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:  -2579
  • Print
  • Share

Comments

Sort By:
Jun 16, 2011
Roga beat me to the 'Welcome to the Monkey House' quote :)

I don't really get this post, or which outrageous way we're expected to dance to it. I don't think Scott's heart was really in it.

(I do think you should all read more Vonnegut, though.)
 
 
+3 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 15, 2011
"A nothinghead was a person who refused to take his ethical birth-control pills three times a day. The penalty for that was $10,000 and ten years in jail."~Kurt Vonnegut, "Welcome to The Monkey House"
 
 
+107 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 15, 2011
As a man that's been around for a little while, I can tell you fairly definitively that I've NEVER had the urge to be an "unrestrained !$%*! animal," send pictures of my genitalia to women, or rape anyone. Please stop accusing me of these things, and please stop accusing me of being a drug addict for not wanting to.
 
 
Jun 15, 2011
Your idea reminds me of the plot of "Demolition Man", a futuristic movie where instead of having sex, people put on helmets and have simulated sex. Really bad movie, don't rent it.
 
 
-20 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 15, 2011
As far as reproduction goes, men are r-strategists and women are K-strategists. My hallucination of one of Scott's points was that the behavior that tends to develop around these are viewed as 'bad' and 'good'. I believe that several comments confused this, and then went on to illustrate it.

But at least men run things. And will continue to do so as long as they can prevent women from:
...Being in charge of raising children (and thereby having the opportunity to imprint their social conventions on the young),
...Being allowed to vote, and
...Outnumbering men.

I will be disappointed if this don't get flamed. I'll be surprised if it is done cogently.

 
 
-45 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 15, 2011
Wow Scott,
This is a mission that is needed. I am not sure that you have the best solution but it is a start. Anyone that is well-read in this area knows that men are far more promiscuous than women. These are the sorts of things that should be taught in grade school, e.g., men (generally) have short commitments and like the idea of novel partners. There are many exceptions depending on age, length of a novel relationship, children etc. … but this is the scientifically established rule (as you know). Sending this message out to a nieve readership is bold and you might consider giving them some citatations from the literature… or were you more interested in their reaction?
You haved pushed the idea of free will which has been done for a very long time with a slow but important increase in the percentage of the population that understand it. The present undertaking is much more novel and even more important. I understand (as most readers apparently do not) that you advocate a society that is driven by female norms. We males have a major struggle conforming to this and need help.

 
 
+7 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 15, 2011
Are you pulling a Donald Trump on us, Mr. Adams?
 
 
Jun 15, 2011
This post (and the comments on it) just shows once again how confused our generation is about what it means to be male or female. If I understand correctly, you're basically saying, "men are philanderers by nature, and society keeps that urge down, and now everyone's unhappy". I'm not convinced of either 1. that men are philanderers by nature (at least any more than women), nor 2. that society keeps that urge down (OK it's deemed unacceptable for married men, but bachelors who sleep around aren't really punished by society), nor 3. that there's a possible scenario in which we'd all be happier.

There are plenty of other ways in which we're all "round pegs in a world of square holes". For example, we all have an urge for power, and yet when we actually get this power it corrupts us and hurts others. It's what theologians mean when they talk about the world being "fallen".

I do agree that self-castration medication would make a lot of things much simpler and more pleasant, but I wonder if "simpler and more pleasant" is REALLY what we want.
 
 
-9 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 15, 2011
A small supplement to my own post: it comes with a huge bonus. If you are being yourself as a man, not being a pushover, not asking for permission and being a subservient cheese cake...women will only like you more for it.

It is YOUR life. You have a boss at work, don't have one at home.
 
 
+37 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 15, 2011
Scott, you wrote:
"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."

I can not believe you are blaming Weiner's wife for this!!
 
