« The Truth About The "Haunting" Of Ocean-Born Mary | Main | Bird Watch »

May 29, 2005

Men Are Hard-Wired For Rape And Other Swill From Men's News Daily

This pile of piss and vinegar from Men's News Daily is making the rounds. Amanda at Pandagon, Sadly, No!, Anne Jumps, and Pharyngula have already pounded the hell out of it with a mallet.

Sex, Security and PC Heresy

By Max Ross

"Treat a lady like a whore and a whore like a lady and you’ll never go wrong." Words of wisdom from my late uncle, an average looking fellow who was 5’7” bald, slightly overweight and had more ladies on the string than I could count. How did he do that? After the end of his first marriage (but regrettably not his last) Uncle Donald always had a date… always. As my own father was something of a dolt when it came to the true nature of women, my dear uncle was kind enough to explain to me a great many things.

"Ladies on a string" equals "ladies who got the hell away from the lout when they figured out what he was really all about." This gem has had several marriages end. This guy is no one to hold up as a male role model, but that doesn't stop dear old Max from praising the idiot. How was Max's father a "dolt" when it came to the "true nature" of women? Did his dad treat women like intelligent human beings? Can't have that now, can we? Not a Men's News Daily.

Almost universal among mammals, 'nature' has mostly opted to leave the desires of females out of the equation in regards to procreating. Yes, females are more receptive at some times, but the male in most of these species, especially primates, generally takes a female at his whim. Human beings are not much different than are tree swinging, sexually uninhibited cousins in this respect. Men are psychologically hardwired for sex and women are emotionally hardwired for security, and both genders are willing to trade one for the other.

Max doesn't know his biology and anthropology, but that doesn't stop him from spouting inaccurate pseudo-essentialist garbage. Even I know that it is the female who selects the mate. It isn't done by what amounts to males raping females. He doesn't mention that male chimpanzees are known for killing the offspring of other males in order to establish themselves as the dominant male. He also doesn't mention that female chimps run off with non-alpha males to procreate while the alpha-males are busy doing their alpha things. Our tree swinging, sexually uninhibited cousins must be embarrassed to have to count Max as a relative.

Hunt, gather, fight, copulate… these are the four basic 'drives' of man. Whether you believe in evolution, creation or intelligent design, the human male is uniquely designed and desirous to accomplish these tasks. In human men, sperm production is so ridiculously high that 23 men in a period of one month could produce enough gene juice to impregnate and repopulate the entire planet, currently standing at around 6 billion… Basically, the boys were designed to 'hit' as many females in the shortest period of time, whether the women want to mate or not. Through out human history this has been the 'natural order.'

Uhm... it is females who are supposed to be driven to "gather," not males. Even worse, this guy is promoting mass rape of women, which the excuse that men are "hardwired" for it.

One of the most interesting web sites on the subject of 'consensual non-consent' is taken in hand, ran by a lovely woman who truly believes women and men are better if the man is in charge. Sarah Penny (definitely not her real name) has mused on many occasions as to the excitement and security of being taken forcibly by a man. 'It is soooo hot' she mention during one conversation. In her most explosive article to date "When Rape is a Gift" Sarah explains the following to 'civilized' men who are interested in pleasing an adventurous woman:

Here we go - trot out an anonymous, unknown woman to support his crap. I wonder if "Sarah" is really a woman. I'm suspicious. However, I wouldn't be surprised if some idiotic women would actually believe this crap. Stranger things have happened. "Sarah" also doesn't know the difference between sexual fantasies, which are in a controlled environment complete with safe words to say when either partner thinks things are getting out of hand, to forcible rape.

He must have faith that she knows what she wants and is willing to take the risk. He must believe in his ability not to misjudge the situation, and in the woman's ability to deal with it well if he does. He must be willing to be profoundly and intensely intimate with the other person.

And none of this means that women want to be forcibly raped. I wonder how many times Max and his asshat uncle have misjudged the situation?

From a civilized standpoint, a Judeo-Christian standpoint, people would write this off as heretical, dangerous and degrading to women. But what if she wants it that way? If this is the natural order and men have evolved or were designed to breed regardless of context, is it not possible or even probable that females have a deep, abiding need to be taken, dominated and then provided for? Yes Hunt-Gather-Fight-Screw is important, but what about Gestate-Lactate-Nurture-Educate, the four basic drives of a woman? Someone needs to raise the young and females are primarily designed and qualified for this task.

Let's see how far Max would get in court when charged with rape when he says "this is the natural order" of things. He'd end up being Bubba's favorite plaything in Rikers. He should welcome that, because he believes "this is the natural order," and men are driven to have sex. He just doesn't say that men are driven to have sex only with women. When women aren't available to straight men, would other men suffice?

In the context of consensual non-consent, both parties are simply acting out what has been programmed into them genetically. Of course, in a modern society all of this interaction requires order… men can't 'have' anyone they want, and women have a way becoming 'control freaks' if left to their own desires. In my own experiences, no less five lovers have confessed their desire to be taken and ravaged. Two of them wanted it at random; after work in her parking garage, the other suggested I break into her home and wait. On neither of these requests did I acquiesce. It sounded like a great way to get shot, beat up by some guy wanting to be a hero or (gasp) what if I got the wrong woman? Orange suits, cages and a 'boyfriend' named Bubba don’t appeal to me. Sarah and her friends are welcome to their desires and maybe someday this will be alluring, but under the current realities of gender relations, the 'natural order' will have to wait.

