2011 3:50 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"Morality is your agreement with yourself to abide by your own rules."
-R.A.H.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 3, 2011 6:31 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"Instead, they've convinced themselves, after 4 decades of life, that they deserve to be happy, that their happiness is more important than anything."
Or, as you always point out, the media have convinced them ...
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 12, 2011 11:20 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"The more laws you have, the less relevant guilt becomes." True statement, backed up by research. And I'm not a cynical person, but the enactment of laws almost asks people to find ways to subvert them, whereas an internal moral code, once invoked, begs to be obeyed.
That said, the distinction of feeling either guilt or shame is artificial--I know for certain that guilt and shame can coexist--and for many the shame is the less bearable of the two. It seems to me that the story, as it were, is for the storytellers, told as a means to discharge their guilt--yes, perhaps.
But making the self-justification public really serves as a means to protect oneself from the judgment of others. These folks either have no guilt to being with--because, after all, they know their story and it all makes perfect sense to them--or they seek to mediate their guilt by creating some positive reflection in their narcissistic gazing pool. "If I don't have to be ashamed (because I have at least some support from some people), I can hold my head up and assuage those nagging feelings that might otherwise keep me awake at night."
I was in a terrible marriage and had a terrible affair--wait for it--with our marriage counselor. The psychologist still has his license, in spite of the fact that our affair hit the local papers more than one time, in part because I refused to tell the story of how horrible my marriage had been. I guess the thinking was that since I refused to make myself the victim, there was a lesser crime. I could have self-justified--others even tried to do this for me, focusing on the "well, he..." story line about both my husband and the shrink--but I knew that no matter what the rest of the story was, my moral was not right.
I felt tremendous guilt and tremendous shame--as well I should have. But I could still hold my head up in the presence of my G-d because I didn't try to avoid feeling either of those things. Redemption can't come from a court of law, nor can it be reflected on us from the shallow waters of sympathy. True redemption can only truly come from taking responsibility for ourselves, making amends for what we have done, and making better choices the next time.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 16, 2012 3:38 AM | Posted by : | Reply
OK, I did not actually read this post. I scanned it. I didn't read the Epstein post either (I have no real idea who he is, which apparently is a total blessing as he sounds totally gross and creepy). I have met people who just literally don't get the why no incest thing- it is astonishing. But what I really want to say is: why do the people who complain about society's taboos want the approval of society for their sexuality? That's more bizarre than anything. I mean, apparently they're racy and hip and individualistic and whatnot, so why the contradictory need for society's seal of approval in any way? So convoluted it hurts my head.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 16, 2012 5:15 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"but MOST men are reflexively adverse to any policy which essentially amounts to killing ones testicles," you write.
Uh, duh!
Funny.
As a general rule, I'd also bet that most "crazy people" aren't getting haloperidol forcibly injected into their arms. Generally it really is the danger to others/danger to self people in an acute situation. And then I believe it is not usually (only) haloperidol. I offer my sympathy if you have been inappropriately medicated, I really do. I'm basing this observation (that most people getting forcibly medicated actually need it) on two things: I was at one time a diagnosed schizophrenic and I've worked in healthcare or lived with healthcare professionals most of my adult life. I should clarify: the healthcare professionals I've lived with have been either family members or boyfriends. I've never been institutionalized unless you count hospital stays that average about a week. I've only been an involuntary admit once and it did suck and was humiliating to have control stripped away like that when I thought I was functioning well enough. The ultimate blow was probably when they *made* me put on a hospital gown--- that was when I really felt completely degraded. I could see their reasoning but I cried and stopped speaking to my therapist except in one-word responses--it is sorta funny now, I was acting like a preteen dealing with parents. I also sort of hid under a blanket and basically howled. I also, since my shrink offered, made her stay with me for the entire time it took them to register me in E.R. and then square me away on the psych unit (it took hours). And she had to visit me every day I was there, she had to sit on a chair reiterating that she did not want this to "hurt the theraputic alliance," while I basically ignored her. So I think I kind of understand "crazy." (If that seems like where you might be coming from). In a way, I'm pleased that I went through all of it, partly because I know most "normal/sane/average" people harbor a pretty deep fear of either being crazy or being perceived as crazy. (This fear, in a paradoxical way, makes them crazier). I don't have that fear as much. Because I've been through it repeatedly and, guess what? I'm still here.
Sometimes the meds, if nothing else, sort of give a person a rest break from having to deal. It seems to me it takes more energy to wrestle with the craziness. So much energy, so exhausting. Big fight.
But you know, I'm being really subjective and I have no clue about you at all, really. It's just four a.m., my insomnia is terrible, and you know, I read these posts and kind of feel better about myself, like I might know *something*.
It's sort of like an experiment: what if? What if I have more sanity than I thought, for example.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
February 16, 2012 5:49 AM | Posted by : | Reply
you know what's funny?
OK, the woman who wants to give (some?) men depo-provera sounds like she's coming from a bad place.
but the men who so strongly object to her post:
they do so in such a vile manner that, ironically, they make her idea sound, I don't know, reasonable. Desirable. And, overall, fair enough.
I mean, really.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
February 16, 2012 6:23 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
oh, crud. Sorry, but remembered a couple things. One is, the events described (involuntary hospitalization) were not EVEN my low point, really. Just to be really clear, there was a probably-typical nasty psychotic break that was building for a long time, except I was framing it as a religious experience. Hallucinations, delusions blah blah. I could say a ton but I won't, except whooo, it sucked bigtime. And the second thing is, doctors have this irritating tendency of needing to frame everything according to, well, doctor logic (go figure) (LOL) and having been around it for a long time, to the point that I sometimes anticipate what they're going to say or think, I wanted to clarify that none of this was drug-induced. Or more to the point, I didn't improve because I stopped using (I never used); there are still doctors out there who make assumptions and then shut you (me) out based on what are basically their own cognitive or emotional limitations. This is very damaging to doctors and patients, both. I needed to clarify.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
March 13, 2012 2:18 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"This is what we will all be doing, the internet as confessional and for the remission of sins."
My late father-in-law said ten years ago that Jerry Springer is the secular world's attempt to replace the confessional. I never met him, but I know he was a great man because he raised a great daughter (with the help of a great wife).
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 11, 2012 11:20 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
if that would be true, wouldn't pornography also reduce the number of people having sex at all?
Thailand's power-brokers clearly believe this is true.
1.1 million women in the Thai sex industry. Every single streaming video porn site blocked by MICT.
Guys staying at home watching porn is very bad for business.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 31, 2015 2:50 PM | Posted by : | Reply
but he has learned you think all people are evil. Enjoy their adolescence.
Was Alone the misanthrope writing a note to self there?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Comments