Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Scott Adams is a cowardly douchebag.

Mar 25, 2011#1

AshburnerX

Here's a post that Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) wrote, posted, then deleted March 7th on his blog. It doesn't just insult Women and their ongoing march towards equality by comparing them to children and the disabled, it also insults Men and a few of their legitimate complaints about how the system treats them. I have NO idea what is wrong with him, but I've lost a lot of respect for the man.

Scott Adams wrote this post today, March 7 2011, on his blog and then deleted it.
The topic my readers most want me to address is something called men’s rights. (See previous post.) This is a surprisingly good topic. It’s dangerous. It’s relevant. It isn’t overdone. And apparently you care.

Let’s start with the laundry list.

According to my readers, examples of unfair treatment of men include many elements of the legal system, the military draft in some cases, the lower life expectancies of men, the higher suicide rates for men, circumcision, and the growing number of government agencies that are primarily for women.

You might add to this list the entire area of manners. We take for granted that men should hold doors for women, and women should be served first in restaurants. Can you even imagine that situation in reverse?

Generally speaking, society discourages male behavior whereas female behavior is celebrated. Exceptions are the fields of sports, humor, and war. Men are allowed to do what they want in those areas.

Add to our list of inequities the fact that women have overtaken men in college attendance. If the situation were reversed it would be considered a national emergency.

How about the higher rates for car insurance that young men pay compared to young women? Statistics support this inequity, but I don’t think anyone believes the situation would be legal if women were charged more for car insurance, no matter what the statistics said.

Women will counter with their own list of wrongs, starting with the well-known statistic that women earn only 80 cents on the dollar, on average, compared to what men earn for the same jobs. My readers will argue that if any two groups of people act differently, on average, one group is likely to get better results. On average, men negotiate pay differently and approach risk differently than women.

Women will point out that few females are in top management jobs. Men will argue that if you ask a sample group of young men and young women if they would be willing to take the personal sacrifices needed to someday achieve such power, men are far more likely to say yes. In my personal non-scientific polling, men are about ten times more likely than women to trade family time for the highest level of career success.

Now I would like to speak directly to my male readers who feel unjustly treated by the widespread suppression of men’s rights:

Get over it, you bunch of pussies.

The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone. You don’t argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn’t eat candy for dinner. You don’t punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first. And you don’t argue when a women tells you she’s only making 80 cents to your dollar. It’s the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles.

How many times do we men suppress our natural instincts for sex and aggression just to get something better in the long run? It’s called a strategy. Sometimes you sacrifice a pawn to nail the queen. If you’re still crying about your pawn when you’re having your way with the queen, there’s something wrong with you and it isn’t men’s rights.

Fairness is an illusion. It’s unobtainable in the real world. I’m happy that I can open jars with my bare hands. I like being able to lift heavy objects. And I don’t mind that women get served first in restaurants because I don’t like staring at food that I can’t yet eat.

If you’re feeling unfairly treated because women outlive men, try visiting an Assisted Living facility and see how delighted the old ladies are about the extra ten years of pushing the walker around. It makes dying look like a bargain.

I don’t like the fact that the legal system treats men more harshly than women. But part of being male is the automatic feeling of team. If someone on the team screws up, we all take the hit. Don’t kid yourself that men haven’t earned some harsh treatment from the legal system. On the plus side, if I’m trapped in a burning car someday, a man will be the one pulling me out. That’s the team I want to be on.

I realize I might take some heat for lumping women, children and the mentally handicapped in the same group. So I want to be perfectly clear. I’m not saying women are similar to either group. I’m saying that a man’s best strategy for dealing with each group is disturbingly similar. If he’s smart, he takes the path of least resistance most of the time, which involves considering the emotional realities of other people. A man only digs in for a good fight on the few issues that matter to him, and for which he has some chance of winning. This is a strategy that men are uniquely suited for because, on average, we genuinely don’t care about 90% of what is happening around us.

Mar 25, 2011#2

Zappit

Is that for real - he wasn't hacked? Cuz that's overboard even for Scott Adams. Damn revealing if it is, though.

Mar 25, 2011#3

Gusto

Zappit said:
Is that for real - he wasn't hacked? Cuz that's overboard even for Scott Adams. Damn revealing if it is, though.

