Home

If you have a round peg that doesn’t fit in a square hole, do you blame the peg or the hole? You probably blame neither. We don’t assign blame to inanimate objects. But you might have some questions about the person who provided you with these mismatched items and set you up to fail.

If a lion and a zebra show up at the same watering hole, and the lion kills the zebra, whose fault is that? Maybe you say the lion is at fault for doing the killing. Maybe you say the zebra should have chosen a safer watering hole. But in the end, you probably conclude that both animals acted according to their natures, so no one is to blame. However, if this is your local zoo, you might have some questions about who put the lions with the zebras in the same habitat.

Now consider human males. 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.

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.

Consider Hugh Hefner. He had every benefit of being a single man, and yet he decided he needed to try marriage. Marriage didn’t work out, so he tried the single life again. That didn’t work out, so he planned to get married again, although reportedly the wedding just got called off. For Hef, being single didn’t work, and getting married didn’t work, at least not in the long run. Society didn’t offer him a round hole for his round peg. All it offered were unlimited square holes.

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.

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.

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.

 
Rank Up Rank Down Votes:  -2578
  • Print
  • Share

Comments

Sort By:
+45 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 21, 2011
Brian,

We seem to be talking at cross purposes. I do not dispute that Scott was clear that rape etc was bad and should not be condoned.

The issue so many have with his article is his premise that rape is a natural instinct for men. That comment is not only false, but totally sickening.

Rape has zero to do with sex drive and all to do with power, manipulation, hatred, a desire to harm and demean another and results from a mentally ill twisted distorted psyche.

There is a reason why the petition to get him to apologize has so many signatures. It was something like 135,000 as of yesterday afternoon.

If Scott, or any other man thinks rape is part of his natural instinct, then he should go see a psychiatrist. He has an imperfect formed personality, whether as a result of physical brain defect or of his upbrining. Fast.

But what I think you and Scott and many other men are confusing sex with rape. They are not the same thing at all. Cheating occurs because of sex drive and a lack of factors that make it not worthwhile, and there is a lot of it, on the part of both women and men. There is not a lot of rape. If it was really a natural man instinct there would be far more of it. No, rape is deviant, not natural, behavior.

 
 
-37 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 21, 2011
Wow,must've really hit a nerve with that one. The facts are: scientists are increasing realizing that women tend to fantasize about rape (this doesn't mean they literally want it and are ok with it). This explains alot about women's sexual behavior to us men. They seem to want 2 separate things: a manly man with a big phallus and aggressive behavior, and a mate to share their life with.
Buy tying the 2 separate urges to marriage we have created huge amounts of suffering. Tis is why men are baffled by women's needs- because they really want more than what one men can provide.
Do you know when conquering armies came into foreign villages and raped all the women,it actually promoted future peace as the women would bear their children of their enemy.this is why it was a policy for armies to do so.
What do we all really know: women want the best mate in terms of getting preggers which is the big aggressive phallic male- and then want another man to "nest" with. The phallic male has lots of sex and the nesting male is baited by sex into doing things for the female.
 
 
Jun 21, 2011
Logic 2009...as anyone knows, your final expletive shows that you are using a horribly inappropriate screen name. You've essentially proclaimed that you've run out of idea, and have no confidence in your argument. No, I have not spit in teh face of women, as I am not condoning, apologizing for, or otherwise in any way supporting rape, abuse, nor excusing ANYone of the same. My argument has been entirely that you are misreading, and overreacting to Scott Adams' article. Not the issue that you seem to want to keep dragging it into. If that were, truly, the issue in question, we would not be at odds. There is no argument from any of us that rape (amongst other things) is inexcusable, abhorrent, base, vile, indefensible, and otherwise a bad thing. Some may point out that it exists in nature, amongst other species, it may be true, but that does NOT excuse it in any way. Are we clear on this? You are reacting to my arguments the same way some are reacting to the Adams article. You aren't getting it. This has nothing to do with defending ANY bad behavior. Quit trying to reframe it as though it were. You may also want to refrain from foul language, or graphic depictions, thereof. It doesn't speak highly for you. Try using "logic".
 
 
+45 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 21, 2011
Ansilatoms I've just read this and there is plenty of mention of rape. And throughout he talks about a man's instinct. Which is apparently sex and nothing else.

