Kershnar's Small Penis

There's not much that screams "my penis is so small I need to intimidate the super smart women I work with who won't marry me," like this does:

http://www.observertoday.com/page/content.det...

There is a known biologic scientific link between Small Penis Syndrome (SPS) and writing about rape and porn. If you do have a small penis and you watch porn, SPS can get real serious since their schlongs are so super-sized.

I feel bad for this little dude. Every time I read what he writes, I think his penis is even smaller than I did the time before. The poor guy is trying to describe rape, procreation and evolution and he's got no kids of his own. He's never been married and he's been turned down a few times. Then he overtly pushes women away, maybe as a way to explain his inability to pass on his genes?

So sad. And so freakin' hilarious at the same time. Bwahahaha!

rayzor wrote:

Every time I read what he writes, I think his penis is even smaller than I did the time before.

Does it still exist? Or are you shooting for infinity?

And his feet are so big. I guess that explains his car.

What a bunch of douchebags. You people are pathetic. On the bright side, the first of the month is a week away. You'll be able to buy some menthol and malt. As a taxpayer, I say "you're welcome"

I read that and that guy seems bored, disturbed or both. It would appear theres some insecurity present in the need to minimize rape and put out a message that gives an 'out' to the perp. People with borderline personality disorder play mental games with themselves in an attempt to justify their bad behavior. It makes me wonder if this is an example of such an exercise. It could also be that he wants to give the appearance of such a condition for the sole purpose of what the OP said - to intimidate the competent women he works with. Chalk it up to anotheer reason tenure is a bad idea. I'm sure this guy doesn't fit in well with his fellow teachers and they have to put up with this indirect hostility every time his pen hits the paper.

Psuedoscientist Kershnar’s article might as well be called “Evolutionary Psychology: Why It Sucks and Is Dying a Slow, Deserved Death.” It’s disappointing that in this day and age, something as silly and vulgar as a “rape gene” would even need debunking. However, what it really points to is the massive failure of the scientific community to communicate to the general public about the field of genetics- what the human genome means, the intricate dance between the genome and the environment, and how exciting it all is. It’s incredibly complex, and no credible biologist would advocate for something as wildly unscientific as a “rape gene.”
Aside from totally failing to account for rapes that don’t fall into this annoying, transparent trope of dominant men and survivalist women (such as child molestation, homosexual rape, rape of vulnerable, non-fertile women in nursing homes, and other dark facets of the human experience), it’s just bad science. My eyes rolled as I read about evolutionary psychology’s assertion about “mental modules” in the brain derived from genetics playing a role in male rapists’ behavior (asserted by Begley and cited by Palmer and Thornhill). That “mental modules in the brain” bit sounds like something straight out of L. Ron Hubbard. Come on, people. Seriously?!
While scientists have made magnificent strides in research, they have dropped the ball in communicating to the public about genetics. You get your standard fix of Mendelian genetics in high school, doing those little prediction boxes about blue eyes and brown. You read some stories about things like the BRCA1 gene and its highly specialized role in breast cancer. We get such a limited view of genetics in school and in the news that it’s no wonder that people conclude genes are like little “ON” and “OFF” switches.
If you have a certain gene, you will have a certain result, simple as that, every time, right? Wrong. There is such a vibrant interplay between the genetic hand dealt, and how that actually plays out, an aliveness and mutability to genes, that we just don’t ever hear about in the popular, watered-down version.
The difference between the way we explain the beautiful genome to people, and the way things really are, is like the difference between elevator Muzak and a live, full orchestra playing at full tilt. It’s the breathless excitement of a Final Four game, it’s the last stretch of the Kentucky Derby, it’s whatever cliche you want to throw at it that represents something fast, unpredictable, and glorious.
Everything that Einstein ever said about seeing through to the ultimate wonder and beauty of the universe through science was dead on. If the scientific community shared their passion for the genome a little more loudly with the general public, they would be less likely to fall for this sort of claptrap, which Kershnar dispatches so ignorantly. Some faculty need to focus a bit more on what they actually know and have researched and less time trying to shock people with their sociopathy.
I have no comment about the size of Kershnar's penis, but there is much more evidence supporting the existance of Small Penis Syndrome than exists for that of a rape gene. Interesting connection.

It is culture, not genes, that make men rape prone.

Note to Self: Philosophy courses ‘not so much’ when the time comes for my kids to register for their college classes.

this would be a good time for someone who has actually seen the penis to now come forward.

omg.i got a good belly laugh from this thread.

i must have the gene that attracts rapists.

Just for fun, let's say there is a rape gene. When we eradicate it, can we get rid the small penis genes too? My vagina deserves respect and happiness. End the violence. Large penis genes for everyone!

I will not comment on the size of Dr. Kershnar's penis. It's not right to even type his name and that word in the same sentence.

I will say that Drieschner and Lange (1999) found that men who rape tend to believe more strongly in myths about rape, and they are more likely to engage in fantasies about coercive sex.

Mike wrote:

What a bunch of douchebags. You people are pathetic. On the bright side, the first of the month is a week away. You'll be able to buy some menthol and malt. As a taxpayer, I say "you're welcome"

Looking at all the big words and ideas present, I am doubtful that those posting here are welfare or disability 'bums.' I suspect they make a significant contribution to the tax base.

reaper wrote:

<quoted text>
Looking at all the big words and ideas present, I am doubtful that those posting here are welfare or disability 'bums.' I suspect they make a significant contribution to the tax base.

