Cut a hole in a watermelon! Brilliant!
I think Rebecca Watson makes a great skeptic and spokesperson for the skeptics community, but I think her real calling is in giving dating advice.
You may also enjoy this bloggingheads:
Here’s some rape neither Dawkins nor Watson mentioned.
She’s all class, that Watson.
commenter #1: but what about teh menz, eh?!
one of my favourite tweets ever is a Rebecca Watson special: “I mean, the self-in machine DID invite me back for coffee, but I assumed it wasn’t a come-on” in response to those saying she was upgraded because she’s pretty.
@#1, Rebecca Watson mentioned that article on her blog July 19, six days before you brought it up here. Makes me think you don’t care as much about using that link to portray the horrors of rape as you care about using that link to criticize Watson. You didn’t even bother to cite one passage that particularly moved you about the trauma the men in the article have suffered.
I’ll stay off topic with the rest of ya..
Thanks for the link #1
Also, I can assure anyone this is not merely a war-time problem and does happen in western society too
In Ecuador, where I live, my Quichua friends in the Amazon informed me that they preferred papayas. On the Pacific side an ex-girlfriend told me her brother preferred chickens. The neighbors hated him because the chickens would die as a result. Some Peruvian indigenous men use female tapirs. In the US, I guess the analogue would be farm animals. Rebecca forgot to mention that option.
Greg, what did they do in the Congo?
I just spoke to Lou off line and I’d like to contextualize his comment.
A + Lou’s Comment + B
A = “Men everywhere seem to have a penchant to fuck mud. Or fruit. Every culture has it’s watermellon….”
B = “This is not meant to signal out any particular group of people”
Regarding in the Congo, I’m not sure but among the Efe, it is true that adolescent boys leave their home group for several months in a row, a kind of walk about they do by themselves. No one knows what this entails, but I’d imagine there’s a papaya or two along the way.
Thank you Rebecca Watson for defining what is a “normal” person.
…and the difference between telling someone to fuck a watermelon if they’re desperate and not normal enough to “get laid” and telling someone to fuck a farm animal is exactly what, Greg?
Addendum: the above comment was made in response to Greg Laden calling Lou Jost a racist and reacting in an overly emotional manner to Lou’s post. When Greg took the time to understand the post, it turned out not to mean what Greg assumed it to mean, and Greg removed the original post. My comment above makes no sense in the absence of Greg’s original post.
From Greg: Thank you for your clarification. For the record, I did not “take time to understand” the post … I asked Lou privately what he was talking about and he clarified that for me. Rob, I suggest you use the email address you have used in your other comments rather than this one in order to avoid the gibberish in the name field .
Unpronounceable, I do not understand your question at all. Were you drawn by Al Capp, by the way?
quoting the video:
“…uh, that got some feedback, some really interesting feedback, a lot of feedback actually…”
understatement of the day. lol.
Can’t tell you why science blogs writes gibberish. Typed “Rob” in the Name: box. See what happens this time.
Now that you’ve clarified what Lou meant and completely altered/edited your initial response to his posting, my question doesn’t make sense. Not since you removed your response. Perhaps you should edit my post to ensure that people know you edited your response to Lou.
Honesty, Greg. It’s a cool concept. Try it.
Made a fool of yourself? That’s OK. No one thinks less of you (than they already do).
Put up the your original response, BEFORE you edited it, and then you will see that your vitriolic response to Lou was stupid, and that my question made sense. That would be the honest thing to do.
Rob, Greg’s comment to you was exactly the same when he was demanding to know what Lou meant instead of explaining it. Him telling Lou the comment as written was offensive was specifically due to the appearance that it singled out particular people as having weird sexual behaviors. Knowing that doesn’t make your question make sense at all.
male pain could be counted thusly: one dead, dismembered, disemboweled or disabled and disenfranchised, ‘othered’ man equals ‘Y divided by X= American white women get health care, and access to the ear of the privileged + X AND Y= mating success.” Gee, I suck at math…
Would it be absurd math? How about ‘ one dead Iraqi/Afghani/towelhead/othered man =Y amount spent for XY amount of bombs on his, and his children’s heads= American GNP benefit for white women’s breeding success…”
Nay, Stephanie, it does make sense.