As Amanda said, Freudian Slip. He wrote "ravaged" when he meant "ravished." Very telling. Yeah, sure, those women asked him to "ravage" them. How much you want to bet he misjudged the situation? Notice that he said that he did not do it. Something in the reptilian part of his brain must have sent up warning lights.

This is beyond ridiculous. Do men who read Men's News Daily really believe this swill? It's a bunch of woman-hating tripe, dressed up in fake biology and fake anthropology. Max should have learned his lessons about sex from someone other than an asshat uncle. He admits that Bubba wouldn't appeal to him, but doesn't that admission go against his own hard-drived need for sex? If he's hard-drived for sex, he'd have to give in to those urges to give both himself and Bubba what they want, especially since Bubette isn't available.

Sorry, Max, but you're full of shit. It's no wonder you can't get a date. Women don't want to be "forcibly taken," no matter what you and your asshat uncle might think. I'm not surprised to see swill like this at Men's News Daily. That's par for the course on that web site.

Posted on May 29, 2005 at 12:45 PM | Permalink


The "she's a bottom so it can't be rape defense" coming to a court-room near you soon? The god thing about them publishing that tripe is the fact it shows them for the jackasses they are.

Posted by: Ol Cranky at May 29, 2005 1:00:46 PM

Ironic. He doesn't want a boyfriend named Bubba (no rape for the guys, thanks!) but it's okay for us.

Yet another case of men telling us what we want, even though we state pretty damn clearly we don't want that.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at May 29, 2005 7:07:48 PM

It's what he wants. He probably fantasises about raping women all the time.

Stuff like this makes me start agreeing with Andrea Dworkin that women should be allowed to kill their rapists. Maybe the message would begin to get through then.

I'd take bets that Sarah Penny is a guy.

Posted by: Hazel at May 30, 2005 12:10:34 PM

I've always found being a jerk works much better at getting a date with college age women than being a nice guy. But if you're really a jerk they'll leave you pretty quick. This of course, doesn't involve "ravaging" women.

Posted by: MNPundit at May 31, 2005 6:41:27 AM

You know, if I hear one more guy repeat that shit about women only dating jerks and not liking nice guys....

Posted by: ginmar at May 31, 2005 9:10:47 AM

for more on why women don't like "nice guys", check out this link:


their intro states:
All too often we hear self-professed "Nice Guys" complaining about why they can't get a date, and whining that women just want to date jerks, etc. etc. The truth of the matter is that there are genuinely caring, compassionate, decent, fun guys out there who have NO TROUBLE meeting people, getting dates, and having relationships.

Unfortunately, many of the guys who DO have trouble, insist on laying blame and asserting that women don't want them because they are too "Nice". These people who call themselves "Nice Guys" can't see that THEIR OWN behavior is the problem. Whether it is targetting women who are troubled to begin with, or acting in a manipulative, patronizing or obsequious fashion, these guys sabotage themselves and blame others for their misfortunes.

This section is devoted to the guys who suffer from that self-professed "Nice Guy" affliction. Here is the place to find out why YOUR behavior isn't as "Nice" as you think it is...

then, there are 17 great rants about "nice guys". I think you will enjoy them. I did.

Posted by: lee at May 31, 2005 9:57:06 AM

Trish, these guys are doing considerably more than "misjudging the situation". They're being selective about what they read (if that's what they do) in popular evolutionary science books, to the point that they make bio-history look like junk science. The most glaring example of this is their conclusion that women want security, men want sex and that an exchange occurs at the level of the individual copulation. Judging by the almost even percentages of men and women who admit to infidelity and exhaustive DNA identification of paternity in bonobo chimps, which shows that well over 1/3 of offspring are by fathers others than the recognized mate, it seems both sexes want sex and security doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.
Of course, this is laughably trivial next to the cnotention that men are "hardwired" for rape. Like other complex living, they're hardwired to make an effort to get what they need, which is a long way from saying they're predisposed to taking without consent.
I suspect Uncle Charles' main date is his hand.

Posted by: DP in SF at May 31, 2005 10:57:29 AM

Could Ms. Sarah 'money' Penny be Phyllis Schlafly in diguise?

Posted by: Vicki Pierce at May 31, 2005 6:12:36 PM

so what if men ARE "hard-wired" for rape? if we refer back to our cave-men (and cave-riotgrrrl) ancestors and their behaviour you could say we're all "hard-wired" to shit in ditches... luckily for us all society has advanced and we don't do that any more. now who thinks rape is an appropriate behaviour pattern for a civilised modern society? no, me either, good, end of story.

Posted by: Cruella at Jun 1, 2005 9:28:03 AM

Good point, Cruella and thanks for the reminder.

Posted by: DP in SF at Jun 1, 2005 1:04:49 PM

Didn't it turn out that Sarah was into planned BSDM rape-fantasy type scenarios, with safe words and all that?

Posted by: Maureen at Jun 2, 2005 9:59:59 AM

Sarah Penny's website is, in her words, dedicated to 'consensual male-led relationships'. The Taken in Hand crowd don't hold much stock in safe words, because supposedly the use of safe words turn the sort of male domination they want into a 'game'. Sarah does allow some Neanderthals free reign on her site, and there isn't enough emphasis on safety and consent issues, but her stuff is a far cry from the sadistic fantasies of this moron Max.

Posted by: Amba at Jun 2, 2005 2:55:28 PM