Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bat fellatio causes a scandal in academia

newscientist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–47 of 47 posts

Re: Bat fellatio causes a scandal in academia

#41

Post by jackfoxy »

Jun8 wrote: post #33

The important points for me are these: * Judging just from the story, it does indeed sound like the showing of the article was a bit of a joke, to carry a shock value to the recipient. * However, the punishment should fit the crime. In this case the university grossly went overboard into a possibly career wrecking punishment. Maybe a private meeting with the professor and a semi-public chastising in the form of a mes…

You make a lot of good points, but I don't think academia has ever been THE bastion of free thinking. It has produced free thinkers, and at times it may have been at variance with the prevalent thought in society at large, but my reading of the history of academia all the way back to the late middle ages is that it very much enforces its own political correctness (which does change over time).

Re: Bat fellatio causes a scandal in academia

#42

Post by pyre »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #27
dalore wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling yourself a "victim" when your against gay rights? That's like calling the white slave land owners "victims" when they were against the abolishment of slavery.

I don't consider myself a victim. Please read up on the use of scare quotes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes Also, I don't recall saying I was against gay rights. For the record, I favor giving gays the same set of rights that straight people should be given (as opposed to the set of rights straight people are actually given). But this is widely interpreted by lazy people as meaning I'm against gay rights.

Is this a round-about way of saying that you're against 'gay marriage' because you feel that marriage/civil unions shouldn't be a legal/government matter (i.e. only handled by the religious organizations, etc)?

Re: Bat fellatio causes a scandal in academia

#43

Post by pyre »

RyanMcGreal wrote: post #24
lidmith wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even supposing that it was sexual innuendo, that doesn't mean he was hitting on her. Straight men and women have conversations filled with sexual innuendo all the time.

Playing on the sexual innuendo of a paper on bat fellatio doesn't need to mean he was hitting on her. More likely it was a subtle form of sexual harassment.

I thought most of the time sexual harassment happened because the aggressor basically wants the victim to sexually submit (i.e. have sex). It might not lead to a more direct, "have sex with me if you want to get promoted," but I see little point in harassment for the sake of harassment.

Re: Bat fellatio causes a scandal in academia

#44

Post by alex_c »

anthonyb wrote: post #29
cperciva wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

does anyone here seriously expect me to believe there is a perfectly innocent, professional explanation for a clinical psychologist to give a paper on bat fellatio to a colleague? Yes. The article refers to "an ongoing discussion on human uniqueness"; I've personally been part of discussions where people have made (entirely incorrect) assertions along the lines of "animals don't engage in reproductively ineffective s…

"As part of what he says was an ongoing discussion on human uniqueness..." Context is everything. Even if what he says is true, what's acceptable as a one-off joke takes an entirely different meaning when it's just the latest in a series of affronts. If you haven't read it already, the other side of the story paints a pretty different picture to the article: http://felidware.com/DylanEvans/c1.jpg http://felidware.com…

I weep for a society where our fear of being accused of social harassment will outweigh our desire for social interaction, no matter how awkward or inept.

Re: Bat fellatio causes a scandal in academia

#45

Post by vixen99 »

mpk wrote: post #18
cperciva wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

does anyone here seriously expect me to believe there is a perfectly innocent, professional explanation for a clinical psychologist to give a paper on bat fellatio to a colleague? Yes. The article refers to "an ongoing discussion on human uniqueness"; I've personally been part of discussions where people have made (entirely incorrect) assertions along the lines of "animals don't engage in reproductively ineffective s…

Didn't some guy win the ignoble prize a few years ago for documenting the occurrence of homosexual necrophilia in ducks? You'd be surprised at all the things being researched.

Not if it's on tax-payers' money, I wouldn't.

Re: Bat fellatio causes a scandal in academia

#46

Post by RyanMcGreal »

pyre wrote: post #43
RyanMcGreal wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Playing on the sexual innuendo of a paper on bat fellatio doesn't need to mean he was hitting on her. More likely it was a subtle form of sexual harassment.

I thought most of the time sexual harassment happened because the aggressor basically wants the victim to sexually submit (i.e. have sex). It might not lead to a more direct, "have sex with me if you want to get promoted," but I see little point in harassment for the sake of harassment.

>I thought most of the time sexual harassment happened because the aggressor basically wants the victim to sexually submit (i.e. have sex).

Sexual harassment is harassment - behaviour intended to intimidate, disturb, offend, threaten someone - that uses sexuality as a vector. It's extraordinarily naive to assume sexual harassment isn't taking place if the aggressor's goal is not to elicit submission to sex itself.

Re: Bat fellatio causes a scandal in academia

#47

Post by MartinCron »

pyre wrote: post #42
yummyfajitas wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't consider myself a victim. Please read up on the use of scare quotes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes Also, I don't recall saying I was against gay rights. For the record, I favor giving gays the same set of rights that straight people should be given (as opposed to the set of rights straight people are actually given). But this is widely interpreted by lazy people as meaning I'm against gay rights.

Is this a round-about way of saying that you're against 'gay marriage' because you feel that marriage/civil unions shouldn't be a legal/government matter (i.e. only handled by the religious organizations, etc)?

There's a compelling argument that government should get out of the marriage business altogether and give gay and straight couples "civil unions" alike.

If, as some people claim, marriage is a sacred institution, why is the state involved at all? Who would be OK with having to go to the courthouse to get a baptism license?

For people who object, choosing to attend a church that doesn't perform gay marriages will be no different from choosing a church that wouldn't perform anything else. Churches aren't regulated. (note: this is almost a "let the market decide" argument)

I do not, however, support the rights of fellating bats to have civil unions, because bats are creepy.

Post reply on HN