SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
I came across this piece on Scott Adam's blog and found it quite interesting. Thought others here might find it interesting too:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/133406477506/global-gender-war#_=_
So if you are wondering how men become cold-blooded killers, it isn't religion that is doing it. If you put me in that situation, I can say with confidence I would sign up for suicide bomb duty. And I'm not even a believer. Men like hugging better than they like killing. But if you take away my access to hugging, I will probably start killing, just to feel something. I'm designed that way. I'm a normal boy. And I make no apology for it.
Now consider the controversy over the Syrian immigrants. The photos show mostly men of fighting age. No one cares about adult men, so a 1% chance of a hidden terrorist in the group – who might someday kill women and children – is unacceptable. I have twice blogged on the idea of siphoning out the women and small kids from the Caliphate and leaving millions of innocent adult men to suffer and die. I don't recall anyone complaining about leaving millions of innocent adult males to horrible suffering. In this country, any solution to a problem that involves killing millions of adult men is automatically on the table.
If you kill infidels, you will be rewarded with virgins in heaven. But if you kill your own leaders today – the ones holding the leash on your balls – you can have access to women tomorrow. And tomorrow is sooner.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2015, @11:58PM
Maybe he should stay with the safe environment of Dilbert. Otherwise, he's bound to say something that a SJW of any dogma will take exception to.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jdavidb on Saturday November 21 2015, @12:54AM
I'm not a SJW, and I took exception to some of it, actually. For one thing he really seems to promulgate a feeling of men being entitled to sex. In practice that doesn't really work - if sex is not something that both he and she are enthusiastic about, then there's going to be resentment afterward. And that's the best case scenario. Take this attitude of entitlement too far and you really are moving towards rape.
FYI, Scott, married people have sex more often than single people.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @01:22AM
Scott Adams is single _and_ gay? Wow, the things you find out on SoylentNews!
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Saturday November 21 2015, @01:25AM
Indeed. If you carry that further, you have to conclude that religious fanatics are by definition incapable of meaningful long lasting adult relationships based on equality. They may claim to know the true meaning of life, but they actually are destined to never know it.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:06AM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:37AM
Aw you are ruining his *idea* of what someone who is religious is like. Shame on you! /sarc
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:39AM
He seems to be a rational person, I clicked some links and I didn't see any religious fanatic stuff there. But basing one's beliefs on religion means one isn't rational. Unless he's rationally come to that equality conviction and searched for some religious text afterward to stick it to.
That's the other way around of what I was trying to say. Religious fanatics to me are people who are "philosophically challenged" and blindly base their behavior on some ancient book. People who need an ancient book to test their thoughts against are just "philosophically hindered". People who don't need religion at all are philosophically liberated.
I hope that came out right, English is not my first language.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:48AM
It came out quite well, I think - your English is probably better than most USians.
Religious fanatic is probably a term that means something slightly different to everybody. I'd call myself a fanatic, but not many would willingly accept that term. As to whether I'm rational or not, you be the judge. I'm probably not rational all the time, regardless. :)
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @07:00AM
your English is probably better than most USians
USians
Yours sucks though.
Since we are making up new terms for other people do I get to call you an Eurian? (Say it out loud for best effect.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:27PM
Yours sucks though.
Why? Did you not understand what he meant? I can make up any term I want; that's the nature of language. Those who don't realize that language evolves are left in the dust. I only consider it a problem when someone communicates in a way that is not understandable, which defeats the purpose.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 21 2015, @04:48AM
"People who need an ancient book to test their thoughts against are just "philosophically hindered"."
So, uhhh, where do philosophers get their ideas?
Plato
Aristotle
Descartes
Marx
Kant
Epicurus
Neitsche
Kierkegaard
Aquinas
Locke
Socrates
Augustine of Hippo
Hume
Heraclitus
Foulcaut
Russel
Spinoza
I guess the presumption is that mankind has developed philosophy just in the past 100 years or so, in the spare time between creating airplanes and automobiles and the internet.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday November 21 2015, @06:22AM
You put Spinoza after Russell, and misspelled Lord Russell? It is not the books, Runaway, it is being about to read them, understand them, engage the arguments, and form your own philosophical position. Argumentum ad Auctoritas not allowed. Aristotle was wrong about a few things, after all.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 21 2015, @06:53AM
We're all wrong about a few things, after all. Understanding that you are not always right, and that there are legitimate, alternative points of view is what prevents many of us from just gunning down the idiots who argue against us.
