“My white penis is a-scurred.”
Posted on May 3rd, 2008 by Brad
Must be a slow day over in Malkinland, since she’s gone back to her tired “I’m-going-to-show-scary-people-with-signs” routine. This pic, though, deserves special recognition for its all-out awesomeness:
Can you think of any combination of words that is more likely to elicit fear and loathing from the bed wetter brigade? Maybe if you wrote, “My angry immigrant vagina will put a permanent burqa over your puny little honky schlong.” But other than that, I can’t think of anything.
Anyone know how Ace is taking this development yet?
Heh. I used to have an alter-ego, “Scary Vagina”, over at Eschaton.
But Angry Immigrant Vagina outscaries Scary Vagina any ole day.
That ees like eight different kinds of teh awesome.
punto.
To be fair, not being able to see past her face means that it could read ‘hungry’ instead of angry, which means we might need to put Ace on suicide watch.
I HUNGER!!
I don’t know what they are so worried about. If she is really as leftist as all that she’ll abort all of her lesbian-sex-conceived anchor babies anyway.
I HUNGER!!
RUN COWARD!
Gentlemen….my ASS has finally decided to eat my hand!!! It hungers…….FOR MORE!!!!! AHAHAHAHAHAHAA
Shrinkage!!!
Maybe her vagina is in some ways reminiscent of Felix Unger?
Can you think of any combination of words that is more likely to elicit fear and loathing from the bed wetter brigade?
“My immigrant vagina is hungry.”
They hate us for our frenula.
The fact is, I say, keep these reconquista loons in our faces, here in the Heartland, more proof that the hate-USA left is desperate and full of anger. The immigrant hordes threaten our culture and way of life, and impoversish us, and some of them are terrorists.
Well this opens up a big bag of dicks, now doesn’t it?
The fact is, its time for an angry face pic from Rachel St. Pancake Corrie, the queen of deluded self-hating hippie Americans.
The fact is, tomorrow is May 4th, a day that will live in infamy. If only the national guard had shot more hippie traiters all over the country, we would have won Vietnam. American values take guts to defend. Time to wipe out some of these loony immigrant protests too, maybe theyll get the message and leave.
All the things wingnuts fear and hate in one pic.
Immigrants: Check.
Protests: Check.
Vaginas/Women: Check.
Armband: Check.
And I’m giving an honorary check for ‘teh gay’ due to lady with multi-color (rainbow?) satchel that makes my gaydar twinge.
If only it had a smattering of health care / environmentalism, and it would be the perfect storm of LIEBRALS!!ZOMG!1
Eeeek! Scary brown people! Eeeeek!
Anytime I need to purge after a weekend of twinkies and doritos I just head over to Malkinland. Although I get a sick pleasure out of imagining neocon nightmares of protest girls climbing out of their computer like in The Ring.
Gotta love this too:
Navy launches Imperial Star Destroyer – “Taking the Fight to the Enemy”
Because if there’s anything we’ve learned from the occupation it’s that the terrorists are hiding in the water, and we need more billion dollar combat ships to take them out.
I still think Ace had a point. Vaginae are not particularly aesthetically pleasing. Nor are penises. That’s why sexual intercourse feels the way it does. I mean, look at that junk. And then you put the thing with the other thing and there’s noises like frogs farting in mud. We needed a fucking incentive.
[…] captured on film Sadly, No! shares this picture, which dickslapper Michelle Malkin is complaining about, from a May Day protest in […]
I’m surprised someone hasn’t come up with a satirical comic (from either side) involving the Latina equivalent to Grant Morrison’s rather twisted superhuman, Mother of Champions.
For something that’s not particularly aesthetically pleasing, men sure do want to look at them an awful lot.
Uppity xeno-vaginas with attitude… yep, very frightening to the wingnuts.
But I think the ‘nuts are quite comfortable with armbands.
“My Islamigrant dick is angry.”
Duh.
I always assumed that BECAUSE I so very much wanted to look at them they were the very definition of aesthetically pleasing. Do I misunderstand the whole cause/effect dealio?
But the young lady’s sign confuses me. It seems to be saying she was assembled, at least partially using imported parts. Is her vagina an immigrant all on it’s own, or only because it’s attached to an immigrant? She doesn’t actually say “I’m an immigrant and my vagina is -ngry!”