There have been blogs that discuss or repost his blog, and someone claiming to be him has shown up to defend them, saying "they're for Dilbert readers, who are smarter" [paraphrase].

Mar 25, 2011#4

AshburnerX

Zappit said:
Is that for real - he wasn't hacked? Cuz that's overboard even for Scott Adams. Damn revealing if it is, though.

If someone as tech savvy as he is was hacked, then why isn't he saying that? Instead he's pretending it never happened.

Mar 25, 2011#5

MindDetective

He addresses some interesting and valid points in a very douchebaggy manner, that's for sure.

Mar 25, 2011#6

Gusto

MindDetective said:
He addresses some interesting and valid points in a very douchebaggy manner, that's for sure.

Really? Because it seemed to me that he blamed men's higher suicide rates on women, in a roundabout way.

Mar 25, 2011#7

AshburnerX

Gusto said:
Really? Because it seemed to me that he blamed men's higher suicide rates on women, in a roundabout way.

Not to mentioned he calls them pussys for wanting equal treatment in the eyes of the law. No one should have to feel singled out by the law.

Mar 25, 2011#8

Chibibar

Ok, I am all about women's right and everything, but I don't see the "wrong" in what he is saying.
This is what I see. Men uses strategy to make their lives easier. Men are punish harder because other men screw up and thus we all take a hit. Men are "likely" to be "money successful" because they are willing to sacrifice everything for it (this is not necessary a good thing cause I rather be happy than successful)

this is just a personal observation and interpretation of Scott Adam.
Added at: 17:00

AshburnerX said:
Not to mentioned he calls them pussys for wanting equal treatment in the eyes of the law. No one should have to feel singled out by the law.

To my understanding, he is calling the men a bunch of pussy

Mar 25, 2011#9

AshburnerX

That really doesn't make it any better or excuse the misogyny.

Mar 25, 2011#10

MindDetective

Gusto said:
Really? Because it seemed to me that he blamed men's higher suicide rates on women, in a roundabout way.

They certainly weren't all valid and interesting points.

Mar 25, 2011#11

Steve

Scott, is that really the topic most of your readers want you to address? As a man I never thought it was unfair that I hold a door open for a woman nor have I gotten upset at not being served first. Scott, you are a douchebag.

Mar 25, 2011#12

Mathias

Uh... he's telling whiny men to shut the hell up. I don't see what the problem is.

I think the people pissed at him need to learn to read a little bit better.

That said, Scott Adams is a big horse's ass. But he's my kind of horse's ass.

Mar 25, 2011#13

Cajungal

I have to admit, I was expecting to be more shocked. It was obnoxious to read, but I suppose I was expecting worse.

Mar 25, 2011#14

Mathias

Cajungal said:
I have to admit, I was expecting to be more shocked. It was obnoxious to read, but I suppose I was expecting worse.

I wasn't shocked. His overall message was men and women are different; get over it.

Mar 25, 2011#15

Krisken

Cajungal said:
I have to admit, I was expecting to be more shocked. It was obnoxious to read, but I suppose I was expecting worse.

Especially from Scott Adams.

Mar 25, 2011#16

figmentPez

Mathias said:
Uh... he's telling whiny men to shut the hell up. I don't see what the problem is.

"Now I would like to speak directly to my male readers who feel unjustly treated by the widespread suppression of men’s rights.
Get over it, you bunch of pussies."

Not "to those who won't shut up", not "to those who are vocal about" but to those who feel unjustly treated by the suppression of their rights. I'd say any class that has had their rights suppressed has reason to feel unjustly treated.

But I suppose it's possible to read that sentence, not as it's written, but as it was likely intended, that they only feel their rights have been suppressed, but in actuality haven't been.

Mar 25, 2011#17

Mathias

figmentPez said:
"Now I would like to speak directly to my male readers who feel unjustly treated by the widespread suppression of men’s rights.
Get over it, you bunch of pussies."

Not "to those who won't shut up", not "to those who are vocal about" but to those who feel unjustly treated by the suppression of their rights. I'd say any class that has had their rights suppressed has reason to feel unjustly treated.

But I suppose it's possible to read that sentence, not as it's written, but as it was likely intended, that they only feel their rights have been suppressed, but in actuality haven't been.

meh, this is now getting into that 90% realm.

Mar 25, 2011#18

figmentPez

Mathias said:
meh, this is now getting into that 90% realm.

