It seems almost like it's some sort of variation on Munchausen Syndrome. She wants to believe something, so it must be true. That truth, so hard for most people to find (because it's all so well-hidden, but of course she could puzzle it out), makes her valuable. Oh, heavens, "they" are out to get her now, because her knowledge makes her important!

The notion that she's ridiculous, that she's only fit for mockery doesn't fit into her worldview. Those who mock her, I'm sure she imagines, are only doing so because they're so thoroughly fooled (and thus worthy of contempt) or part of the conspiracy (and thus worthy of hatred and/or fear).

Of course, in our society, if you throw enough money at a ridiculous cause - that's news in and of itself. The coverage spreads the belief, regardless of its insanity, and it resonates with others with the same issues. But then, since it's getting support, the issue itself becomes newsworthy, and that causes slightly more rational people to look at the idea again. It's basically a horrifying cycle, all of which only serves to convince the initial lunatic that they're on to something. So sad.

Alright, so "maiming" is out. Just a juvenile attempt to pretend that something bad (a desire to potentially hurt someone if they betray you) is even worse than it is.

But I've always believed that we only attribute ulterior motives to others that we, ourselves find reasonable. If I, for instance, think that being gay is a choice, then I must've been attracted to people of the same sex and CHOSEN to 'be' heterosexual. Otherwise, it's not something that I'm actually going to think is a very reasonable belief regarding other people. In the case of writers such as Lindsay Beyerstein, they assume that the stated motivation can't possibly be it, and come up with their own, unspoken motivation. One that doesn't make sense to me, and likely wouldn't jump out as being a possibility to anyone who doesn't harbor violent revenge fantasies of their own.

See, seems to me that something like this probably (I dunno, I don't listen to Leykis, as I said) doesn't actually pertain to killing the sperm. One could simply wash them out or flush them if that's all that were desired. I'd imagine that the idea is to do this if one wants an actual indicator of an attempt to do this. That if a woman WERE to actually attempt to salvage semen from a used condom, that her discomfort (and hyperbole to the contrary, that's all it would be - after all, if the semen were mixed so thoroughly that it was actually, noticably RED, then a woman would hardly use it, yes?) would point her efforts out so that the man in question could say to himself, "Gosh, Leykis was right, she really is trying to do that! Well, now I know better, huh?"

At least that's what a reasonable person might conclude as being the motivation, there. However, again, for those who secretly harbor their own fantasies of genital mutilation and imagine that everyone else does as well, I'm sure that the rationale posited by the Lindsay Beyersteins of the letters section seems a lot more logical. Any assumption on issues like this says more about the one making the assumption than it does about the subject.

This concept seems to have popped up often enough that I'd like to mention it.

Now, I realize that anything that implies that a man might ever reasonably distrust a woman will get bashed here. That's just a given. He's a misogynist. He has mommy issues. He hates all women, or distrusts all women in every regard, and depending on which letter you read, should have his penis destroyed, or alternatively, never have sex again.

Of course, I can't help but wonder why this logic doesn't work in reverse. Should women who opt for the morning after pill after their boyfriend murmurs, "No, I pulled the condom off after I was out, you just didn't see it. You're good." have their ovaries mutilated? Somehow, I'm guessing not. Call me a cynic.

But . . . re: Lindsay Beyerstein's comment . . .

Maiming?

"to inflict a severe and permanent injury on a person or animal, especially one that renders a limb useless"

We can ignore that last bit, since it does qualify it with 'especially', but even so . . . severe and permanent? Really? OK, so we're going with a little hyperbole here, clearly. This sort of goes with the expected bashing one's going to get in these situations, but oddly I'm sure that any exaggeration that goes counter to the "men who don't willingly and eagerly put their futures in the hands of women are misogynist bastards" line on here would be parsed into oblivion, it's originator mocked endlessly, and that would be fine. However, to come up with a line like this in support of the aforementioned point of view would be perfectly acceptable . . .