Comments: All About Them

I imagine that this leads to confusion.....

Yeah, but that's OK. If either of those messages were unadulterated, we'd be in deep.... trouble.

The problem isn't in his penis. It's in his brain.

Thus the invention of "chemical castration" using regular doses of (something, I'm not sure what) to reduce (not, apparently, eliminate) urges and function.

Posted by Jonathan Dresner at May 25, 2006 12:44 PM

Thought you were a decent writer until this crap: "Women have a real function."

Posted by man at May 25, 2006 07:49 PM

Chill, man. She's talking about sex and reproduction: if you're offended by it.... adopt, or something.

Posted by Ahistoricality at May 25, 2006 08:16 PM

Jonathan - I hadn't thought about the potential problems from an unmixed message. Interesting thought.

I wouldn't care to see either of those messages delivered without leavening. There are saner options....

I'm no one's expert on the topic of crime, punishment, and psychology. The idea of chemical castration bothers me. It's not that I can't see the possible benefit to society (or potential victims) in certain extreme cases, but...well, I can't put it into words. In any case, I was really more pondering, forgive the ambiguous term, "normal" men more than those so messed up that such an extreme measure might be called for.

Posted by Anne at May 26, 2006 08:22 AM

Thanks for addressing man's complaint, Ahistoricality. I swear, that possible interpretation of my words never crossed my mind.) (And I can't believe there's anyone who reads this blog who isn't under the impression that I'm a big fan :) of men in general.)

(Which very nearly leads me back to a side-rant I've made a few times about people getting what they expect. About if you're looking to be bashed, discriminated against, or mistreated, you're far more likely to interpret someone else's behavior in those terms. That you're more likely to perceive these behaviors because that's the filter you use.)

(I've been feeling rather psycho/sociological recently.)

(Not to mention excessively parenthetical.)

Posted by Anne at May 26, 2006 08:27 AM

Anne, I'm not a big fan of chemical castration, either (policy, that is): there's evidence that it doesn't actually work all that well, and it raises all kinds of questions about perpetual punishment and the medicalization of criminal behavior (and the criminalization of medical problems), and predictibility....

I don't really think that either message -- gotta have it / dirty -- is all that healthy, and I'd like to se both phased out entirely, but they need to be phased out together, because any social environment in which one is dominant would be unhealthy.

Is it just me or is it odd that man chose to remain anonymous? Is he that frightened of you? Or is there really an Ur-Male running around the net.....

Posted by Jonathan Dresner at May 26, 2006 02:41 PM

Very true. What we need is a new, healthier message. (Well, messages. For both males and females.)

Healthier messages could only be produced by a healthier society, which creates some problems. Parental and even school training is only going to go so far. As long as billboards, magazines, comic books, movies and television are preaching the same old message(s), nothing will change.

(How can man be afraid of me? Who'd be afraid of me?)

(I assumed it was someone who wanted to make the remark but didn't want to say it under a recognizable name. I could check out the IP address since my system logs them, but I don't care that much. If there was potential for my remarks to be misread in that fashion, I'd rather have it acknowledged openly so I can assure my readers that that was not what I intended.)

Posted by Anne at May 26, 2006 04:20 PM

But in a way, that's the point.

Posted by Darius at May 27, 2006 01:55 PM