You mean where I'm 90% right?

Mar 26, 2011#19

strawman

He's a comedian and entertainer. If you heard this script from some stand up comic, perhaps with a bit more stage flair, timing, and rephrasing to make it suitable for that venue, then you'd probably laugh about it and move on.

Why are you taking it so seriously? Have you read his other blog posts?

When he says "it was meant for smarter readers" he's just making fun of the people who chose to be offended.

Yes, some comedy is offensive. A lot of people were offended by PA's d!ckwolves.

The fact that he's removed the blog post indicates that he is listening, and that the message some people got out of it was not a message he was willing to stand by and support.

molehill --> MOUNTAIN

Mar 26, 2011#20

Espy

So now I'm confused. Am I supposed to hate Scott Adams or not?

Mar 26, 2011#21

Krisken

Espy said:
So now I'm confused. Am I supposed to hate Scott Adams or not?

I say go back to ignoring him like you had been. Well, like almost everyone had been.

Mar 26, 2011#22

Cajungal

*puts away crate full of pitchfork* Aw, shucks.

Mar 26, 2011#23

Espy

Krisken said:
I say go back to ignoring him like you had been. Well, like almost everyone had been.

THANK YOU. Now, if you don't mind I'm heading back to the Rebacca Black "Friday" thread to find something really horrible to hate.

Mar 26, 2011#24

makare

A lot of people think that same kind of stupid shit they are just smart enough not to write it down for all to see. They just say it to their friends who are either stupid like they are and agree or they roll their eyes. Damn internet.

Mar 26, 2011#25

strawman

Well, quite frankly, it's an interesting topic. There are doubtless a number of research papers that discuss our culture from an anthropological standpoint in the same way - the reason they are inoffensive is because they don't make moral judgments about the observations they've made - they simply report how the society works, theorize as to how it may have evolved into the current state, try to detect trends, and compare it to other cultures.

But you know at the faculty mixer's they're totally bashing [group or ethnicity].

Mar 26, 2011#26

Krisken

Wait, was he writing a sociology paper? He's missing his sources and stuff.

Mar 26, 2011#27

strawman

Oh, he's missing a lot more than just his sources.

:rimshot:

Mar 27, 2011#28

Covar

I read this thread title as Scott Kurtz, and am disappointed.

That said, I question why people are taking this seriously and have ever read stuff from Scott Adams. Or are we supposed to assume that he was being dead serious when he suggested that the rich should be able to pay higher taxes to gain the right to park in handicap spots?

Mar 27, 2011#29

strawman

Scott Adams made fun of big business, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a big business.

The he made fun of the handicapped, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't handicapped.

Now he's making fun of men, and no one is left to speak up for me.

Apr 2, 2011#30

Steve

stienman said:
Scott Adams made fun of big business, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a big business.

The he made fun of the handicapped, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't handicapped.

Now he's making fun of men, and no one is left to speak up for me.

win

Apr 4, 2011#31

Math242

i really don't see what the fuss is about

pussies.

Apr 16, 2011#32

evilmike

It looks like Scott Adams isn't have a very good year image-wise.

Dilbert Creator Pretends to Be His Own Biggest Fan on Message Boards

Apr 16, 2011#33

strawman

hehehe. Sounds like he really is taking a page from the crazy book that Tom Cruise and Charlie Sheen penned.

Ah well.

I think the PA guys have it right. They keep a forum for their user base, but they rarely, if ever, dip their own toes into it. You've gotta keep a distance from the stuff surrounding you. Sounds like Adams became too emotionally involved in stuff that he should have left well enough alone.

Apr 16, 2011#34

Cajungal

Hah... wow. That was foolish.

Apr 16, 2011#35

Ravenpoe

But guys... He's a certified genius!

Apr 16, 2011#36

The Lovely Boehner

What a stupid piece of shit

Apr 16, 2011#37

Philosopher B.

evilmike said:
It looks like Scott Adams isn't have a very good year image-wise.

Dilbert Creator Pretends to Be His Own Biggest Fan on Message Boards

This is hilarious in its lameness.

Scott Adams should be locked in a closet and not allowed to come out except to write Pointy-Haired boss jokes. The dude is an embarrassment when he tries to do anything else.

Apr 16, 2011#38

Steve

Technically, Scott Adam's would probably be Scott Adam's biggest fan.