 
-26 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 15, 2011
@GLK. Funny, I had a similar revelation about women. It was in a busy bar and I had to use the men's room urgently. There was a huge line so I sneaked into the women's bathroom. Sad, but I had no choice. As I was sitting there behind a closed door, I could overhear many conversations by groups of women. Conclusion: They are nasty, if not nastier than us. They talked about men in an extremely superficial way, no "emotional intelligence" there. 80% of conversations were about sex. Included are intimate details and even complaints about their very own men. Things us men would never share amongst each other, at least not me. Granted, we have to take the context of a bar in mind here, but it has changed my view on women drastically.

The other remark I would like to make is that this debate about men vs women and the shifting power balance between them focuses too much on urges alone. For example, @malignor remarks that he is happy that his wife allows him to watch p0rn. That's cool, and a practical solution. Yet, I have a problem with this. Since when would we men need to ask permission? Sure, we need to respect each others' feeling and relationships are about compromise. I understand that. However, why would one side decide upon what is allowed? Apart from the whole sexual urges matter, us men need to be men again.

Examples: if my g/f asks me to go shopping I tell her no. I hate shopping, go with a friend and you'll have much more fun. I won't ask her to watch football with me either. If she then comes home and asks me about her new clothes, I tell it like it is. If she does not like my opinion, I tell her to stop asking me. If I share my excitement about computers, astrology and photography with her, she tells me she really doesn't care about it. We do not fight our differences. We accept them. I can be a man and she can be a woman, all within reasonable limits. It isn't about sex. It's about being yourself and not being a pushover. You shouldn't ask for permission, you should do it. If what you plan to do is unacceptable, such as cheating, it wasn't worth asking permission anyway.
 
 
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 15, 2011
Seems alot like "A Brave New World."
 
 
Jun 15, 2011
This one is so silly that it makes your other posts seem almost cogent.

Life is conflict and challenge. We don't rise to our best by being cut off from all desire and emotion. Civilization was built by people working to overcome their more primitive desires for the long-term good of both themselves and society at large. At the same time, those urges can be used in positive ways as well.

Sexual desire can be coupled with a deep emotional connection that leads to long term commitment to another person. This leads to family, and families connected together into communities. Take away the sexual desire and you undermine a key component that has allowed us to build a functioning society that constantly strives to better the condition of its citizens.

We've all heard the old saw about how fire can be your greatest friend or worst enemy. So it is with human emotion. Those emotions which society currently questions in men, such as agression and competitiveness, when properly channeled can lead to protection of our families and great leaps forward in performance. Take them away (as the chickified schools are now trying to do), and you end up with a pablum-ized, bland, unchanging and dreadfully boring existence.

If you remove agressive tendencies from the decent, you leave yourself open to exploitation by those who don't use those tendencies in a good way. This leads to, as I've mentioned before here, such things as the pussified response to the lone gunman in the horrific Virginia Tech massacre, where 32 people were gunned down over a period of two hours, and no one made any move to stop the gunman. He finally had to commit suicide, probably because he finally got tired of waiting for someone to stand up to him.

So I understand your point about men's desires being "bad" while women's are "good," at least in the way our wimpy, female-dominated society tells us they are. But the proper response is not to go overboard in the direction they want us to go, until we're nothing more than shadows on the landscape. The proper response is to tell them that they're wrong, and show them the benefits of properly channeled agression and competitiveness.

If we don't, then we open ourselves up to domination by those who do.


 
 
-21 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 15, 2011
Accepting women's nature but not man's is bigotry.

Fortunately, the problem is starting to be self-correcting. Now that all the benefits from men have been removed from marriage, western men are staying away from it, at least with western women. In another century this form of bigotry will breed itself out of the human race.
 
 
+30 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 15, 2011
Forgive me for being a neophyte and prepare to flame me and vote this as low as possible, but could someone float the hypothesis on how society evolved to this state when, if I remember my history right, men have for the most part always been running things. To Dilgal’s point, we men must be a bunch of *masochistic bastards that have set ourselves up to fail*. I guess we’ve been fighting violently against our *moist robot* urges and putting these restrictions on ourselves for… what reason was that again??? I’m curious what the social evolutionary path was, that took us from cavemen dragging our females around by the hair to self castration since, if I’m not mistaken, the consensus on this board is that we have no free will.
 