Quite frankly I'm utterly betrayed by this. I tried to consider previous blogs as one-offs but I can't anymore and this is from an author I loved to read. I can't enjoy Dilbert anymore knowing this is behind it. This is not a matter of political correctness or me reading biased secondary sources. I read this article without reading anything apart from a mention in a later blog.

Can violence, rape or not, from women be excused as part of a primal instinct? Does gay rape get included as instinctual? No because part of living in a society is following that society's rules.

How can a man control his primal urges!? Well the majority of men somehow manage and I hope you can tell the derision dripping from my words. Somehow they manage not to beat someone else's head in when they are angry. Or steal from a shop when they want something. You know, basic control.
And what the hell is with this attitude that men want sex and women stand there as pure undesiring virgins? Women want sex and there are plenty of examples of women wanting more sex than their partner. Perhaps you're getting mixed up with a women not wanting sex because she is not attracted to that person? How dare she! If a man wants sex the woman should let him! Cause a guy will have sex with her whenever she wants. Oh, wait... maybe, just maybe two people can have different libidos and want sex at different times.
There is no way to excuse this behaviour as just part of a man's nature. And this article is an insult to every man I know.

You're spitting in the face of me and other women. After all in your analogy with the lion and zebra, if a man is placed next to a woman how can you blame either if he abuses or rapes her? After all poor men are trapped in society's constraints with the horror of marriage. You know the thing they choose to do because they love their partner. The thing they could just as easily not do and sleep with as many women as they want. The thing that women also choose to do.

I've lost all respect for you and will throw away the many Dilbert books I've bought. Your articles have become a woe-is-me whine about male rights that put men with legitimate issues to shame. You don't understand women, you seem to have forgotten that women make up part of your readership, and it seems you barely understand your own gender as well.
To sum up this post, !$%* you.
 
 
-5 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 21, 2011
BettyBB:

I'll take the position that you have Mr. Adams out of context. That makes you part of the problem.

In his post, Mr. Adam states, in part: "Powerful men have been behaving badly, e.g. tweeting, raping, cheating, and being offensive to just about everyone in the entire world."

He points out that "rape", with other behavior is, essentially, bad. Whether the act of rape is natural or not can be debated. However, Mr. Adams does not appear to condone it.

It's a small point made for a significant topic. But, let's not vilify Mr. Adams. Rape, as we commonly understand it is evil and in poor form. But, it occurs to me the post is about a broader topic, and that of men in society, and may lend itself to all of us, collectively, trying to understand one another and finding the best opportunities to get along.

Brian
 
 
+19 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 21, 2011
Firstly, I think the post makes a grave error, as typically it has been men that have created the rule of law, either statutory (stealing is wrong) or moral (some other guy having sex with a woman who isn't their wife is wrong). Secondly, Michael Weiner didn't resign because society in general is stacked against men. He resigned because the media made such hoopla over what he did and if there is one thing skeleton'd Americans love, it's sex related scandals. People love to pretend they can look down on the mighty.

John Edwards (granted, he broke laws), Michael Weiner, Arnold the Sperminator, etc... are all big news stuff, meanwhile no one is going to jail over the Magnetar scandal, merely less than a days revenue in fines for JP Morgan who helped organize the charade. Heck, how many Americans know what Magnetar did, verses how many know what Michael Weiner did?

The corporate media is playing society like fools, getting society to fight amongst themselves, men v women, gay v straight, pro-birth v pro-life, etc... all the while the megacorporations get larger, acquire more of the national wealth... so that we can watch another member of Congress resign over something that really wasn't a big deal. This has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with treating Americans like puppets. And it's working.
 
 
Jun 21, 2011
Oh, my apologies...there it is...a passing reference in a wider list of behaviors. Okay, so it's there. It was so much NOT a particularly direct reference that it entirely escaped me as being just part of a cultural reference. Maybe I'm missing something else, but isn't that reference towards what's been happening, as opposed to something he was defending? One is concerned that he was lumping rape in with tweeting, and such, but isn't that what it's been lumped into by the media? The point IS that these things are what we've been hearing about from men in power. I'd agree with LeBleu about power being the issue, except I do think that women do not abuse power in quite the same way (Catherine the Great, being a possible exception...possible, only). Adams is not justifying these behaviors, and in fact points to shame and blame being the tools society uses to rein these twits in. My point has been from the start, and remains, that you who are so offended are not really reading it, and are instead reacting to your own prejudices about what he's saying.
I do apologize for missing the emotionally charged "rape" word. I really just didn't see it in it's context of a list.
 
