It doesn’t help, of course, that there are large groups of men who are dedicated to insulting and condemning women; and that these men have realized that holding women personally responsible for the “motives” that natural selection had when it “designed” them is a great way to give their unpleasantness a scientific veneer. That’s basically what Roissy (or Heartiste, as I think he’s called now) does. For instance, that whole “cuckolding is the same as rape” nonsense of his is based on the (dead wrong) belief that people consciously desire to spread their genes.
Your comment is mostly correct, except this is a total stawman of Roissy’s position.
Your comment is mostly correct, except this is a total stawman of Roissy’s position.
I was under the impression that Roissy’s position was:
People want to spread their genes.
People want to choose who they spread their genes with through sexual reproduction in order to increase the odds that the other person’s genes will be good.
Rape is bad because if it successfully impregnates the victim it causes them to spread genes that they don’t want to spread.
Cuckoldry also results in an individual spreading genes they don’t want to spread.
Therefore, cuckoldry is as bad as rape.
Have I gotten this incorrect in some fashion?
Now, of course I don’t deny that cuckoldry is a truly awful thing to do to someone. But that particular chain of reasoning as to why it is awful is really, really bad.
I haven’t read Roissy, but Robin Hanson’s argument for why cuckoldry is as bad as rape was based on a survey of men showing that most would rather be raped than cuckolded.
Furthermore, the fact that Roissy isn’t interested in having children shows that he’s not confusing evolution’s motives with those of humans.
Being cuckolded (in this context) means unknowingly raising not-your-genetic-offspring while believing it is your own. A male partner’s infidelity can’t cuckold a woman.
But I imagine most mothers would be horrified to discover, ten years after the fact, that their newborn was stolen and replaced with someone else’s, and the child they’ve devoted so much to is not actually their genetic offspring. A brief bout of Google indicates that hospital baby swaps can spark multimillion dollar lawsuits, sometimes successful...
Your comment is mostly correct, except this is a total stawman of Roissy’s position.
I was under the impression that Roissy’s position was:
People want to spread their genes.
People want to choose who they spread their genes with through sexual reproduction in order to increase the odds that the other person’s genes will be good.
Rape is bad because if it successfully impregnates the victim it causes them to spread genes that they don’t want to spread.
Cuckoldry also results in an individual spreading genes they don’t want to spread.
Therefore, cuckoldry is as bad as rape.
Have I gotten this incorrect in some fashion?
Now, of course I don’t deny that cuckoldry is a truly awful thing to do to someone. But that particular chain of reasoning as to why it is awful is really, really bad.
I haven’t read Roissy, but Robin Hanson’s argument for why cuckoldry is as bad as rape was based on a survey of men showing that most would rather be raped than cuckolded.
Furthermore, the fact that Roissy isn’t interested in having children shows that he’s not confusing evolution’s motives with those of humans.
And I guess most women would rather be cuckolded than be raped. So?
Being cuckolded (in this context) means unknowingly raising not-your-genetic-offspring while believing it is your own. A male partner’s infidelity can’t cuckold a woman.
But I imagine most mothers would be horrified to discover, ten years after the fact, that their newborn was stolen and replaced with someone else’s, and the child they’ve devoted so much to is not actually their genetic offspring. A brief bout of Google indicates that hospital baby swaps can spark multimillion dollar lawsuits, sometimes successful...