Apr 17, 2011#39

Mathias

I still like Dilbert...

Apr 17, 2011#40

Mathias

Ravenpoe said:
But guys... He's a certified genius!

Genius doesn't mean "good, rational person." In fact, many geniuses should probably be considered insane and anti-social.

Apr 17, 2011#41

Ravenpoe

Mathias said:
Genius doesn't mean "good, rational person." In fact, many geniuses should probably be considered insane and anti-social.

Oh yes, I'm aware. I was mocking the line his pseudonym kept using, pointing out again and again that Adams has a "certified genius IQ"

Apr 17, 2011#42

strawman

Mathias said:
I still like Dilbert...

I enjoy the comic too, and a lot of his stuff is funny. He's just a little wrapped up in his own little world, and whether he's trolling or truly unhappy and lashing out doesn't matter - it's just odd and inappropriate behavior.

Won't keep me from laughing at the "Bestshoring" joke on today's dilbert.

Heh heh heh. If nothing else, he has a good cynical handle on corporate culture.

Jun 17, 2011#43

evilmike

Looks like he's at it again:

Creator of Dilbert Cartoon Calls Rape a 'Natural Instinct' for Men

Jun 17, 2011#44

Espy

Man, I miss Scott Kurtz controversy.

Jun 17, 2011#45

Krisken

I thought this guy was supposed to be smart.

Jun 17, 2011#46

DarkAudit

Krisken said:
I thought this guy was supposed to be smart.

AT&T engineer smart. It's a niche. Doesn't carry over well.

Jun 17, 2011#47

Dave

I hate to say it but I think he's got some points. He never says rape is a natural instinct. That is bad reporting. What he DOES say is that society forces men to curb their natural desires - whatever they may be - and that women's instincts are applauded. The stuff he's talking about is the wussification of the man in today's society. It's become a crime to get into fights as either an adult or child, even though these are used to determine the alpha/beta levels of the species. In the past if someone insulted your family you would give them a poke in the nose to train them on their unacceptable behavior. Now you'd get sued/arrested. Men no longer have a place in the world to be men - we're nothing more than stronger women.

What he said is not politically correct but that doesn't make his point invalid.

Jun 17, 2011#48

Disconnected

damn women.

Jun 17, 2011#49

Chibibar

Dave said:
I hate to say it but I think he's got some points. He never says rape is a natural instinct. That is bad reporting. What he DOES say is that society forces men to curb their natural desires - whatever they may be - and that women's instincts are applauded. The stuff he's talking about is the wussification of the man in today's society. It's become a crime to get into fights as either an adult or child, even though these are used to determine the alpha/beta levels of the species. In the past if someone insulted your family you would give them a poke in the nose to train them on their unacceptable behavior. Now you'd get sued/arrested. Men no longer have a place in the world to be men - we're nothing more than stronger women.

What he said is not politically correct but that doesn't make his point invalid.

That is what I'm getting. I think some people are just thin skin and just want to have sensationalize news.

Jun 17, 2011#50

Espy

Dave said:
I hate to say it but I think he's got some points. He never says rape is a natural instinct. That is bad reporting. What he DOES say is that society forces men to curb their natural desires - whatever they may be - and that women's instincts are applauded. The stuff he's talking about is the wussification of the man in today's society. It's become a crime to get into fights as either an adult or child, even though these are used to determine the alpha/beta levels of the species. In the past if someone insulted your family you would give them a poke in the nose to train them on their unacceptable behavior. Now you'd get sued/arrested. Men no longer have a place in the world to be men - we're nothing more than stronger women.

What he said is not politically correct but that doesn't make his point invalid.

Well sure, I think anyone with half a brain could look at that article and realize it was pulling stuff from his post and exaggerating it to a "crazy" level, but does it really matter? Once it's labeled with something like "SCOTT ADAMS LOVES HIM SOME RAPE!!!" you get stuck in that weird place where if you try to even discuss, let alone argue any merits to his real points, you get stuck in the "pro-rape" crowd. I've already seen this thing circulating the Facebook and it's all about how he's "pro-rape", etc, etc.

Jun 17, 2011#51

Covar

Hurray for Libel disguised as journalism?

