…and this is a 
Cephalopods suggestive of sperm?
Category: Cephalopods • Weirdness
Posted on: March 4, 2007 8:48 PM, by PZ Myers
A reader sent me this link, thinking I might find it funny. Why, yes I do.
Does anyone get Nick Magazine for their kids? We received the March issue in the mail yesterday & I find one of the cartoons to be very inappropriate for kids (m, warning potentially offensive)
It's a lame cartoon, but then that's what we might expect from a kiddie magazine. It's also offensive because it portrays a horribly incorrect pattern of arm development in a cephalopod—it's not sequential as drawn. The arms emerge during early embryonic development, as you can see here in this photo of a Euprymna embryo.
So yeah, I can understand why she'd be upset. Nick Magazine is like totally bogus, man. It's anatomically and embryologically incorrect.
the baby octopus looks like a sperm & I really don't think that is an appropriate thing for a kids magazine to be making fun of … I've called the magazine, but was only able to leave a voicemail so far.
She's what? Upset because it looks like a sperm? Or because the magazine is making fun of sperm? I know they're sacred, but this is going too far.
My son is almost 9 & has no idea why I'm upset about the magazine at the moment, but I still am not comfortable with seeing sexual things in this manner. I will be checking his future issues before he looks at them & I do NOT plan to renew the subscription.
Would this upset you?
No, it wouldn't upset me in the least. And lady, you really need to release some of that tension if you look at that cartoon in a kid's magazine and start thinking "sexual things". Either that, or because this is from a forum for people who are having oodles of kiddies, maybe everything she sees makes her think of sex. Better take the baby's pacifier away.
Although, come to think of it, the mama octopus in that cartoon is kind of hot, in a fresh-faced, wholesome sort of way.
Comments
Obviously this breaks the 11th commandment.
"Thou shalt not draw anything that remotely resembles spoof."
Posted by: beepbeepitsme | March 4, 2007 9:04 PM
You people are all deviant wanna-bees. Let me show you how it's done:
Look Ma, I got my first tentacle!
Shutup boy! For the LAST TIME... its NOT a tentacle!
Posted by: DaveX | March 4, 2007 9:09 PM
from the upset parent:
"my son is almost 9 and has no idea why I'm upset..."
smart kid.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 4, 2007 9:24 PM
this is from a forum for people who are having oodles of kiddies
another link from the same site:
Homeschooling - A wonderful board where homeschoolers can meet other homeschoolers and share ideas about curriculum, teaching styles, get and offer advice, and much more.
translate:
a place for parents that want to teach their kids why it's an evil thing to show an octopus with one tentacle.
Idiocracy, people, watch it, if just for the first 10 minutes where it sets up the central premise.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 4, 2007 9:29 PM
It's an inkblot test, isn't it? They see sex EVERYWHERE.
Posted by: Carlie | March 4, 2007 9:36 PM
And the kids reading this book are supposed to notice the resemblance of this octopus to a microscopic reproductive cell that no one will mention in their presence for fear of being called a pedophile, how?
I still chortled though.
Posted by: Slacker Ninja | March 4, 2007 9:45 PM
That site is giving me a conniption fit. Who do those people think they are? Does the world really NEED that many more people?
GAH! Eleven children! Five children! Eight children! Stop it! Stop it NOW!
Posted by: amy | March 4, 2007 9:50 PM
One of my favorite moments of ironly was coming across a homeschooling display at a bookstore that included "Homeschooling for Dummies".
Posted by: JLem | March 4, 2007 10:02 PM
Having been effectively homeschooled (independent study) for several years myself, I wish people would think a little before shooting their mouths off about "homeschoolers" as if they were one huge homogenous group. That said, this woman is a frickin' idiot.
Posted by: Azkyroth | March 4, 2007 10:03 PM
um...make that 'irony'
Posted by: JLem | March 4, 2007 10:03 PM
"Homeschooling for Dummies".
ROFLMAO.
@Azkyroth.
of course, and there are certainly examples of intellignet conservatives as well.
don't take it personally when someone points out the general commonalities.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 4, 2007 10:08 PM
No fair, her imaganation gives sperm eyebrows! Mine don't even have a face.