Rebecca Watson can suggest that hard-up guys (those that aren’t normal) could get a watermelon and fuck it, since they can’t get laid. When Greg goes nuts over Lou’s comment that other societies use objects other than watermelons, I just inquired what the difference was. It was perfectly clear what Lou meant, Greg just overreacted and made an ass of himself. That’s why he removed his original post.
Thanks, however, for Gregsplainin’.
Rob, what exactly do you think this whole Internet thing is, anyway?
The part I didn’t get about your comment is where someone is telling someone to fuck a fruit. I don’t think there is any advocacy of fruit sex going on here, either in the OP or in any of the comments.
But yes, I did change that comment, which believe it or not isn’t a violation of some rule or law or even practice. I updated my comment based on new information.
And it may be that your comment looks dumb hanging there in isolation. But you could have just made that point rather than getting all accusatory and stuff.
Yeah, Rob, comparing entire societies to the non-normal guys (i.e., those who can’t manage to have partnered sex if they can’t proposition women alone in an elevator at 4 a.m.) is crystal clear without further explanation. Perhaps you should read some of the commentary on this blog in the Race and Racism category before you decide what’s obvious and what’s overreaction.
Your comment makes no sense because it completely fails to mention the part that Greg was objecting to.
And I should be clear on this: We are also NOT advocating AGAINST fruit sex on this blog, in any post or comments. We’re just not saying one way or another.
Can we at least advocate for (if fruit sex were to occur and not endorsing either indulgence or abstinence) a consideration for locally grown foodstuffs? Carbon footprint, people!
Oh, wait, this was all about lack of consideration to begin with, wasn’t it. Damn it.
Well, now. Even if I did read what you suggest, how could I judge whether Greg was overreacting? His post has been altered. Why? Because he overreacted.
Maybe Greg should let me alter my post to change completely what I said and meant.
And just to be perfectly clear on the fruit sex thing, I shall have you know that I am a founding member of the MOF society. And you can communicate to Ms. Watson that no self-respecting member of the MOF society would ever consider a watermelon a suitable fruit to utilize for sexual gratification. Acceptable fruits need sufficient levels of mucopolysaccharides for lubrication.
Rob, you are welcome to do that. Send it to me via email.
yes…well…waiting…. Rob WHAT FRUITS ARE THOSE!!???
[sound of spaghetti squash losing it’s virginity]
Greg, just delete the post if you won’t restore your original.
Pumpkins, squash, banana skins, papaya, etc.
I want to thank Greg for helping to avoid misinterpretations of my comment. As a biologist who has worked for many decades in Ecuador and Peru (and who has lived for the last 15 years in Ecuador), I was just pointing out that some of the things Rebecca mentioned appear to be widespread, probably universal. Our urban society has its watermelons and sex dolls, our rural societies have their outlets, and other societies have theirs. The cultures I mentioned were just the ones I know first-hand (it takes long immersion in a culture to learn such details). I wasn’t trying to say that there is anything special about them in this respect. Just the opposite, I was trying to show a bizarre common thread among all people, a thread that is rarely discussed. I had no idea it would be misconstrued.
Greg’s initial reaction to my post was intense, but as #14 implies, he wasn’t the only person offended by it. I appreciate that he made the effort to write me and ask for a clarification.
If Watson assumed EG propositioned her, thereby objectifying her, what if he wasn’t propositioning her? By making her assumption, she has objectified him.
“In every assumption is contained the possibility of the opposite.” Pam Houston
Thanks Rob. I think I will go peel my bannana now..hehhehe
Also, Lou, have you heard the one down there about some kind of river fish? I can’t remember where I heard it but boys capture some fish and poke them–they say it’s a fabulous simulation.
What do the girls do? There is a peculiar little written about that. M. Shostak documents San girls in Africa( Greg, you brought up the Efe) having sex with each other from pre to post puberty.
Is it similar down there?
And kind of on topic: feminists seek to ban sex with robots.
Rob, what if he wasn’t propositioning her (as silly as that particular “what if” is)? There were no consequences to Elevator Guy from any of this. All Rebecca did was suggest other guys not proposition women in situations like the one she described.
Stephanie Z, she assumed he was propositioning her. Whether or not he did is irrelevant. By making such an assumption, she is denying the possibility of the opposite. Therefore, she is assuming that any man who said what EG said is making a sexual advance.
MBV23D0M @ 29.
