Potentially Everything

Radical feminists aver that all men are potential rapists. In one sense this is true, in that they possess a penis; and in another sense as well, in that if the males of some other species do not rape, it is because they cannot. Most birds, for example, lack a penis, and reproduce by bringing together two openings. Three per cent do have one, however, and these include drakes, those notorious brutalisers of the avian world. On the other hand the ducks appear to defend themselves by growing elaborate sexual passages that make insemination harder if the females are not cooperating.

That nature has not seen fit to provide human females with such anatomical tools with which to choose their impregnators may be because human males are not, when all is said and done, quite as bad as the drakes. Spider Robinson sees men as desperate to get their hands on what women have, and baffled by their decisions to award it or not. “We wouldn’t be human”, he continues, “if we didn’t sometimes fantasise about just knocking you down and taking it. The truly astonishing thing is how seldom we do. I can only speculate that most of us must love you a lot, for some reason.”

One of the greatest myths of the later twentieth century was that testosterone is specifically a hormone for male sexuality and aggression, which can then be considered the same thing. Those who have bought into this fairy story should be asked why, when a man is in love, his testosterone levels fall, and when a woman is in love, her testosterone levels rise. Should we go round saying that women should be sequestrated when in love, in case they beat someone up?

Meanwhile the word “potential” is a slippery slope, because everybody is potentially almost everything. We could equally well say that all women are potential sacrificers of their infants to Moloch.

One Response

Subscribe to comments via RSS

  1. Written by urban
    on September 7, 2011 at 17:36
    Permalink

    Everything that ‘everybody knows’ about testosterone is based on seat-of-the-pants notions, somebody’s ideas of ‘common sense’, so self-evident that there is no reason to test any of it scientifically. How convenient for the ideologues, eh?

    In fact it’s a LOT more subtle anyone imagines, as you gesture at above, Hugo. Male aggression seems to be linked to low testosterone much more solidly than to excessive levels. But the research still hasn’t really been done, and probably never will be since findings to date point away from what the researchers had been looking for. The actual data just doesn’t support the ideology, so the data must be irrelevant.

Subscribe to comments via RSS

Leave a Reply