Is there a poor woman in Guatemala who doesn’t have a vagina?
mikey
Given the speed and shallow draft, as well as he history of modern (post-WWII) combat ships, I’d assuming the LCS is has a total of 0 armor, though it might have some Kevlar or other light weight weave armor added to key sections. I’d be worried that this would make the LCS-classes of ships extremely vulnerable to attack, especially given their mission of close-area work to shorelines. In addition , their shallow draft would seem to limit their survivability at open seas, especially in rough weather, which could make re-deployment slow and difficult.
It’s very possible there’s technology or tricks being implemented that can counter those apparent drawbacks that I’m not aware of, since I don’t feel like slogging through pages and links for a few hours reading all the mundane details and military jargon. However, it would seem to me that the LCS capacity will be more or less strictly limited to assisting in landings/extractions along shorelines that are already incapable of defending themselves anyways (AKA “The best kind of American War: when the enemy can’t shoot back to start with”), or with large-scale support of capital ships and other forces that can provide cover.
The LCS is going to have a hard time being useful unless the Caribbean islands start getting uppity. But hey, it’s REALLY fast, so that should scare the terrorists!
Can you think of any combination of words that is more likely to elicit fear and loathing from the bed wetter brigade?
Where the Regency University graduates at?
Sinistar reference FTW.
Here’s the deal on the LCS, if you’re interested.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33741.pdf
I saw some discussion on this on John Pike’s site back in ’07. Truth to tell, it’s pretty clear to me that it’s just the navy trying to justify it’s existence in the day of asymmetric threats from non-state actors.
In other words, a way to milk a budget when they are increasingly irrelevant. Wouldn’t it be nice if we just defunded “defense” initiatives that were no longer of value?
Hah. Sorry, never mind…
mikey
This is still my all time favourite scary vagina poster:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dulamae/175866636/
Count me in the “not particularly attractive” camp re genetalia. Functional, yes, but not very interesting. Based on the number of men who post pictures of their penises online, however, I assume I’m in the minority.
Yeah, the dick pic is as baffling to me as it probably is to straight women.
P.S. the frenula reference reminded me that mine has been reduced to a useless vestige by the superstitious and barbaric practice of MGM (or male genital mutilation.) Miss ya buddy.
I feel like I’ve been talking about my down-there-area a lot lately. If that bothers anyone, you can address your complaints to my freshman writing prof. She said, “Write what you know.” She didn’t mention any exceptions.
Yep.
Guns, dope and junk.
Right there with ya, pedestrian…
mikey
Yeah, publicizing furious anti-American marches is really going to help the left.
I know you’re serious, because you people can’t help yourselves. But – wow, if you only knew what this looks like to the huge percentage of Americans who are a little taken aback by angry mobs of foreign citizens marching in their streets.
When President McCain is elected, will I be able to see the tear streaks right on the screen here?
Can you think of any combination of words that is more likely to elicit fear and loathing from the bed wetter brigade?
“Hi, I’m a military recruiter.”
Y’know, I always thought “The Angry Vagina” would make a great name for a dyke bar. “Hungry Vagina” works as well.
Can you think of any combination of words that is more likely to elicit fear and loathing from the bed wetter brigade?
“We’ve negotiated a fair and reasonable peace agreement and are recalling our forward deployed forces”.
mikey
“Hungry Vagina” works as well.
Only if they serve food…
mikey
TtA-SSW FTW!
My feeble offering: “In order keep U.S. forces in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan at required levels, President McCane signed an executive order to re-instate the Draft…”
The rest is drowned out by the sound of Brown Squirts stampeding towards Canada.
Wow. That’s a hell of a sign. Really.
But call me confusaled, but what exactly is she trying to say with it? I mean, is this a response to some pernicious legislation aimed at requiring all immigrant vaginas to show photo ID in bars? Will they have to put themselves on a bible and swear allegiance to god, the flag, and apple pie? Must they wear a flag lapel pin? What is it?
Can you think of any combination of words that is more likely to elicit fear and loathing from the bed wetter brigade?
“Hey, dude! We’re out of Cheetos!”