What are the consequences to a woman if she assumes an unknown man is making an advance when he isn’t and says no? Not very much. He may get miffed, and she won’t make a friend, but a man whose skin is that thin would make a pretty tiresome friend, anyway.
What are the consequences to a woman if she assumes an unknown man isn’t making an advance when he is– and goes to his bedroom alone with him at 4 o’clock in the morning? If the possibility of rape doesn’t cross your mind, you really, REALLY don’t get it.
The fact is, women are much safer erring on the side of believing they’re being propositioned even when they’re not, than trusting every guy who comes down the pike. If you don’t like that, blame the men who present themselves as “just being friendly” when what they have in mind is consensual sex– or worse. Don’t blame women for making rational decisions in their own self defense, even though some of the time their decisions are false positives.
By making such an assumption, she is denying the possibility of the opposite.
No, dumbshit, she was merely assigning a higher probability to one than to the other, based on the information available to her at the time. She was not “denying the possibility” of anything. What do you expect her to do — not make any decisions, ever, because any decision “denies the possibility of the opposite?”
Therefore, she is assuming that any man who said what EG said is making a sexual advance.
First, the word “therefore” has no place here — the conclusion does not follow from the premise. And second, she was not making any assumptions, explicit or otherwise, about any person other than the one she had to deal with at the time. Your vapid sophistry needs work, Google-boy.
Totally off point. We are talking about assumptions. Rebecca Watson made an assumption that the EG was asking her for sex. Then she told all guys not to hit on women in elevators. She has also stated what is normal. Not what she thinks is normal, but what is normal. By making broad, sweeping generalizations, she has made assumptions that cannot possibly be correct. She criticizes the EG for objectifying her as a sex object, but turns around and objectifies men in exactly the same manner.
No one is blaming Watson for deciding not to go to the EG’s room. That was her decision, in this instance, I would say it was a good decision. That is NOT the issue, and never has been.
Nice attempt to deflect the topic.
Actually, Rob, she decided he was hitting on her, based on the situation at hand, which includes plenty of cues she couldn’t describe to us if she wanted to. Who are you to say her decision was wrong?
Try and keep this civil. I’ve said nothing that warrants you being an asshole.
She has made assumptions when she tells all men what to do or decides what is normal and what is not.
See post #32. I clearly state her decision was a good one. You are putting words into my mouth. Focus on the point at hand and don’t get sidetracked.
Rob, are you suggesting that only being able to get sex by propositioning women you don’t know in elevators is normal?
@hoary pucoon — Totally off point. We are talking about assumptions.
pucoon was talking about assumptions too, so his reply to you was not at all “off point.” Your sophistry about “assumptions” and “denying the possibility of the opposite” is pure irrelevant bullshit.
Exactly. And your blithering about “assumptions” is totally fucking useless to people in Watson’s situation. Or to anyone else in any situation, for that matter.
She wasn’t making “assumptions,” Google-boy; she was drawing CONCLUSIONS based on observations, reasoning, and previous knowledge and experience. Your entire “point” fails because it is based on a major misuse of the word “assumption.” Use the words right and we’ll take you seriously.
No Stephanie Z. I am suggesting that Rebecca Watson is presumptious in telling all males not to do something based on her own experience, and that she is presumptious in appointing herself arbiter of what is and isn’t normal behavior in males. In the first case, she is presuming to speak for a population about a population based as she freely admits on her own experiencve, and in the second case, she sounds like some little 20-something twit who thinks she knows far more than she actually does.
My original point to Greg was that he was fine with Watson telling “non-normal” guys, guys she decided won’t ever get laid, to screw a watermelon, whereas he jumped all over Lou for the observation that other societies use fruit and animals other than a watermelon. Greg, realizing he had overreacted and made a fool of himself, removed his post. Whatever, that’s his right I guess. He should, however, take down my post.
Somehow jumping to conclusions based on insufficient evidence is better than making an assumption? At least in the latter case you can change your mind if you get more facts.
Conversation is over. You are a sycophant. You contribute nothing original and you deflect conversations into irrelevant territory.
Rob:I am suggesting that Rebecca Watson is presumptious in telling all males not to do something based on her own experience, and that she is presumptious in appointing herself arbiter of what is and isn’t normal behavior in males.
She expressed an opinion, and one that is actually widely held.
Whatever, that’s his right I guess. He should, however, take down my post.