Jun 17, 2011#52

Dave

Strangely enough, his points are pretty close to those espoused in Fight Club - and the message of that movie resonated with a lot of people. I'm not afraid to voice my views on this and thankfully I haven't been labeled as "pro-rape" by any stretch. I think it speaks to this place as a place where people can discuss (most) things and (usually) be met with an open mind.

Jun 17, 2011#53

Covar

As long as it's not how to cook a steak.

Jun 17, 2011#54

Fun Size

Can we talk about how to rape a steak?

Jun 17, 2011#55

strawman

Fun Size said:
Can we talk about how to rape a steak?

Dude. I'm never going to one of your barbecues.

Jun 17, 2011#56

Espy

Dave said:
Strangely enough, his points are pretty close to those espoused in Fight Club - and the message of that movie resonated with a lot of people. I'm not afraid to voice my views on this and thankfully I haven't been labeled as "pro-rape" by any stretch. I think it speaks to this place as a place where people can discuss (most) things and (usually) be met with an open mind.

Someone hasn't been checking the news since you posted...

Jun 17, 2011#57

Disconnected

Fun Size said:
Can we talk about how to rape a steak?

steak is to easy, it always wants it. Always with its juices flowing and showing so much flesh.

Jun 17, 2011#58

Covar

Fun Size said:
Can we talk about how to rape a steak?

That's easy, you cook it to well-done :awesome:

Jun 17, 2011#59

sixpackshaker

Covar said:
As long as it's not how to cook a steak.

As long as it is not one of those Fancy Japanese Fecal Matter Steaks.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/digitaltren...rends/japanesescientistscreatesmeatoutoffeces

moon people

Jun 17, 2011#60

Fun Size

Dude, those things are the shit! :awesome:

Jun 17, 2011#61

Frankie Williamson

Can someone post the article? I get redirected to the Canadian version of that site that doesn't have the story.

Jun 17, 2011#62

drifter

From Yahoo!

Somehow this feels like a Vonnegut plotline: population boom equals food shortage. Solution? Synthesize food from human waste matter. Absurd yes, but Japanese scientists have actually discovered a way to create edible steaks from human feces.
Mitsuyuki Ikeda, a researcher from the Okayama Laboratory, has developed steaks based on proteins from human excrement. Tokyo Sewage approached the scientist because of an overabundance of sewage mud. They asked him to explore the possible uses of the sewage and Ikeda found that the mud contained a great deal of protein because of all the bacteria.
The researchers then extracted those proteins, combined them with a reaction enhancer and put it in an exploder which created the artificial steak. The “meat” is 63% proteins, 25% carbohydrates, 3% lipids and 9% minerals. The researchers color the poop meat red with food coloring and enhance the flavor with soy protein. Initial tests have people saying it even tastes like beef.
Inhabitat notes that “the meatpacking industry causes 18 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions, mostly due to the release of methane from animals.” Livestock also consume huge amounts of resources and space in efforts to feed ourselves as well as the controversy over cruelty to animals. Ikeda’s recycled poop burger would reduce waste and emissions, not to mention obliterating Dante’s circle for gluttons.
The scientists hope to price it the same as actual meat, but at the moment the excrement steaks are ten to twenty times the price they should be thanks to the cost of research. Professor Ikeda understands the psychological barriers that need to be surmounted knowing that your food is made from human feces. They hope that once the research is complete, people will be able to overlook that ugly detail in favor of perks likeenvironmental responsibility, cost and the fact that the meat will have fewer calories.
Waste not; want not.

Jun 17, 2011#63

Frankie Williamson

What the fuck does Japanese shitmeat have to do with Scott Adams?

Jun 17, 2011#64

strawman

Meditate on this truth, and the answer will present itself.

Jun 17, 2011#65

Frankie Williamson

Oh God damn it, I didn't even notice the shitmeat post above mine. I wanted someone to repost the Scott Adams declaring his undying love of rape article.

Jun 17, 2011#66

strawman

I'd strongly advise you to click through and read his actual post. This article is a very, very narrow view on his post, and technically incorrect, in my opinion...

Scott Adams - creator of the successful Dilbert cartoons - has got himself into hot water for posting on his blog that, in his opinion, rape is a 'natural instinct' for men.

The blog post - entitled Pegs and Holes - starts of with Adams musing about a lion and a zebra at a watering hole. Adams decides that if the lion killed the zebra, then both parties are to blame.

The next paragraph is where things get a little edgier, with Adams focusing on the recent scandalous behaviour of certain actors, footballers and other men in power.