 
Jun 21, 2011
To Bettybb,
You say you read the article...then are we reading the SAME article? I re-read it, and I STILL don't see any reference to rape. Where you are getting this? From your own prejudice? Did he remove a word between when you read it, and when I read it?
 
 
+16 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 21, 2011
We have read the article. Sorry, but Scott Adams said that rape is a natural male instinct. Sorry, that is sick. Read up of sociopaths to find out what rape and deviancy is all about. It is like saying that men have a natural instinct to torture, or engage in serial killing. Sure Scott said rape is bad, but he still owes an apology for his incredibly dumb remark about rape being a natural instinct. And no, he does not have to apologize for whining that men don't get as much sex as they like. In my experience, men who know how to go about it, do get what they want, but they are few and far between - an evolutionary trait no doubt.
 
 
Jun 21, 2011
rapist.....


..s...s....s.....sorry
 
 
Jun 21, 2011
Good gravy, so many of you commentors are really out there. You seem to be mostly reacting to either the emotional subtext of some of the words he used, or your own biased perception of what he MUST be talking about, based on your own issues. He said nothing about rape...he was talking about men behaving "badly", as in the recent politicians shenanigans. He didn't say "women good, men bad", he said society (that's both genders and their interactions) structured things such that general male biological tendencies are disapproved. Being as men are historically, and biologically aggressive, this makes sense. Heidi is correct in pointing out that women are historically treated as possessions, at least since the beginning of livestock farming, but she goes off on her emotional response referring to the blog as "whining". Nope...not whining. Just an article. Post by post, I could, if I had time, pick apart the knee-jerk reactions so many have you have shown, but I'd rather just say, read it again, don't presume an agenda, just get the actual ideas being expressed.
I don't agree with Scott that we're headed for an Oxytocin fueled future, if only because I do agree with him that once a person (a guy, at least) loses the desire for sex, he doesn't miss it. I can attest. Given that, I believe that only those individuals who cling to their regular old sex drive will bother procreating, and through attrition, the rest will just peter out. That's the thing about being assexual, anhedonic, neutered and such...you don't tend to pass a whole lot on to the next generation. Oh, I really, really don't find any sexist overtones in the blog. Sexual? Only in that he was talking about behaviors based on certain individuals' sexuality. It kinda has to go that way.
Oh, and Heidi...regardless of how you perceive Scott Adams, you're really kinda crude.
 
 
Jun 21, 2011
'Without religion, we are animals.'

Oh dear. Is this moral relativism I see before me? Christianity or Islam distinguishes us from the animals?

I don't think so.

But perhaps you didn't mean it to come across like that. All the same, as an atheist I consider myself a cut above the beasts of the fields, and as Lincoln said once, I don't do bad things because it makes me feel bad. I try to do good things because that makes me feel good. I can choose, animals can't, they just do what comes naturally. So do we, but sometimes that can cause suffering to others, so most of the time ordinary people choose not to.

I don't need religion to tell me what is good or evil, I know that already. The fear of eternal damnation doesn't stop me from beating my wife, I don't do it because IT IS WRONG.
 
 
Jun 21, 2011
Scott,

Why humans are different than lions is because we have religion. Unfortunately, religion is disappearing from our western society, and being replaced with influences from a marketing media.

Without religion, we are animals.
 