What? How unfair of you. You suggested earlier that you wanted to edit the post. I said fine, no problem, email the edits to me. You have not. Is that because your main purpose in life is to be a poopy face, as opposed to simply getting it right?
You don’t by any chance call yourself a skeptic, do you? Let me know.
“Guys, don’t do that.” (IIRC)
That is not the expression of an opinion. That is a command. That is generalizing a population, in this case males.
In the above video, she makes a statement of fact as to what is and is not normal.
“Poopy face,” Seriously, Greg. LOL. Good one. I used to have an email address: email@example.com.
What’s a skeptic? I’m skeptical about most things, particularly anything politicians say, people who pretend to know the first thing about the scientific method (e.g., Rebecca Watson) when they wouldn’t know scioence if it bit them on the nose, statements and opinions of people who can’t think critically (i.e., 90% of the U.S.), Republicans, Christians, Muslims, Jews, apologists of any sort, people who label anyone they disagree with on the Rebecca Watson EG incident as a misogynist, people who use positions of power to belittle others (a sure sign of an overgrown ego), among others. I’m particularly skeptical of people who can’t listen to what other people say or write, but go off on diatribes based on preconceived notions (Raging Bee would be a great example).
Rob, Rebecca did two things that you’re objecting to. The first is telling guys who have been asking how to increase the number of women in skeptic and atheist organizations not to hit on women who have already said they don’t want to be hit on. It’s not a command. It’s advice, offered to answer a particular question.
The other thing you seem to be objecting to is defining guys who seem to think they can’t get laid without cornering women they haven’t talked to–when those women have already said they don’t want to be hit on–as “not normal.” I’m still trying to figure out why these guys would ever be considered “normal” in the first place. Perhaps you can explain it?
Rob: You are telling Rebecca to shut up. Which is the original problem; A woman makes a statement about male behavior and all the guys line up and tell her to shut up with a few women who claim to be the correct kind of feminists standing in as cheerleaders.
What she actually said, with a snarky tone while rolling her eyes:
“Just a word to the wise here … guys … ah … [snarkface/eyeroll] … don’t do that. Um… you know [snark face, grin, eyeroll, chuckle exasperated shoulder drop and downward glance] ah [shaking head] I don’t really know how else to [snark face] explain [eye roll] how this makes me [snark face] incredibly [valleygirlaccenteffect] uncomfortable [snarkface] but I’ll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman in a you know [snarkface] in a foreign country at 4 am in a hotel elevator with you just you [snarkface/headnod] and don’t invite me backto your hotel room…”
So she told a guy who did something that made her uncomfortable. And she is presenting that on her podcast as an afterthought for general edification.
And you take this as a command to all men to not hit on all women always all the time.
What is it about you that makes you think about these sorts of things in this manner? What is is about your experiences, or your point of view, that causes this sort of guilt-ridden knee-jerk reaction? Spend a lot of time on elevators, Rob? As if that was your actual name?
So regarding the rest of your comment, I take it that you don’t consider yourself a member of the skeptical community. Just wondering.
Stephanie,I thin Rob things that this is normal because …. oh, never mind.
Not the skeptical community that has Rebecca Watson as its spokesperson. Perhaps another skeptical community, if there is any such think as a skeptical community at all.
Many, many people took Rebecca’s comment the same way I did. Many, many people find her attack on McGraw unconscionable, as I did. That’s irrelevant. The thing is, I don’t speak for anyone but myself, and I’m not claiming to represent anyone but myself.
Stephanie Z, I’m not the one that made the claim about normality in males. I don’t have to defend myself. I object to Watson’s use of the word, her clear statement of definition of normal behavior, and her presumption that she is qualified to define normal. Note I have not addressed what category of behavior EG exhibited. That’s is as irrelevant as it was stupid.
Greg, my name is Rob. The email address is what I use when I shouldn’t use my university account, or where I don’t need for people to know my real name. Sort of like Stephanie Z or Raging Bee. I would be happy to identify myself in an email if you will keep it confidential.
Rob, I don’t need you to identify yourself, but I do want to make it clear that the “rob” in the present conversation is not the “rob” who frequently comments here who is a friend and colleague. Something still seems to be wrong with whatever it is that you are doing to get your name changed to JOE BTFSPLK
And your claim that you are speaking for yourself isn’t really the point, is it. The fact is that you are telling someone else, with whom you disagree, to shut up.