I'm reminded of something I read somewhere - something like, "You're allowed to be stupid, but please, stop abusing the privilege." Note - I don't mean that to be taken personally.
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Saturday November 21 2015, @10:30AM
I knew I wasn't fully clear but couldn't find better wording yesterday. Try this instead: "people who need an ancient book to categorize their thoughts are philosophically hindered". They have free thoughts but only allow those thoughts that they can interpret the book to match with. The list of people you mentioned allowed themselves to think outside the box and develop new ideas, and are still remembered for that. I got the realization that all people are basically equal at a young age, for me personally that was a philosophical breakthrough. Ditching religion was the next. But sadly not everyone in this world allows themselves this freedom of thought.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @01:31AM
The offending section FTFA
I don't see entitlement, I see honesty. If my girl has a headache, is cold, not in the mood or what ever, no amount of begging will get me anything more than a disgruntled hand-job, nor would I want it anymore. You're right about sex and the need for consent, but there's not even one inkling of rape in that whole article, unless you count wild adolescent hormones as rape-ish. In this messed up world, there are many more important things to be legitimately upset about that don't involve berating a man for making a blog post and speaking his mind on how he sees the world. SJWs please look elsewhere.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jdavidb on Saturday November 21 2015, @01:51AM
It's that first sentence that I take issue with: "When we get home, access to sex is strictly controlled by the woman." Of course access to sex is and should be strictly controlled by the woman. Sex shouldn't happen unless they are both enthusiastic about it. In that sense it's "strictly controlled," by both of them, but of course typically the man is much more likely to be enthusiastic. Of course that isn't always the case - sometimes she is enthusiastic and he is not! (I'm sure it happened somewhere at least once in the last millennium.)
Sex should absolutely happen in an environment and relationship that makes the woman feel enthusiastic about sex. If that's not the case, then the relationship ought to be adjusted until she's enthusiastic. It's for the happiness and the emotional health of all concerned. Sex usually has a lot less emotional repercussions for a man than a woman. She shouldn't have to deal with negative emotional repercussions simply because he's not dedicated enough to her to learn how to construct an environment and relationship that makes her feel enthusiastic about sex. He ought to care for her this much, at least. If he doesn't want to do that, prostitutes and porn are out there.
If a woman doesn't want to set the bar as high as I'm describing, that's certainly her choice. But many women find that they are very unhappy if they have sex when they are not enthusiastic. And in most cases, if he invests some time and effort in learning to meet her emotional needs, he can create a relationship in which she continues to be enthusiastic about sex long term.
Nobody should have to give up control in a relationship. Not the man and not the woman. The sentence about access to sex being strictly controlled by the woman indicates that Scott Adams feels that the woman should give up some of that control for the man's benefit. This is just a bad idea for any issue in a relationship (not just sex), and when you start using words that can be taken to mean that a woman should give up control over her body, you are getting into an area where you are going to get a lot of negative emotional reactions from most normal women, not to mention complete vitriol from some who are into activism and the hopeless cause of straightening out everybody in the world.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday November 21 2015, @01:02PM
This is some of the most overtly misandrist dribble I've seen in a while. Of course women should be giving up some of that power, they shouldn't have had it in the first place!
What you're describing is domestic violence. Wholehearted consent isn't the standard here, the question is whether or not both parties are willing to consent. Unless both parties require about the same amount of sex, the low demand partner is going to have to agree to some sex that they aren't enthusiastic about for the health of the marriage.
It's way too common for women to be mad about something and use that as an excuse to punish the husband by withholding sex. That's abuse and there's really no other way of looking at it. It's not something that the husband can really defend against other than by seeking a divorce.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Saturday November 21 2015, @01:24PM
Unless both parties require about the same amount of sex, the low demand partner is going to have to agree to some sex that they aren't enthusiastic about for the health of the marriage.
Do you have any actual credentials or studies? I'm going by the experience and research of this marriage counselor [marriagebuilders.com] who has helped save marriages for decades. In his words, regarding statements like this, "It's dangerous stuff you are recommending. It ruins marriages."