Posted by: Mike Fox | March 4, 2007 10:18 PM
Oy, flashbacks to biology class and the tragedy of the commons. Limited resources, people! Take your fair share and leave the rest!
Posted by: Tom Foss | March 4, 2007 10:46 PM
On certain occasions, I've been known to inform these people that their 120 grandchildren are going to die long horrible deaths from starvation and disease.
Maybe Dembski will report me to the Department of Homeland Security.
Posted by: Dustin | March 4, 2007 10:55 PM
If her son doesn't know what a sperm cell is then she shouldn't worry about the magazine publishing an image that looks like one. How is a similarity to something that is perceived in her educated mind going to expose her ignorant son to sex? Why can't these people form any argument from common sense?
Posted by: Bobryuu | March 4, 2007 11:17 PM
If this mother thinks that the cartoon cephalopodlet looks so much like a sperm, I hate to think what will happen when she finds her son has hidden under his mattress a science book on amphibians, with pictures of...tadpoles
Posted by: Theo Bromine | March 4, 2007 11:34 PM
Sorry to burst your bubble, Ichthyic, but Atheists homeschool too.
Posted by: K | March 4, 2007 11:38 PM
Why can't these people form any argument from common sense?
excellent question, actually. However, I'm sure in her mind her response was based on exactly that: common sense.
projection causes one to conclude that everyone of course reacts in similar fashion to stimuli as oneself.
without sufficient negative feedback to disavow the poor woman of that notion, she of couse concludes her response to indeed be common sense.
hard to say whether threads like this one would cause her to think twice or not. I guess it depends on just how complete and stable her projections have become.
I actually pity her, right up to the point where she will inevitably explain in detail to her kids exactly why she thinks the picture "evil".
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 4, 2007 11:42 PM
Posted by: llewelly | March 4, 2007 11:42 PM
I suppose this lady is going to raise all kinds of Hell when those godless 8th grade health teachers inform the little tyke of the existence of prophylactics. Kids, as Phylis Schlafly has long known, can't handle that kind of information until they've been biologically able and impelled to make children of their for the better part of 10 years.
Posted by: Dustin | March 4, 2007 11:43 PM
Sorry to burst your bubble, Ichthyic, but Atheists homeschool too.
you'd only "burst my bubble" if I hadn't clearly written about exceptions in response to Azkyroth.
I wonder if your own homeschooling screwed up your reading comprehension, though.
or did you want to extend out and make the suggestion that most homeschooling in the US is done in atheist families?
'cause that would be funny.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 4, 2007 11:45 PM
I'm not sure why people think eight or more children is a shockingly large amount. Wouldn't most commenters here have grandmothers or great-grandmothers who had huge broods?
Posted by: Ronald Brak | March 4, 2007 11:50 PM
Skatje's actually way ahead of you on that. Her blog's tagline is "STOP BREEDING."
Posted by: Joshua | March 4, 2007 11:52 PM
CILFs? Cephalopods I'd Like to F...?
Posted by: Zarquon | March 5, 2007 1:05 AM
The real question is "how does an economy deal with a stagnant or declining population?". Until there is a realistic answer to that question, the specter of negative or zero population growth is an easy target for those who wish to maintain the socio-religious status quo.
"God says breed."
"The economy needs to continue to grow."
"The growing economy needs not only workers, but consumers, without either of which it is likely to fall into terrible depression."
It is hard to argue these points by positing a world made hellish by our own profligacy, as it will have no easily seen analouge to our known history.
And nobody thinks that the predator/prey equation actually relates to their darling little children. Who will soon be eating each other in the Thunderdome.
Posted by: autumn | March 5, 2007 1:16 AM
Ichthyic, there was also a spate of homeschooling by grown-up (possibly a contradiction here) ex-hippies and other leftists, who believed in the ability of the magical family to teach better than the institutionalized school system. It probably peaked in the late eighties and early nineties, and has thus fallen out of the public eye, but your comments did assume home-schooling was an exclusively conservative milieu.
