Kaiti, You’re Not a Slut
Why Michael Funetta deserves a vasectomy
By Celia Gurney
Published March 27, 2009
You may remember reading guest writer Michael Funetta’s column, “Kaiti, You Slut,” which appeared in the March 13 issue of the Messenger. It was hard to miss. Michael showcased his opinion with a catchy title and a joke about spider sex. He explained why he believes that when a boy and a girl hook up, the boy should receive a high-five and the girl should be called a slut.
I don’t care much about gender equality. I’m generally okay with women being insulted, pushed around, forced to slave over a hot stove, whatever; if it’s bad for women, it’s probably good for the economy. So when I involuntarily growled after reading “Kaiti, You Slut,” I was a little surprised. When I growled louder and started yelling “He’s sexist! Burn your bras!” to passersby, I was even more surprised.
In an attempt to explain my transformation into a feminist/bear, I turned to literature. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd’s novel Are Men Necessary? provided me with plenty of material. I have combined that material with my own infallible logic in order to refute the sexist claims of our junior class president.
Michael argued that human brains are still programmed to think like animals, in that “men are supposed to have as much sex as possible, and women are supposed to hold back until the right man comes along.”
First of all, animals don’t think that way. Female primates enjoy wild and frequent sex with many different partners. In the species most closely related to humans, the females often sneak away from their families to rendezvous with males from other tribes. And throughout the animal kingdom, the most promiscuous females produce more and healthier offspring.
Second of all, Michael’s idea of the way men and women are “supposed” to act doesn’t make sense mathematically. It’s impossible for men to have lots of sex if women rarely have sex. Every time a man has sex, a woman is having sex with him.
Third, it’s impossible to prove that women are programmed to be less sexual.
“Women are said to have lower sex drives than men, yet they are universally punished if they display evidence to the contrary – if they disobey their “natural” inclination toward a stifled libido,” New York Times science reporter Natalie Angier wrote.
In other words, maybe women don’t want to be “uptight beezies.” But being an uptight beezy is better than being disrespected and devalued in society.
Michael clearly favors uptight beezies. He argued that if the two people hooking up aren’t “perfect for each other, she [the girl] made a mistake.”
Excuse me?
A seventeen-year-old boy thinks that every time I hook up with someone who isn’t my personal Mr. Right, I’m making a mistake. Suddenly JewMoney seems so politically correct and culturally sensitive.
Michael graced readers with several other gems of adolescent wisdom. For instance, he identified the goal of life.
“The goal of life, from an evolutionary standpoint,” he wrote, “is to pass on your genes.”
He suggested that the goal of sex is also to pass on one’s genes. Males try to pass their genes on via many females; females try to save their “faginas” for use by the best possible sperm donor; and that’s why men should have more sex than women.
Michael failed to acknowledge the fact that humans often have sex merely for fun, without reproduction in mind. If all sexual interactions were directly related to the need to reproduce, homosexuality would not exist. Neither would the clitoris.
In my opinion, Michael has produced an offensive, under-researched column. He should be forced to get a vasectomy so that he can never produce offensive, under-researched children.
Sometime before referring to women as “uptight beezies,” Michael had described himself as an “’08 Messenger staff reject.”
Well, the boy can’t even spell “vagina.” No wonder he didn’t make Messenger staff.
Related Articles
Kaiti, You SlutBy Michael Funetta (March 13, 2009)
Summer Sports RecapBy Adam Stansell (September 11, 2009)
Being A Man: Sometimes It’s HardBy Chauncey Neyman (April 15, 2011)
More Articles in Opinion »More Articles by Celia Gurney »
© 2012 The Garfield Messenger
You’re wrong. Sorry, but from a purely evolutionary perspective, Michael’s right, you aren’t. Morally and socially, double standards are stupid. Evolutionarily, they make sense.
First point: promiscuity in primates. You point out that “across the animal kingdom,” promiscuous mothers produce healthier babies. This trend was actually only found in specific marsupial species, and has an evolutionary explanation. The marsupials have no way of telling based on appearance which male is the most fit, with the best genes. However, for some reason, marsupial males with ‘better’ genes are more likely to successfully fertilize the females after mating, and therefore produce better offspring. The promiscuity is an evolutionary strategy to find the best genes. In humans, however, you are most likely to be fertilized by the first male you mate with, and not the most fit, therefore this strategy does not apply.
Second point: mathematical sense. Cunetta states how males and females ‘should’ — evolutionarily– act. Males want to fertilize as many women as possible, while women want to limit sex until they find the ‘best genes.’ This doesn’t make sense if both genders are successful, but the point of these strategies is that the two genders are working against each other.
