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:  -2580
  • Print
  • Share


Sort By:
+30 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 20, 2011
Oh man. Poor, poor, poor lords of the jungle. I mean, with one constraint or another, those conniving zebras are going to cut your junk right off! 

Those zebras sure cramp a lord's style. I mean, your lordly urge to lord it over anything that moves is natural, right? And the urges of those lesser-of-equals to discriminate between candidate inseminators,  well that's not natural, that's just castrating nonsense. Plus, they make you hug them. Yuck! 

I'll tell you one reason you angry poor-me boys are not  getting your oh-so-urging natural urges slaked: because whining like a brat when you aren't petted and praised for every little thing you do is a stone-cold turn off. 

But mommy! I want the lady to look at my pee-pee and she woooooooon't! Poor baby, put that little thing away. Mommy loves you anyway -- big hug. Funny how mommy doesn't feel sexy anymore. Mommy's such a castrating b itch.

But why would the ravenous baby thing be a major turn off? Something wrong about that.   I mean, we're naturally supposed to *want* to indulge your every urge between your sobbing fits or while you bang your petulant little heels against the cruel ground. Right? Something must be wrong with our female societal overlords that they would create and enforce such an unnatural civilization.

Fun fact #1: Women don't rule the world.

Fun fact #2: Do you know that women actually have natural urges, too? Like I have the urge to bit ch-slap you right now just to let you know your pretty pink poor-me slip is showing. Alas, society frowns upon my natural desire to smack sniveling boys into manning up. Oh poor me. I know the world would be a better place if only I could follow my natural urges.

Insight: Your beef isn't with women, baby. Go cry to the boys in charge, I'm sure they can circle jerk it better for you.

xo poor baby.
Jun 20, 2011
Believe me, I wouldn't miss the irony of Dickens' modest proposal. After all, I didn't miss the irony of Swift's. But I don't believe the overall intent of Adams' piece above is ironic. He really does feel oppressed when he writes "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." If that's supposed to be irony, Adams is not the master of his craft that Swift was. And I'm looking forward to Dickens' version. Got a link?
+14 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 20, 2011
Why narrow it to men? Society doesn't fit anyone's nature.
Jun 20, 2011

An adage I try to live by as a writer/poster in this life.

Do not think. If you think, do not speak. If you speak, do not write it down. If you write it down, do not sign your name to it. If you sign your name to it, don't be surprised at what happens to you.

In this case, you've revealed yourself as brain-dead. Sure, you'll probably be gutless and pull this post. If it last for five minutes, I've done my job.

If you disagree, then this. Show this to your wife. Your Mother. Your sister, if you ahv eone. See what they have to say...
Jun 20, 2011
Boy oh boy, Scott, did you poke a hornet's nest with THIS one.

I always answer your posts as though you mean what you wrote. At the same time, I'm subtly aware that you sometimes say things for effect when you are, in fact, pulling our collective leg. I'm pretty sure that this post is one of those leg-pullers.

You and I have never met, and probably never will (although we do live relatively close to each other), but I have sort of gotten to know you over the years I've been reading and posting here. I don't believe you really feel that general chemical castration is in any way a reasonable idea. You're not that kind of person.

But what is interesting to me is which parts of your post get grabbed out of context and set up as examples of how horrible you are. In this case, the thing that stuck in their minds was the word "rape." They want to pillory you for that comment, yet they report the part about chemical castration almost as a straight news piece.

These people would read Dicken's "A Modest Proposal" and believe he really meant we should eat poor children. The entire concept of sarcasm and satire seems to be lost on them. To me, that's one of the biggest problems with the majority of liberals: it's not just that they lack a sense of humor; it's that they are unable to distinguish between heartfelt sentiment and satire to express a topic for discussion.

In any case, to Hell with them. Keep up the good work, Scott.
Jun 20, 2011
You people are way too serious. First of all, Scott's post is categorized as "General Nonsense". Second, he's the guy who puts words in the mouths of Dogbert and the like. So I take it the same was as if Dogbert were saying this stuff.