 
-49 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 21, 2011
Hey Scott,
Im not sure if you were trolling or not, but the messed up fact is while women publicly condemn rape, psychologists and feminist studies scholars have increasing found that many women -enjoy- rape fantasy.B4 I'm slammed by readers here's a link:http://bit.ly/kgilds
I agree, women & men's relation -most- of the time end up being zero sum,no one benefits-except maybe the woman who might stay at home with the kids while the man works himself to death.Oh,but that's not abusive in any way-that's an excepted norm that a man will kill himself at a job for the wife's material needs.
All is relative when it comes to sexual norms. I Agree,the west has turned into a man hating country. Just look at the figures for most women's sexual partners,when they have 4-5,they are likely sleeping with the same handful of uber-Romeos(the stereotypical heartbreakers) who've figured out how to exploit women's weaknesses and short sightedness/distorted vision when it comes to sex for 2-3 of those experiences.
Anyways- sex studies will force us to reconsider everything in a neutral world-however,in a world controlled by women,it could likely reflect the distorted way they evaluate mates(I'm not blaming women,it's just that their Job is far more complex-1st they have to attract a good bull to get preggers and then they have to attract a good provider-often 2 different people,while at the same time maintaining the illusion they are in the right)
Remember this people: matriarchies have far more war...
 
 
Jun 21, 2011
'I think that’s where we’re headed in a few generations.'

No we're not. Because sex is fun.
 
 
-2 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 21, 2011
Having actually read all of what Scott wrote, a couple of things are clear.

1. If we take Scott seriously, he is absolutely delusional about women being any less evil that men.

2. If we take Scott seriously, he is not real happy with what's been happening lately (men behaving badly).

3. Anyone who takes Scott seriously enough to get all jacked up about what he wrote needs to be on meds. Anyone who thought it would be a good idea to write or sign a petition needs to grow up, get a life, get on meds, and consider doing something useful or becoming a ward of the state. Oh yeah - and learn how to read.

 
 
+50 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 20, 2011
Just a little PS: Societal constraints did not evolve to give women what they want. The reason men's natural desire to nail everything  is curtailed in society, is because OTHER MEN don't want their daughters, mothers and sisters being assaulted and inseminated.

 In fact, for most of history, women were considered possessions of men, and lots of raiding and killing of men BY other men was precipitated by efforts to keep the goods at their highest value. In other words, mess with my women, mess with my goods and my future, and I will kill your ass. 

Men saw the counterproductivity of threats to their possessions, including the control of women and the genetic line, and so instituted societal constraints on the natural urges of men.  Now now the rule became: Fick with  my women and society will punish your ass.

So it's not a female idea, or for our sake, that you have to keep it in your pants. Whine elsewhere, and remember in a world where men were allowed to fill every urge, you would probably be one of the first to go.
 
 
Jun 20, 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgyg8vEHraE

Marriage negotiations! Specially for Heidi19 !! Must Watch!!!
 
 
+16 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 20, 2011
I think Scott has this all wrong. Rape is a deviant behavior. Sociopaths have brains that are physcially defective, and/or pyschologically defective due to upbringing. This causes a wide range of aberant behavior from narcissitic personality disorder to rapists, torturers and serial killers. One can debate whether they are really "at fault" if their brains cannot understand morality, and they are unable to understand empathy. We can only hope that in the future medicince can find a cure for thes diseases which manifest themselves in such terrible conduct.

There is a good reason Weiner said he is going to see a pychologist. His behavior is not the sexuality of a man with a normally functioning brain. Women have instincts too, and we are hard wired to pick up sexual deviants. Weiners photos are just plain creepy, not sexy. He is a new type of flasher and most women recoil from such conduct.

It is both men and women who have evolved brains that can see the value of subliminating pesonal desires in order to create something of greater worth and of greater value to society and the survival of the species. Men give up multiple sex partners and in exchange women give birth to and raise children. It is not just society's norms restricting men. They also equally restrict women.
 
 
Jun 20, 2011
Right, Swift, blah blah blah. The point is, Scott likes to make weird propositions to stir controversy. He doesn't believe every single thing he puts down in this blog. More often than not, he's looking to see how people will react to what he says, rather than making an honest presentation of his absolute point of view.

You need to understand what he is attemtping to do a little more deeply than many of you seem to. You look at what he writes one-dimensionally, rather than trying to understand what he's trying to do here. Scott plays with ideas, and he plays with us. He also likes to tweak the media to see how they'll react.

Since everyone is speaking of Swift, let me ask you this: how many of you think that "Gulliver's Travels" was just a children's book? Scott is like a modern-day Swift. He likes to write at many levels. He's a human Rorschach test. He presents a modest proposal to find out what all of us will see in it. Try looking beyond the surface. You might grow your mind a little.

 
 
 
Get the new Dilbert app!
Old Dilbert Blog