Posted by: autumn | March 5, 2007 1:23 AM
I'm not sure why people think eight or more children is a shockingly large amount. Wouldn't most commenters here have grandmothers or great-grandmothers who had huge broods?
They didn't have any choice. No reliable contraception and no right in law to refuse "conjugal relations" just because they didn't want another baby.
Not quite the same today, is it?
Posted by: tigtog | March 5, 2007 1:25 AM
but your comments did assume home-schooling was an exclusively conservative milieu.
hello. seems people have forgotten how to read for comprehension.
second time:
see comments i made to azkyroth.
If you want to argue that the majority of homeschooling these days is done by liberal "hippies", you have a rather large hill to climb.
For the last friggin time:
I implied only that homeschooling is in the vast majority done by religious fundamentalists.
feel free to prove me wrong, but outlier examples and past history don't count.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 5, 2007 1:50 AM
The women on my father's side of the family have always had huge broods. My great-great aunt had 23 children. Eleven children? Ha! Amatuers!
More seriously, when you consider the maths of it, shouldn't most of us have come from families where grandmothers and great grandmothers had huge broods?
Posted by: Ronald Brak | March 5, 2007 2:00 AM
Oh, for the love of Mike.
I don't think I would have noticed the baby cephalopod's vague resemblance to sperm if it hadn't been pointed out -- and I'm a sex writer! (I thought it looked like a balloon)
This is right up there with the Scrotum Police. These people are more obsessed with sex than the dirtiest-minded pornographers I know.
Posted by: Greta Christina | March 5, 2007 2:48 AM
Having been effectively homeschooled (independent study) for several years myself, I wish people would think a little before shooting their mouths off about "homeschoolers" as if they were one huge homogenous group.
One could say that they're all dummies except you, if it weren't for the fact that your complaint is so dumb.
Posted by: truth machine | March 5, 2007 2:58 AM
Before I saw the caption I immediately thought "hectocotylus". Umm. Now that gives a whole load of captions they'd hate!
Posted by: Dave Godfrey | March 5, 2007 3:01 AM
Sorry to burst your bubble, Ichthyic, but Atheists homeschool too.
He referred to a specific link. If your education hadn't been so inadequate, you could have figured out for yourself that it's http://lotsofkids.com/forums/hsboard/rwf.cgi
Here, again for the retards, is his comment about that site, not homeschooling in general:
"a place for parents that want to teach their kids why it's an evil thing to show an octopus with one tentacle"
Posted by: truth machine | March 5, 2007 3:07 AM
I'm not sure why people think eight or more children is a shockingly large amount. Wouldn't most commenters here have grandmothers or great-grandmothers who had huge broods?
I'm not sure why you would think that to be relevant, even if it were true (my grandparents had three children combined) -- homeschooling, perhaps. What matters is how many children people have on average today, since these women are having children today.
Posted by: truth machine | March 5, 2007 3:13 AM
Ichthyic, there was also a spate of homeschooling by grown-up (possibly a contradiction here) ex-hippies and other leftists, who believed in the ability of the magical family to teach better than the institutionalized school system.
For certain values of "spate".
but your comments did assume home-schooling was an exclusively conservative milieu.
Uh, no, they didn't. Perhaps you were homeschooled?
Posted by: truth machine | March 5, 2007 3:16 AM
I implied only that homeschooling is in the vast majority done by religious fundamentalists.
Actually, you didn't. You may (apparently do) believe that, but nothing you wrote previously implied it.
Posted by: truth machine | March 5, 2007 3:20 AM
More seriously, when you consider the maths of it, shouldn't most of us have come from families where grandmothers and great grandmothers had huge broods?
What math?
Posted by: truth machine | March 5, 2007 3:22 AM
The baby octopus should have been shown with two arms, and the text should have read:
"Look Ma, my tentacles finally dropped!"
Posted by: Patrick Quigley | March 5, 2007 3:36 AM
Remember the husbands are having huge broods too :-)
Posted by: Magpie | March 5, 2007 3:48 AM
I'm remided of some of the Goon SHhws, where sometimes the (completely clean) punch-line(s) of notoriously filthy jokes were spoken.
Which then resulted in showers of "offended" letters - who could only have been offended if they knew the joke in the first place ........
