creepy men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny reddit vaginas

Vaginas are icky because … SCIENCE! (779 upvotes on Reddit)

How to get 800 upvotes on Reddit: Offer an evo-psych explanation of why vaginas are icky, preferably including the phrase “wet hole.” Here, watch a master at work:


Well, that proves it. It’s SCIENCE!



381 replies on “Vaginas are icky because … SCIENCE! (779 upvotes on Reddit)”


B: The theories don’t have predictive value because they are either wrong about the facts (P&T on “dressing slutty”) or they are so vague that any state of the world can be shoehorned after the fact into a prediction of the theory (If men prefer thin women it’s because thinness is an indicator of health. If men prefer fat women it’s because fatness is an indicator of health.) If you are familiar with Popper, this is similar to his criticism of psychoanalytic theory.

Well, the theory of natural selection itself has predictive value (of course, Popper even denied that).

Ugh, does this really have to turn into the evopsych discussion board? The evopsych people are even duller and full of more unwarranted belief in their own intelligence than Randians. Can’t we perform a “boring trolls, begone” spell or something?

That’s how people behave when they’re lacking good arguments. And btw what have I written to deserve to be called a troll?

No, that’s how people behave when you barge into a space uninvited and attempt to steer the conversation to your pet topic.

ahem… the original article here is about evolutionary psychology!

Also, do you own this comment section?

Notice how the reaction you’re getting here is universally negative? There’s a reason for that.

The article is mocking evolutionary psychology – that’s what this blog does, it mocks. That’s not an invitation for you to post multiple tl;dr comments about how it’s totally legit, honest. You are certainly free to do so, and I am also free to point out that you’re boring the crap out of me and wish for you to vanish in a puff of smoke.

People who love you and whom you love in return

Awesome if you *have* that, otherwise the whole idea is just depressing.

@bobbyjo (@bobbyjo1950)
“The government is mostly run by men and I got to ask these mrs’s how is it that American women was so tricky as to get all these men running our country to give them special treatment?”

Obama is black. By the definition you give, black men should be the most privileged people in this country yet they’re the least privileged. This is the poorest arguement ever put forth. The race or gender in power has no bearing on who is privileged in society. Misandry is the order of the day, every day.

I completely agree. Especially in light of the fact that women Can and DO vote! It isn’t just us menz who voted these men serving as government officials into office to represent us and this is still somewhat of a democracy so the government does not have complete control over society at large.

I completely agree. Especially in light of the fact that women Can and DO vote! It isn’t just us menz who voted these men serving as government officials into office to represent us and this is still somewhat of a democracy so the government does not have complete control over society at large.

Oh god yes, because US democracy is purely about votes and not at all about funding and media coverage. Astutely noted.

So, NWO, people who are depressed or just thinks they’re bad are bad??? I guess that means that all these men who kill themselves are right to do so, then. Being high is not a excuse for not being a decent human.

Arks: I almost agree with you! Breasts are silly looking, so are penes and testicles, all these shapeless hanging bits seems silly and not all like the photoshoped body we are used to by tv, cinema and magazine. I don’t find them disgusting on necessary unattractive, though. And their evolutionary reason to exist is that they’re useful to feed babies.

If we’re citing the bible, I’d like to point out the more awesome bible I know (even though I’m an atheist):

My favorite stories: Noah’s arks and Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction.
1) God kill everybody but Noah’s family, because they’re the only good people. Water comes in, water comes out, two lines later Noah is dead drunk naked on the floor and gets angry at family member for seeing him. Presumably lots of incestuous sex ensue to repopulate the world.
2) God wants to kill plenty of people. Lot manages to argue with God but can’t find enough good people. Angels (looking like men) come to the city, city people want to rape them for some reason. Lot try to give his virgin daughters instead, but that doesn’t work. Lot’s famil runaway, God kill Lot’s wife for looking at the city being destroyed. They go live in a cave for a few time, Lot gets dead drunk (they brought booze!) and have sex with daughters, two nights in a row. (I know the story said they raped him, but when book written by men says presumably very young (because virgin) girls assaulted father that was ready to let get raped a few hours early, I doubt)

I know I’m late to the party here, so maybe this has been said, but… imagining that there are geniunely straight guys out there who think that vaginas are ugly is just so sad to me.

I mean, what kind of life is that?


I am also free to point out that you’re boring the crap out of me and wish for you to vanish in a puff of smoke.

I’m sorry, when there are such nice and friendly people like you, I’m going to stay.

Luan Li: Depends how you define ‘testable’ and ‘replicable’. If scientists say, that there was a natural fission reactor in Oklo, which was active 1.7 billion years ago, then this is a time long gone, so long gone not even simple sponges did exist. 😀 So we can’t directly test this claim, it is absolutely impossible without a time machine. Yet it’s not unscientific to make such claims and to accept them as true. Most theories of nuclear physics are supported by overwhelming evidence, they are also testable and replicable, but it’s only the inference and the application of these theories that supports the claim “There was a natural fission reactor in Oklo 1.7 billion years ago”.