I'm completely against criminal activity such as rape. But let's face it, there's a lot of behavior that's perfectly legal, such as rambunctiousness, that can get a man labeled a pervert or aggressor, and possibly charged. It is well known that society has evolved to put a stranglehold on men expressing in any way that they are sexual beings.

Just for fun, let me break the rules for a second and say that, hey, I'm a man, and hey, I'm sexually attracted to a lot of women, especially the ones with, let's say, very feminine qualities. All the guys know what I'm talking about.

Now, to some of you, the above statement makes me a misogynist, or a pervert, or an aggressor. Well, guess what, you're wrong! It doesn't!

Don't any of you know that Scott is a humorist? That's like a comedian, ya know? Think of Chris Rock. He once said that when a women knows the guy won't hit her, that's when the relationship is over. Misogynist? Perhaps. But people know he makes comedy and they take it as such. And there were no excessive blog posts or articles on Salon criticizing Chris. So why are they doing this to Scott? Because he allowed the words to come out of his own mouth instead of Dogbert's? You people really need to get a grip.

I think the posts from Julian_Apostate and belsteve basically got it right. There is a witch hunt underway, and you better choose sides: hunter or huntee?

Did I mention that I like big knockers? I did? Well, there I go again!

valeriez is nice enough to advocate a sex-positive culture, but does she have a sense of humor? That's what's lacking. By the way, I think it's fine that she has a non-monogamous relationship and feels OK saying so, but as a man, I have found that I'm not allowed to say such a thing. In our society, this is exactly what would get me labeled as a sex-crazed pervert.

So may I ask the Politically Correct Thought Police for permission to say that this is a double standard and that I don't like it? No? OK, then I'll shut up now.

So, cheers! Relax! and have a nice day! and don't get any bugs up your butt!
Jun 20, 2011
Here is what it all means to me:

Of course no decent human being would condone or excuse rape. But rape lies at the extreme end of a continuum of male thought and behavior, some of which is legal but very little of which is completely benign.

To completely neutralize men, which is what would be required to guarantee that !$%* Walks can take place anytime, anyplace, and so that no man would ever tweet another picture of his junk, would be a dystopia in which neither sex would really want to live. Emasculated wimps are not what get women going when they read romance novels or dream of beautiful strangers. What would be the point of dressing !$%*!$ once there was no one left capable of being provoked?
+13 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 20, 2011
What I'm wondering is how many readers of his comic strip (I mean in addition to me) did Scott lose simply by posting this blog post. This piece is amazingly sexist and ignorant. Should we believe from this post that men are somehow just animals who can't control themselves an djust have to have sex, no matter if the other person wants it or not? What is he trying to say here? And why is he saying it? Men behaving badly are nothing more or less than men behaving badly. The key word here is "behaving." That means deliberately acting upon their impulses without stopping to consider the consequences. Read "ANTHONY WEINER." For God's sakes, Scott, we're adults. We don't just do anything we want anytime we want to anybody we decide to do it to. AT least the rest of us don't. Do you?
+6 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 20, 2011
Hi RedWita,

Are you red-headed? Ik like that. I had a very pritty girlfriend once with red hair.

I really actually posted a comment twice on that website that did not get published. I disagreed with the subject, so there you go.

I think the petition that is going on is outright slander, and it deliberaty misquotes Scott Adams. I wouldn't be surprised if he were to take legal action against it, he damn well has a right to.

The way that you conclude that I am not that bright is typical for the kind of misinformed, emotionally dazed way of "arguing" that the hypocrites like yourself are using.

For your information, Scott used to moderate the comments, until he got this new website with the rating system, that is now being misused.