Third point: Women’s mistakes. Cunetta never claimed to be culturally sensitive. He was merely giving you the evolutionary explanation. The point of sex is to reproduce (see below). However, when women reproduce, they are limited by how many offspring they can produce, as well as the number of resources they must use to carry the offspring while it develops, and the risk of injury and even death during childbirth (although this has been far reduced with modern medicine, the evolutionary programming is still there). Therefore, a woman wants each one of her offspring to have the best possible genes. That means finding the ‘best’ man before reproducing. Men on the other hand, have very little risk and are almost unlimited in how often they can reproduce — they don’t have to give birth, produce millions of sperm, and could easily impregnate women every day. Therefore, it’s in the evolutionary interest of men to impregnate as many women as possible, to create as many offspring with their genes as possible, leading to the conflict between the genders described above.
Fourth point: goal of life. The goal of life and the goal of intercourse is to pass on genes. Yes, humans have developed a desire to have intercourse for fun, but the only reason intercourse is fun for humans is to bring them to reproduce more. All genetic traits develop in species because the specific trait increases the chances of it’s genes being passed on. Humans enjoy sex because they are fulfilling an evolutionary imperative. Contraceptives, homosexuality, etc. are essentially ‘tricking’ the body. The body is programmed to like sexual stimulation, so humans trick the body into liking sexual stimulation without the actual reproduction.
Celia, you are my hero.
Anonymous… are you Mr. Swarner?
Dear Anonymous,
Could you please respond to this part of my column:
Third, it’s impossible to prove that women are programmed to be less sexual.
“Women are said to have lower sex drives than men, yet they are universally punished if they display evidence to the contrary – if they disobey their “natural” inclination toward a stifled libido,” New York Times science reporter Natalie Angier wrote.
In other words, maybe women don’t want to be “uptight beezies.” But being an uptight beezy is better than being disrespected and devalued in society.
It’s getting hot in here…
Anonymous,
You are so insightful. If I didn’t know better, I would think you were Stephen Jay, reincarnate.
Anonymous,
I do think you made some great points. However, I must agree with Celia’s arguments.
Your First Point: I do think this is a great argument. But let’s look at what you have said. “The promiscuity is an evolutionary strategy to find the best genes. In humans, however, you are most likely to be fertilized by the first male you mate with, and not the most fit, therefore this strategy does not apply.” I understand why you are bringing this up. However, if you think about it, this is actually completely irrelevant. In Humans, Intercourse is obviously NOT just for reproduction. For some odd reason, it has become a form of pleasure. Like Celia said, if this was not true, the clitoris would not exist.* So as you can see, since the goal of intercourse in humans is not just reproduction and promiscuity in a female human is not to pass on genes, the bringing up of promiscuity as a way to pass on genes is irrelevant.
(continued) Also, what you mentioned about humans: “In humans, however, you are most likely to be fertilized by the first male you mate with, and not the most fit, therefore this strategy does not apply.“
You are correct, the strategy of promiscuity to find the right mate does not apply to humans. In humans, promiscuity is sexual satisfaction.
* I want to make a side note about the clitoris. The clitoris, a FEMALE organ only exists for sexual satisfaction. Therefore, a female should physically be able to be promiscuous.
Your Second Point: I agree, it does not make sense. If men can have intercourse a lot and women must save them selves, the two are working against each other. Celia said the exact same thing you did: “Michael’s idea of the way men and women are “supposed” to act doesn’t make sense mathematically. It’s impossible for men to have lots of sex if women rarely have sex. Every time a man has sex, a woman is having sex with him.”
Your Third Point: You mentioned “when women reproduce, they are limited by how many offspring they can produce” and because of this they are looking for the best man to pass on better genes. Again, this is where the usage of the condom comes into place. If a women does not want to pass on genes but does want to have intercourse, the usage of a condom comes in.
Your Fourth Point: “the only reason intercourse is fun for humans is to bring them to reproduce more” If the goal of life is to pass on genes, then the condom would not have been invented. The Clitoris, a sexual satisfaction FEMALE organ would not exist. It would not be necessary for these to exist if the goal of life is to pass on genes. Many people, when having intercourse are not seeking to pass on genes, they are seeking to satisfy themselves.
Again, you did make some good points, however I think logically, Celia is correct
Chimpazee females (who we evolved from), have sex with the entire group for the sole purpose of keeping the child from being killed by male chimpanzees. A male won’t kill a child they believe is theirs. So to be honest, women having a good amount of sex could be seen as a reactionary way to keep themselves safe.
Not particularly happy, but possible.
Today, I revisited this and was shocked with what I had written. I still believe that the double standard exists because of biology/evolution, but that in no way legitimizes or excuses it. Just because something “is” does not mean it “ought to be,” especially with regards to sexism, racism, and other forms of backwards intolerance. My column was misogynistic and while I stand by my science, I retract my message.