Is this why you are so sensitive to your own commenting, that you feel as though you may be told to STFU here? Does that happen to you at a lot of blogs?
Actually, Rob, my name is a link to my blog, where my full name is in use.
What you consider normal and abnormal is absolutely relevant to this. You’re claiming that Rebecca has taken it upon herself to define “normal.” This is only true if she’s making some distinction that’s not in general use. Otherwise, she’s simply using a word as it’s already defined. I’m pretty sure the general consensus is that “guys who seem to think they can’t get laid without cornering women they haven’t talked to–when those women have already said they don’t want to be hit on” constitutes “not normal.” I want to know whether you disagree and, if so, why.
I can’t fix the stupid signature on this laptop. The “Rob” signatures were from my iPad. This is the least of the problems I currently have with my laptop.
Where did I ask Rebecca to shut-up? She and anyone else can say whatever she wants. I can disagree with her for whatever reason I want, and I have justified my reasoning as well as I can.
To be clear, I am NOT “rob”. I’m “Rob,” and I don’t comment here or anywhere else regularly. I don’t know anything about “the” skeptical community, as it were, just that you feel Rebecca is your spokesperson. She isn’t mine, but that does not mean I am not a skeptic, nor does it mean I’m not part of a community of skeptics.
I’m much more active in the climate science area. See, for example, Edward Wegman and his current problems at George Mason University. That’s me and John Mashey on that one. John is the public face, and I work behind the scenes in a more official academic capacity. I was actually quoted in the USA Today article on Wegman’s plagiarism.
…but not as “https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnedhY9IP_bTm-7tkXhQKHrX4-MBV23D0M.”
Rob, its getting worse!
Well, here’s my latest climate post, then: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/07/global_warming_denialism_it_en.php
Greg, did you note the post #12 there? That post has a screwed up name too! The commonality is that poster #12 and I both just registered at Pharyngula!
It’s PZ’s fault.
RW wasn’t telling guys what to do with dolls and watermelons. She was answering the question that many guys put up in response to her statement that women don’t like to be hit on by strangers in isolated elevators late at night and if guys cared about how women feel, they wouldn’t do that.
The question guys were asking her was “how can I get laid if don’t care enough about how women feel to want to change my behavior to be acceptable to women?” Her answer was “you probably can’t”, then she laid out some other options, inflatable dolls and watermelons.
If you disagree with her, why don’t you start up a website or dating service for guys who don’t care how women feel and for women who like guys who don’t care about how they feel and see how that works. That is usually how skeptics settle things, with experiments and data. If you had objective, empirical data that showed that guys who didn’t care about women could honestly say and act that way and that lots of women would find such guys attractive, then RW would (I presume) say “my bad” and direct guys who want to hit on strangers in elevators to that site.
That is not the expression of an opinion. That is a command.
No, dumbass, it was advice, and there’s nothing at all new about it. She’s not the first woman to give such advice to men, and she won’t be the last. And as advice, can you really deny it makes any sense? Has any man gone horribly wrong following such advice when trying to get intimate with a woman?
The fact that you would get all pissy and call this totally unoriginal comment a “command,” and act like it’s some cruel and unusual injustice, says a lot about your maturity.
Your ability as a seer is remarkable. You ascribe all sorts of traits to people with little to no evidence. Let me give you some “advice:” don’t do that.
Actually, Bee cited evidence: the fact that you got all pissy and called this totally unoriginal comment a “command”.
I tried hanging out in the climate thread, but the problem is that I agree with Greg completely, so it wasn’t much fun.
Turns out, I agree with Greg in this thread too. Rebecca Watson’s real calling “is in giving dating advice.” I think Cosmo or Playboy might be fitting publications for said advice, and for her fun, sensationalist writing style.
Also, since when is “getting pissy” (an objective opinion) evidence of anything other than getting pissy? Just because someone rightfully gets angry or upset, does not make that person immature, though if it does, than Raging Bee is extremely immature by his own definition.
“Don’t do that” is clearly an imperative statement; in other words, it’s a command. There can be no dispute about this. It’s a fact.
When I get pissy, I occasionally misspell words. Apparently.
Very interesting points you have made there, proferssional and well stated
Dating Advice Expert
Current ye@r *
Leave this field empty
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.
Notify me of followup comments via E-Mail.