[I apologize if my english sometimes is not gramatically correct, I'm not english speeking. I do not live here, and I look with amazement at the way political correctness is going overboard here.]
Jun 20, 2011
The silliness of this post is not in it’s sexist overtones, but in the generalisations it makes.
Lewd sexual behaviour, sexually predatory tendencies and sexual violence are not exclusively male qualities.
Jun 20, 2011
i'd blame the lion.
+38 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 20, 2011
I agree with you that we need a more sex-positive society, and I think many people would agree that monogamy is not the only path one should take. I am an intelligent professional in a non-monogamous relationship and I have many friends who are as well. I'm thankful that part of the modern feminist movement supports polyamory and sex work, and fights to de-stigmatize !$%*!$%*!$%* I've had relationships with great men, and I couldn't care less if they tweet nudes. Our country's Puritan morals are dangerous when they teach people that sexuality is a bad thing.

However, saying "the natural instincts of men are shameful and criminal" suggests you think men are hardwired to be rapists, and that's just not true. Someone with a high sex drive may be better off in a non-monogamous relationship, but wanting to cheat on a spouse is lightyears away from being a rapist. Saying all men have the potential to be rapists if they don't get enough sex at home is horribly unfair to men and straight-up sexist against men.

You say that rape will end when men are castrated, but rape is not the result of an overactive libido. It is a violent crime and not a sex crime. This has been established decades ago. Please don't use your position in culture to advocate a theory that a man who likes !$%* is on par with a man who assaults women. This is just not true.

I appreciate that people in the media are now advocating for a more sex-positive society, but you are doing more harm than good here. Please educate yourself on these topics before spreading misinformation.
Jun 20, 2011
Only a deviant, uncontrolled male would write a post like this!

Which I guess makes the whole thing true.
Jun 20, 2011
"This ceremonial posturing for moral brownie points in an extremely moralistic and puritanical culture does tend to obscure the reality that adult male humans are sexually alert in an inconvenient way that is not identical to the experience of females. Notwithstanding the evident insanity of Dominque Strauss-Kahn jumping the hotel maid, men sometimes make passes. American women cannot forgive them for this. Lesson: perhaps American men should not make such an effort to seek forgiveness." James Howard Kunstler


Jun 20, 2011
Poor Bobby.....No it's not that the 'feminist website' doesn't want your comment or won't post something they don't agree with. They want to make sure it's not outright spam such as all the crap currently collecting here in this blog, ya know, those ads for etradinglife.com...whatever the hell Kay is trying to sell I have no clue there, styshops.com, styleown.com, fashionclothe.com. Do you see them? Are they annoying you yet? (Probably not, you're not that bright). Anyway, suffice it to say that 'the feminist website' is actually managed by someone who can take the time to be responsible for it. Unlike this one. That's not just mere balls...it's actual intelligence in action. Imagine that!
Jun 20, 2011
So by this logic: as

1) It is the nature of people to accumulate wealth,
2) You have wealth and I don't,
3) If I come and take your wealth away, I'm just following natural instinct, over which I have no control (I being the lion & you being the zebra with REALLY cool stuff.)

Your logic precludes any concept of ethics or morals on the part of men. I prefer to think I come from people who evolved above that level. Clearly yours did not.
+31 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 20, 2011
So let me get this straight. You're saying that men are too stupid and fragile to control themselves? That men are not responsible for their actions because they're hormonally prone to outbursts of emotion that force them to commit crimes of violence and rape, and that we should excuse them for that?

Wow. The poor dears just can't help themselves, so they must be indulged... I kind of like that. Now when men do stupid and dangerous things, the world can say, "Just ignore him, he's on the rag."

Thanks for that!
+16 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 20, 2011
I think Scott is trying to tell us he's headed for a divorce.

Sorry, Scott.
-17 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 20, 2011
-23 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 20, 2011
This is fun!

You know the feminist website that brings the extra traffic overhere has COMMENT MODERATION, and so they do not publish comments that do not agree with them (it happened to me twice). They also do not have a rating system for their entries.

Do you know why this is?

Because they do not have the B A L L S for it!

I crack myself up.
Get the new Dilbert app!
Old Dilbert Blog