 
+48 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 15, 2011
A million years ago myself, my wife, and some friends visited a strip club in Toronto. Upstairs they had female dancers and downstairs they were male. The male customers went up and the females went down. Interestingly the mood upstairs was pretty subdued and after a while my friend and I got bored and meandered downstairs to retrieve our wives. As we made our way down the steps the intensifying commotion revealed what can only be described as a loud, wild orgy of uninhibited insanity. That's when, as a young man I learned (as any Chip-n-Dale dancer will tell you) the idea that women are in superior control of their sexual urges is a load of BS. Besides (subtracting for homosexuals and rape) for every man caught cheating there has to be at least one willing female partner. I've personally known a few women who admitted they were perpetually !$%*!$ One gal, a receptionist, told me cheating is the best sex a person could have. Still, I stayed faithful to my wife. In fact I can honestly say that of all my friends that got divorced due to infidelity it was always due to their wives cheating and not the husbands. The story that males are dogs is hyperbole at best.
 
 
+13 Rank Up Rank Down
Jun 15, 2011
My wife openly allows me to supplement our marriage with pr0n for my own personal use.
This is is win; I found a keeper.
It has also not impacted our own physical relations, despite the myths that the media dreams up.

The vast majority of married men access pr0n. I would wager that more adultery, divorce and sexually offensive activity happens among men who are not permitted such an outlet, and are forced to do so covertly. They are forced into a lifestyle where the only way to be happy is through dishonesty and shameful activities. When you're already living your day to day life with dishonesty and guilt in your marriage, guess what seems more likely to fit in your life - other dishonest and shameful things, like adultery.
 
 
Jun 15, 2011
That sounds like a very sorry world that I don't want to live in. It seems as if the only ones winning are the makers of Oxytocin...

I think the problem is more that men have less and less of an outlet for these urges, and once they get all pent up, the pressure builds and the result explodes all over an intern's face or dress. How many of these scandals were tweeted about in medieval times, when men fought each other with swords, had jousting tournaments, and hunted for their food. None!

You need to legalize a few things, so that men (and women) can work out their frustrations before they go and do something stupid. A good example is prostitution, if men and women had a discreet outlet for their sexual urges, that for a price could be quietly satisfied, I think you would see a decrease in all of those sex scandals.
Oh, and make the paparazzi photographers illegal, so that private matters can stay private!

PS: I don't think the playmates/models would appreciate being called square holes...
 
 
Jun 15, 2011
If you're right, Scott, then western civilization is doomed to die the same death that its forebears in the Greco-Roman tradition died when it is overrun and swallowed by a replacement that clearly delineates gender roles and celebrates masculinity and feminity (in the ideal case), or more likely plowed under by the spiritual descendants of the Vandals and Visigoths. I think Europe's already toast that just hasn't been burned and buttered yet, but the U.S. might still escape. It's salvation might be to learn to habla Español and reclaim its collective cojones.

It's amusing to me that the Romans man-handled the Greek world and then fell prey to the same feminized social nonsense. (Yes, there are other theories, but mine amuses me the most.)

The Islamic world is looking good to be the next wave of swords beaten from ploughshares... and they really, really want an empire. Personally, as a Muslim, I'm just working make sure it's as "gentle" an occupation as possible when it happens, but 0bambi is certainly not going to hold the line and neither is the current crop of hopeless replacements unless somebody with some revolutionary zeal throws her hat back in the ring. *wink-wink* Governor Goodhair of Zoolander fame in Tejas looks the part, but he's a liberal sheep in wolf's clothing, IMNSHO.

Anyway, it is possible that the Chinese will escape the grasp of their current Ayn Randian fever and return to less economically-oriented empire building, but they seem think they're winning the Monopoly game and don't seem to be inclined to switch back to playing Risk, and more's the pity.
 
 
Jun 15, 2011
If you are right, I'm leaving.
 
 
 
Get the new Dilbert app!
Old Dilbert Blog