I struggle with this.
And it would be helpful to agree on some modern nomenclature.
Perhaps my interpretation is out of date, but it causes me so much difficulty in interpretation.
FTW means Fuck The World.
FTA means Fuck The Army.
I have written and internalized those phrases so often, and so deeply, these FTW comment posts, while I can get past my initial interpretation and understand the core meaning, they are initially incomprehensible to me.
I know. I have problems. You have problems. My problems are not your problems.
But maybe we could find a less ambiguous way to say it?
Here’s hoping….
mikey
“Hungry Vagina” works as well.
Only if they serve food…
I can’t help imagining the friendly cartoon personification for the advertisements.
Smut Clyde said,
May 4, 2008 at 4:04
“Hungry Vagina” works as well.
Only if they serve food…
Hungry like the Wolf!
Hilarious name for a Chinese Restaurant:
The Hungry Black Cock
I will even design the cartoon silkie holding chopsticks, free of charge.
The tone or style of this article or section may not be appropriate for Wikipedia.
Tone it down, MFers!
That’s such crap.
Come on.
I give you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotted_dick
mikey
Happy meals.
The Truth is right guys. Nothing is more anti-American then angry protests. Just ask Boston.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_tea_party
Damn angry liberals. Why can’t we just sit down, shut up, and do what our Dear Leaders tell us?
It is also known as spotted dog, plum duff, steamed dicky, figgy dowdy, dotted lloyd, packphour’s lament, dicky widmark as well as plum bolster, Spotted Richard and, occasionally, Dickie Burton after the famous actor.
How did the Brits ever find time to build an empire?
“When President McCain is elected, will I be able to see the tear streaks right on the screen here?”
Right alongside the flying pigs, darling.
You could find a shot of Obama & Wright in DRAG, & it STILL won’t erase all the images of McCain & Chimpboy palling around together. Let alone the one of them hugging each other like a pair of autistic grizzlies. You poor dumb hump – it must suck to support a party that’s at an ALL-TIME LOW in popularity going into an election, the same GOP that’s been losing even sure-fire “strongholds” one after another – can you see my tear-streaks right on the screen there?
Google “Election Cycle” sometime.
PROTIP: next time you drain the bottle & someone dares you to eat the worm, Just Say No.
They were searching for cuisine that did not include dishes like Spotted Dick and Toad in the Hole.
Seen somewhere in the Midlands (not the Heartland) of the UK: A pub called the Blue Peter.
Brrr!
Seriously. All those names could double as a euphemism for penis.
More askeered-ness on the right:
Wingnut discovers a communist on the streets of Seattle! Sign of things to come!
Thinly disguised antisemtic bloviating here.
“Can you think of any combination of words that is more likely to elicit fear and loathing from the bed wetter brigade?”
How about, “Greetings: You will report to the …….. receiving station for your induction physical…”
Worked for me in 1971.
I skimmed trough that, and found it hi-fucking-larious that he bitches and moans about Trotsky in practically every sentence throughout the middle. The founders of the neocon movement started out as Trostkyists and you better believe some of those ideas are the foundation of neoconservativism.
Yes, it’s rare to find such overheated pretentiousness in service of such ignorance.
If her immigrant vagina is hungry, my native-born penis has plenty to share.
If her immigrant vagina is angry, my native-born penis is willing to listen.
Gotta love those classy, life-affirming commenters at hot air: “Well,I’m sure if I gave her a nice douche with cold sulfuric acid she wouldn’t ever have to worry about her immigrant vagina being angry again….always glad to lend a helping hand.” Psychotically misogynist, much?
Psychotically misogynist, much?
That’s fine, as long as nobody mentions ping pong balls.
Yeah, ping pong balls are demeaning and misogynist; giving a woman a sulphuric acid douche goes unremarked in Malkin’s comments.
For The Win.
“Johnny Coelacanth said,
Gotta love those classy, life-affirming commenters at hot air: “Well,I’m sure if I gave her a nice douche with cold sulfuric acid she wouldn’t ever have to worry about her immigrant vagina being angry again….always glad to lend a helping hand.” Psychotically misogynist, much?”