Your all pathetic. Leave the poor guy alone.

Dr. Kershnar writes very deliberately controversial articles, sometimes ridiculously so, and insulting to large groups of people. He does this on purpose, whether for humor or as exercises in intellectualism, I don't know. I find some of his articles interesting, and some, if not most, just ridiculous. He is begging for the remarks being made here, and has been for a long time. I don't feel sorry for "the poor guy" at all. If you continulaly walk around slapping people in the face, just to see what happens, sooner or later, someone will slap you back. And, don't count on it being "tit for tat". Your slap might get a solid left hook as a response. I seriously doubt he gives a damn anyway. I think remarks and reactions like these are what he's seeking. He likes the attention.

I don't think he wants this particular flavor of attention. He likes to put up things that can't be proven so he can pull off some kind of philosophy mumbo jumbo framing of the topic he determined. I don't recall any personal attacks like this. I've only seen people try to reason with the unreasonable. That scenario seems to help him feel superior.

The next thing you know he'll be writing about how someone with a small penis can't commit rape.

Ihavetosay wrote:

I think remarks and reactions like these are what he's seeking. He likes the attention.

I know exactly what you are saying, but I'm really enjoying reading this discussion. I tend to feel a bit sick when he's attacking the various groups. I'm not sure he is looking for this particular type of personal attention. He likes to control the parameters of the argument. This discussion is not within his control. It's insightful (though off color).

It never occurred to me how fun it would be to delve into his psychosis even though I am trained to do so. In this case, why would someone so voraciously want to get attention saying hurtful things about others and disguise it as some kind of intellectual writing?

They would never admit he was doing anything other than having an intellectual discussion. But the emotionally immature person has low levels of self-esteem and self-confidence and consequently feels insecure; to counter these feelings of insecurity they will spend a large proportion of their lives creating situations in which they become the centre of attention. The need for attention is inversely proportional to emotional maturity, therefore anyone indulging in attention-seeking behaviors is telling you how emotionally immature they are.

One might have an honest opinion and express it solely for that purpose. That would not be negative attention seeking behavior. But even if the opinion was sincere, if the person expected it to elicit a negative reaction from the other person and did so partly with that goal in mind, then I would describe the behavior as at least partly (and perhaps predominantly) negative attention seeking. Those that seek negative attention through quasi-intellectual debates often use terms like ‘fans,’‘groupies’ or ’readers’ to describe those that take this bait. This fantasy theme uses language to put the attention seeker in the imaginary position of power.

I would treat him by presenting the facts that he is looking for more attention, especially negative attention. I’d help him figure out why this situation is the way it is. I’d help him find ways to solicit positive attention and/or reduce his need for attention.
As far as the people in the community or family members who are offended, you need to figure out if you want to provide the additional attention that he is demanding. If you don’t want to give him the negative attention he is demanding, ignore him or take steps to punish him in ways that impact his expectations. The attack on his manhood and desirability might be considered this type of punishment. It’s likely not what he intended from his ‘admirers.’

Bump! Thanks, posters. This made my day. Very insightful and amusing all at the same time.

It takes one to know one?

reaper wrote:

<quoted text>
Looking at all the big words and ideas present, I am doubtful that those posting here are welfare or disability 'bums.' I suspect they make a significant contribution to the tax base.

The ability to use polysyllabic words does not preclude one from being a scumbag. Only a scumbag would attack someone as did the OP. If the OP is educated, it just makes me wonder why he/she attacked him. Is the OP personally threatened by Dr Kerschnar? I doubt it. It must be that the OP's ideals are threatened by the writings of the esteemed Professor. Dr Kerschnar writes on many subjects. I doubt the OP has the intellectual (or spinal) fortitude to debate him on a real issue, so the OP chose to use a cowardly attack, using a subject that gives the little perverts on this site a cheap thrill. Hence my comment that the OP is a scumbag, whether on Welfare or not.

Mike wrote:

<quoted text>
The ability to use polysyllabic words does not preclude one from being a scumbag. Only a scumbag would attack someone as did the OP. If the OP is educated, it just makes me wonder why he/she attacked him. Is the OP personally threatened by Dr Kerschnar? I doubt it. It must be that the OP's ideals are threatened by the writings of the esteemed Professor. Dr Kerschnar writes on many subjects. I doubt the OP has the intellectual (or spinal) fortitude to debate him on a real issue, so the OP chose to use a cowardly attack, using a subject that gives the little perverts on this site a cheap thrill. Hence my comment that the OP is a scumbag, whether on Welfare or not.

Kershnar was a coward by writing to intimidate. I am not threatened. I'm supplying some comic relief to all those he's violated with his words or otherwise. I know they appreciate it and have been inspired by the writings of the many smart and talented people who have contributed here.

To all those that work at the college and feel oppressed: there is an inherent lesson in Steve's message. If he can write that an have nothing happen, imagine what you can do with YOUR free speech. The possibilities are endless. Speak up when you are oppressed. Respond to the meanings, not just the words. You've got nothing to lose and everything to gain. The consitution protects your speech too, so GO FOR IT!