'Now consider human males.' Adams writes. 'No doubt you have noticed an alarming trend in the news. Powerful men have been behaving badly, e.g. tweeting, raping, cheating, and being offensive to just about everyone in the entire world. The current view of such things is that the men are to blame for their own bad behavior. That seems right. Obviously we shouldn't blame the victims. I think we all agree on that point. Blame and shame are society's tools for keeping things under control.'

He then states that 'The part that interests me is that society is organized in such a way that the natural instincts of men are shameful and criminal while the natural instincts of women are mostly legal and acceptable.'

The online buzz against Adams is building as a lot of people have naturally taken offence to such a statement. It seems like Adams has developed a taste for controversy, as it's only three months since the last furore involving his blog.

Asked to right something about men's rights back in March, the old charmer declared: '[W]omen are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It's just easier this way for everyone. [.] You save your energy for more important battles.'

Jun 17, 2011#67

GasBandit

Scott Adams seems awfully Alpha-oriented for a vegetarian pencilneck.

Jun 17, 2011#68

sixpackshaker

Lol, Users found this page by searching for:

scott adams douchebag

,
scott adams is a douchebag

,
hal adams 2011

,
scott adams is a douche

Jun 17, 2011#69

Disconnected

best blog post title ever.
pegs and holes.

Jun 17, 2011#70

figmentPez

I finally got around to reading Adam's blog post. Made me think of the novel "Glory Season" by David Brin, only without a lot of the intelligence, tact and reasoning that went into that novel.

Jun 17, 2011#71

Ravenpoe

For a "certified genius," he has a knack for taking what could be reasonable observation and stating it in the dumbest way possible.

Jun 18, 2011#72

Philosopher B.

”Adams” said:
No doubt you have noticed an alarming trend in the news. Powerful men have been behaving badly, e.g. tweeting, raping, cheating, and being offensive to just about everyone in the entire world. The current view of such things is that the men are to blame for their own bad behavior. That seems right. Obviously we shouldn’t blame the victims. I think we all agree on that point. Blame and shame are society’s tools for keeping things under control.

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

The way society is organized at the moment, we have no choice but to blame men for bad behavior. If we allowed men to act like unrestrained horny animals, all hell would break loose. All I’m saying is that society has evolved to keep males in a state of continuous unfulfilled urges, more commonly known as unhappiness. No one planned it that way. Things just drifted in that direction.

This is all very clever, because rape is not mentioned specifically in the sentence ‘society is organized in such a way that the natural instincts of men are shameful,’ but through all the talk of ‘bad behavior’ and that men are naturally ‘unrestrained horny animals,’ he manages to hint at saying something controversial, without actually spelling it out. At this point, I can only guess that reading the furor people get into over the weird shit he writes is one of the ways he gets his rocks off. I guess recycling the same safe brand of office humor for decades* while being a shit boss himself at a restaurant no longer does it?

Adams said:
To be fair, if a man meets and marries the right woman, and she fulfills his needs, he might have no desire to tweet his meat to strangers. Everyone is different. But in general, society is organized as a virtual prison for men’s natural desires. I don’t have a solution in mind. It’s a zero sum game. If men get everything they want, women lose, and vice versa. And there’s no real middle ground because that would look like tweeting a picture of your junk with your underpants still on. Some things just don’t have a compromise solution.

This is A., patently ridiculous, and B., somewhat sexist. Men are not dogs. I’ve got a solution to people tweeting their junk, or doing anything else sexually related – it’s called restraint, and good judgment. A lot of people from all genders and age groups lack those qualities; it has little to do with having balls as opposed to ovaries. And I think it's funny that he seems to think men are in a sexual straight-jacket within our society, considering the traditional difference in views of promiscuous men vs. promiscuous women.

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

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

Ah, Adams’ usual jokey ‘predictions’ which aren’t actually funny at all.

Such a tool.

*And I say this as someone who has bought Dilbert collections in the past
Added at: 11:09

Dave said:
In the past if someone insulted your family you would give them a poke in the nose to train them on their unacceptable behavior. Now you'd get sued/arrested. Men no longer have a place in the world to be men - we're nothing more than stronger women.

If being a man is about the ability to commit physical violence without legal repercussion, I guess I don't mind being a 'stronger woman'.

Forums