I believe great fun was had by all.
Posted by: G. Tingey | March 5, 2007 3:51 AM
Yeah! And the Neville Chamberlain atheists are still whining and finicking about the "anti-religious bigotry" where :
there is an underlying feeling of superiority, an unliberal belittling of the little guy, a feeling that "Joe Schmoe" is stupid and to some extent worth less than the intellectually righteous secularist,
Excuse me, but how one can NOT feel some superiority over "Joe Schmoe" in such cases?
Posted by: Kevembuangga | March 5, 2007 4:11 AM
Well, that seems like a dumb thing to complain about. :P
Oh. See the "seems" above? Notice how I in fact phrased a question in a way that recognizes my limitations as a speaker and as such acknowledges the possibility that I might be mistaken? Notice how I'm still typing? Obviously a little humility didn't kill me. Perhaps it wouldn't kill you, either (but if it would, don't you think it'd be better to get it over with?)
I still haven't been able to reconcile the occasional intelligent and insightful comments from you with your petulant demeanor and abysmal judgement in determining which statements do or do not merit one of the sneering potshots you consider an intelligent refutation. I'm down to "angsty adolescent" or some form of developmental disorder (Asperger's comes to mind) as an explanation. Is there any chance you'll enlighten me, or will this observation merely provoke another potshot at the rhetorical and intellectual level of high school kids mocking their peers who don't shop at Hot Topic?
Posted by: Azkyroth | March 5, 2007 5:22 AM
I know for me it's because I can imagine trying to feed that many (and, to an extent, what a woman would go through being pregnant and giving birth that many times). Something about the number of people the planet can sustain being finite might be involved somehow, too...
Incidentally, many of us had great...great grandparents who were slaveholders. Does that mean we should be? If not...then what the bloody hell are you getting at by bringing this up?
Posted by: Azkyroth | March 5, 2007 5:26 AM
I wonder if she covers pictures of tadpoles with figleaves.
Posted by: D. Hill | March 5, 2007 5:54 AM
I'm remided of some of the Goon SHhws, where sometimes the (completely clean) punch-line(s) of notoriously filthy jokes were spoken.
Which then resulted in showers of "offended" letters - who could only have been offended if they knew the joke in the first place ........
I believe great fun was had by all.
Posted by: G. Tingey | March 5, 2007 03:51 AM
"Officer, arrest that man! He's whistling a dirty song!"
-- CV
Posted by: CortxVortx | March 5, 2007 9:08 AM
I think the kid doesn't get why she is upset becuase he has no clue what sperm is. I hope he can remember this when he is 12. He will probably look back at this whole thing and laugh his ass off.
as a side note.. this woman better never buyt any planters chocolate colvered peanuts. Have you seen the packaging?!http://farm1.static.flickr.com/131/411467259_13fe1273ca.jpg?v=0
Posted by: denise | March 5, 2007 10:52 AM
"...then what the bloody hell are you getting at by bringing this up."
I just thought that most Americans would not find large families unusual and I find it interesting that many aparently do. I was wondering why. But it seems to be a touchy subject, so I'll just chalk it down to a cultural difference.
Posted by: Ronald Brak | March 5, 2007 1:26 PM
"I just thought that most Americans would not find large families unusual and I find it interesting that many aparently do. I was wondering why. But it seems to be a touchy subject, so I'll just chalk it down to a cultural difference."
I don't think it's unusual. I think it's short-sighted and selfish. :)
Posted by: amy | March 5, 2007 5:00 PM
Still laughing at comment 19!
Posted by: David Marjanović | March 5, 2007 7:21 PM
Denise's URL in clicky format.
Posted by: Nes | March 5, 2007 7:21 PM
I would give the recaptioning prize to Patrick Quigley.
Posted by: Carlie | March 5, 2007 8:11 PM
Ever notice how much sperm resemble viruses*
*Virus is an English word. We Borged it, it's ours. So "virus" get pluralised just like any other modern day English word.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | March 5, 2007 10:45 PM
She could only be worried if the tyke has a microscope.
Posted by: Monado | March 6, 2007 1:25 AM