This is a specious example, and it’s scientific, even though you phrased in a way to make it appear to not be. 1: It is falsifiable. 2: Properly stated it’s a validly constructed hypothesis. 3: If there were data which suggested such a thing a search for physical evidence would be possible.

EvPsych tries to pretend that non-physical things can be “proven” from present behaviors in a malleable environment. There is a vast quantity of, “things are this way now because this is the best way for things to happen”, which is teleologically suspect, and ignores any number of situations in which people flourished while not doing whatever things the theory says is, “the way things are.”

The idea that natural selection makes traits more or less common in a population is, even if it’s not a theory, definitely a scientifically proven statement that can be used to make predictions or to explain things.

But that’s not what you did. You said that EvPsych was validated because the process of evolution validates it. As kladle said the problem is the way it’s being used by most EvPsychers is, again, subect to teleological problems. They aare working backwards from their conclusions, looking for, “proofs” and the problem is that human behavior is so varied that proofs are certain to be found; which they then handwave with, “evolution did this”, but they ignore evidence of successful groups which are engaged in what they call, “counter productive strategies”, the sort they say aren’t adaptive.

regarding “slutty” Very difficult, I didn’t bring up that word. Probably “a very revealing (worn in situations where it’s not necessary to dress that way) or suggestive outfit”.

Nonsense. You used in argument. Your definition is too vague to be useful. It ignores context. What defines, “necessary”, and to whom. To whom is is suggestive; and/or, suggestive of what?

Luan Li: Well, the theory of natural selection itself has predictive value (of course, Popper even denied that).

Non-respsonsive and immaterial If one isn’t using the theory to make testable predictions it’s validity isn’t relevant.


Next thing ya know, God’ll be two lesbians living on the farside of the moon!

Why not? It doesn’t make any less sense than any of the other bullshit people make up about their gods. In fact, lesbian moon goddesses actually sounds slightly less silly than, I dunno, transubstantiation, talking snakes, or pillars of salt. But that’s just me *shrug*

It’s only preposterous to you because it isn’t your god, or one that you’re familiar with enough to have become inured to. I’m an atheist, and every god description I’ve heard (so far) sounds like some ridiculous, half-baked bullshit that was probably thought up by drunk people. Including the wrothful, surly, possibly drunk MRA god that you no doubt believe in. See, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that god always resembles most the person who is describing it. There’s probably a Mencken or Twain quote for that, but I’m too lazy to look…

Anyway: teapots, motherfucker, it’s all teapots and invisible pink garage dragons! ;D


And Kyrie, too bad about your link! That is one of my all-time favorite websites. I own several of his books. And I like to read the section on the “Law” because the innocent looking Leggo elephant just slays me. Also, the guy seems like a really cool guy who I’d always ask to work with because the quality of his work is sheer awesomeness, as opposed to merely mantastic.

Evopsych always looks to me like a (very) slightly more complex “Just So” story without the humor and the cute animals.

NW0 said@8.19pm:

Then we need a new personal pronoun and zie will do quite well. Indeed, I’ve felt this for some time because there are lots of people who don’t fit into the gender binary and they shouldn’t be forced onto a procrustean bed just because you don’t want to acknowledge their existence.

Also: I agree with everyone who thinks that Ozy should use whatever personal pronoun zie wants.


I’m so sorry that you’re feeling so bad. Hang in there and it will pass. These episodes do pass even if it doesn’t feel like it when you’re slogging through them.

I really sympathize. I went through something similar a few weeks ago when my chemo was really getting to me.



This “oh hey, I am not the cosmos” attitude seems to elude a lot of men, especially if they’re really sexist.

I suspect the causation is in the opposite direction. If (like certain trolls here) you assume everyone is like you, it’s hard to understand why women are acting like they have totally different experiences from yours, and decide they must be inventing it for some nefarious reason.


I also think it’s hilarious how negatively the women here react to being told their bodies are disgusting. That’s what the mainstream media tells men every single day.

Do you think that’s a good thing? That the media should keep telling men that*, and men should also say it about women? Do you think women control the media? Wouldn’t it be better if no one told any group of people their bodies are disgusting?

Also, as Dracula pointed out, that is what the media tells women every day.

*Assuming that’s even true


All to jam men into a feminized version of your vision of a genderless box.

Feminized =/= genderless. Why doyou want to place restrictions on how men may behave, Slavey?

I am perfectly fine with femme people and with butch people, what I am not fine with is people trying to enforce those notions on anyone else, or using it as an excuse to treat others poorly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.