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday November 22 2015, @12:36PM
Are you seriously arguing that sex isn't for bonding as well as making babies? There's at on of research evidence out there that oxytocin levels spike during and immediately after sex and oxytocin itself is primarily about bonding people together. Not to mention the resentment from somebody holding out.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/love-and-gratitude/201310/oxytocin-the-love-and-trust-hormone-can-be-deceptive [psychologytoday.com]
There are serious problems associated with long periods of time without sex.
http://www.articlesbase.com/womens-health-articles/effects-of-celibacy-454770.html [articlesbase.com]
Also, that link has nothing to do with the passage you quoted.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Sunday November 22 2015, @12:49PM
Are you seriously arguing that sex isn't for bonding as well as making babies?
No.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Sunday November 22 2015, @12:53PM
There are serious problems associated with long periods of time without sex.
There are also serious problems for a woman if she has sex when she is not enthusiastic about it, so since a man needs sex it would behoove him to learn how to create a relationship and environment that leads to her being enthusiastic about sex.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:33PM
Unless both parties require about the same amount of sex, the low demand partner is going to have to agree to some sex that they aren't enthusiastic about for the health of the marriage.
I wonder why these discussions are always about marriage. The exact same thing could be said if you just replaced that word with "relationship". Marriage is just a silly social ritual that some people seem to believe is magic; I see little reason to assume that it's an inevitability in a relationship or that it will magically improve everything.
That's abuse and there's really no other way of looking at it.
Controlling your own body is abusing someone else? You're not entitled to sex in the first place. If someone doesn't consent to having sex with you, you have not lost anything, so there's no conceivable way withholding sex could qualify as "abuse".
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Sunday November 22 2015, @01:45AM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Sunday November 22 2015, @01:47AM
Controlling your own body is abusing someone else? You're not entitled to sex in the first place.
Yes, exactly! In Dr. Harley's nomenclature, to engage in abuse, you have to actually do something. Not doing something is not abuse, and in fact he encourages you to not do something in your relationship if you are not enthusiastic about it.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday November 22 2015, @12:23PM
Withholding is an action you engage in in this context. Not having sex because you're physically unable is one thing, not having sex to control the other person is quite a different thing.
And yes, withholding sex definitely is a form of abuse. You see it on TV all the time being used as abuse and nobody seems to care. But, anytime you're doing something to take power from somebody else and use it to control them, that is abuse. If Dr. Harley is arguing otherwise, then he's a fucking moron that ought to have his license revoked because that's not competent psychological treatment.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Sunday November 22 2015, @12:54PM
If Dr. Harley is arguing otherwise, then he's a fucking moron that ought to have his license revoked because that's not competent psychological treatment.
The thing is, his approach leads to a happy relationship with lots of sex, whereas the approach of calling your wife or girlfriend an abuser or otherwise lecturing her for not having sex with you leads to loneliness and sexual frustration.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @01:56AM
How is sex strictly controlled by the woman? A man could 'control' access to sex simply by not consenting. You have just as much power as she does, as both need to consent. And there is no issue with this.
With that said, if you don't want to comply with silly gender norms, then don't.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:17AM
Not me. Married 30+ years. No sex or even touch for 4 years. Life is gray.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:22AM
Hey, is that you, Scott Adams? Hey everybody! Scott Adams is a Soylentil! What an honor! Or maybe not.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:37AM
Send an email to this counselor [soylentnews.org] and he may be able to help you find out how to turn that around.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday November 21 2015, @04:52AM
I'm not a SJW, and I took exception to some of it, actually. For one thing he really seems to promulgate a feeling of men being entitled to sex.
I think the last half of your sentence gives the lie to the first part. I didn't see any sense of entitlement. Expectations are NOT the same of entitlement, in in general most humans can expect sex now and then.
His general tenant is
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Islam doesn’t look so dangerous in countries where women can vote.
Some of you guys seem to get side-tracked with the small supporting details that he provides, and loose site of the big picture.
His basic tenant is rather insightful. And his conclusion is equally insightful. It has nothing to do with pay equality.
The problem is that wherever Muslims become anything over X% (and X is arguably somewhere between 20% to 50%) women lose their rights to vote, and many other rights. If not legally, then by force of males. (Even in the US, many Muslim women vote exactly as their male relatives instruct them, or not at all. Its one of the major problems with Vote by Mail. It often becomes Vote by Male.)
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Informative) by NoMaster on Saturday November 21 2015, @05:32AM
That's 4 off the top of my head where the fact that women have held ministerial / leadership positions suggests your blanket statement is a load of shit.
Live free or fuck off and take your naïve Libertarian fantasies with you...