Yeah, well just remember that Liberals are the real misogynists, because they don’t like bombing Muslim women, which proves feminism is a lie. They’re the real racists to, because they’re always bringing up the Tuskegee experiments and lynching and making the darkies listen to rap.
The fact is, liberals are all faggots and the bitches of real Americans, Heartlanders like myself. We fight for decencey, freedom and against media bias. And liberals suck. Here in the Heartland, we know how and what to support: USA! USA! USA! and those who do not aer commies and hate America.
The dyke bar in Chasing Amy is called Meow Mix, “because it’s always pussy chow time there… ”
Seen somewhere in the Midlands (not the Heartland) of the UK: A pub called the Blue Peter.
Arky, as you probably know, there is a long-running children’s BBC tv show called “Blue Peter.” According to Wikipedia, “It is named after the blue-and-white flag hoisted by a ship in port when it is ready to sail. The reasoning behind the choice of title is that the programme is intended to be a voyage of adventure and discovery for the viewers, constantly covering new topics.” It seems to be a kind of Good Morning America, only intended for viewers who are eight years old chronologically as well as intellectually. If the original Blue Peter was an actual nautical tradition, I believe it is safe to assume the name was meant as a double entendre — although, as was said of Gytha Ogg, “Most of what she called ‘double intenders’ were single intenders, and proud of it.”
The fact is, Blue Peter was a Canadian Rock Band trying to be Roxy Music and FAIL.
No true son of the Heartland would know about any sissy Canadian or English band. They know Cheap Trick, REO Speedwagon, Meatloaf and Bob Segar.
“Damn you, Lyndon Johnson….”
Mrs Malkin’s septic tank of commenters never fails to bring a smile to my serene immigrant chops.
In the linked thread, Malkin asked:
Why can’t the nutballs leave our flag alone?
Good question! I don’t know why nutballs can’t leave the flag alone. Perhaps the Cyber Pastor Ed can shed some light on this mystery.
Nevermind the foreign citizens, pal. How many Americans will dare to resist the will of mobs of angry foreign vaginas?
Why can’t the nutballs leave our flag alone?
We ran out of toilet paper.
I have nothing bad to say about immigrant vaginas.
Not a chance in the world Malkin or any of her flying monkeys have a clue where the term comes from:
Vagina Monologues: My Angry Vagina
Angry immigrant vagina dentata!
Angry
immigrantvagina dentata!Is it all men, or only gay men (or just me) who carry that image in the back of their heads somewhere?
Or is it a male genital mutatee thing?
Angry vaginas?
Hungry vaginas?
Must be alien for sure.
Cuz as the owner of a native born vagina, I know what a greedy vagina is. I know what an attention-whore vagina is. Even a princess-syndrome vagina. But angry? My heart goes out to the owner of this angry vehicle of expression. It sounds as though it has been desensitized and become cynical,and jaded. Sad.
Apparently pedestrian’s genitals have mutated. Do they have any interesting super-powers now?
Sadly…
mutatee?
OMG. Is that like mu-taters?
Sorry, it was another bad circumcision joke. I guess I’m still pissed about that.
Well, at least you can still get pissed. There is hope.
Nononono, everyone’s got it wrong.
It’s that seeing an angry vagina makes one hungry.
I could get dirtier, but then someone would smack me.
this Truth troll is pretty lame. What’s the deal? Is he the troll with lowest seniority, and all the other trolls have taken the weekend off?
Who is the truth troll?
At first I thought pedestrian was complaining about genital manatees. I would have been more sympathetic about that.
Being a genital dentatee is an equally undesirable situation.
How did the Brits ever find time to build an empire?
As Anne Laurie has reminded us, they outsourced it to the lowest bidder, who turned out to be the Scots.
Well I’m not saying it is as bad as female genital mutilation, or lots of other bad things, but it was still a stupid idea. Did they have to pick the most sensitive part? I understand that the Victorians didn’t want boys to masturbate, but isn’t that a bit excessive?
Armchair theory time:
I think that a general trend in the development of language in post-colonial societies might be that accents will continue to develop in the mother country, while changing only very slowly and conservatively in the colonies. I know that is true in the case of Latin American Spanish and several of the regional American English accents, at least.
I wonder if that is also why most Canadians and Americans and Latin Americans who can afford it continue to get circumcised, long after Europe figured out that it wasn’t working. I would love to blame US conservatism in general on the same phenomenon, but we seem to be pretty special in that regard. Although Australia does have it’s own share of wingnuts…
Sorry, is this boring?
Well it does sorta make sense ina stupid sort of way, pedestrian. Foreskin is a natural catch-all for waste and dirt and general filth that would promote urinary infections among other things. But then, so do labia, and I don’t see too many western countries rushing to lop those off.
Given the advent of soap and sensible hygiene, it is rather an archaic practice that serves no use in modern life. It is, however, more or less benign, and probably won’t be dropped any time soon unless it turns out it does something horrible, like increase the chances that your kid with catch The Gay. Then it will be extint within a generation.
I am sorry for my untoward comments about Obama, but the fact is I have never found a black man so enthralling in his vigor before. It makes me confused and frustrated, and I say strange things.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to clap my nads between two blocks of ice.
Pedestrian, I think it was a hygiene thing, back when the Brits washed once a year whether they needed it or not. Lots of icky stuff got caught in there, apparently.
And Some Guy, I don’t think labia have the same catch-it-and-hold-it-close abilities. And someone once told me that the vagina was totally self-cleaning, which the penis is not. When she said that, I, an avid viewer/reviewer of Asian cinema, had an image of the traditional tiled public bathhouse from Japan, with some Japanese dude with a huge hose spraying the yuk off the tiles.
Hey, never said I was normal. And Ann Laurie, kudos on the Nanny Ogg reference: I want to be her when I grow up.
I, an avid viewer/reviewer of Asian cinema, had an image of the traditional tiled public bathhouse from Japan,
Being less exposed to Asian cinema, I’m reminded more of those gleaming modern self-cleaning toilet cubicles that you find in European cities. OK, even Seattle has them, so they can’t be that modern. Also they’re cylindrical rather than cubic but you know what I mean.
They evict you after 15 minutes and then start the high-pressure water jets of the rinsing cycle, so there the analogy breaks down.
Sorry bud, I think it’s just you and Carl Jung (unless I mean Joe Campbell).
Human beings give me enough grief by opening the body part that does have teeth. I don’t have time to worry that whatever’s in their pants will leap out and start snapping away.
And how come there’s no myth about an asshole dentata?
There is nothing mythical about Malkin.
Re: the circumcision thing – I saw this documentary several years ago about how researchers had discovered that uncircumcised heterosexual men have a much higher rate of HIV infection. After studying why this might be, they found that there were specialized cells in the foreskin whose purpose it is to grab onto pathogens and deliver them to the lymphatic system for destruction. Which, of course, is the absolute worst thing to do with HIV virus, because it just sends it to exactly the spot where it can begin destroying the immune system. Based on this research, a lot of Africans who have not traditionally practised circumcision are choosing to have their sons circumcised as a protection against HIV infection.
Also in this documentary, they interviewed an American anti-circumcision group. Its members (heh) were horrified that many Africans are choosing circumcision to help protect against HIV infection. One of them, in fact, said that “it is a holocaust”. (Seriously, I’m NOT making this up.) So I’m sitting there and I’m thinking, uh, yeah, dude, but it’s a holocaust of FORESKINS rather than PEOPLE you twit!
Anyway, just some background info for ya there…
Genital matinees? Why do they always schedule these things when I’m at work?!
sneaky about how her head hides the first letter(s) in the word which ends ngry.
I was sorry to figure out (using geometry) that the sign says “my immigrant vagina is angry.” My first guess was “My immigrant vagina is hungry” oh yes was about to try to find out where, exactly, that hungry immigrant vagina is these days (the immigrant with an angry vagina is hot).
Oh yes, and I’m not (and I’m married) and it’s an angry vagina and I would never I mean … (face it Rob no hungry vagina is hungry for you).
Further fun foreskin facts:
Did ya know there’s a type of cancer that leaves your little soldier looking like Lorena Bobbitt went at you with nail clippers and a blow torch? It’s true! It’s caused by prolonged (hur) contact with a caustic agent, to whit: schmegma. That’s right, your own body creates a substance that will eat your own personal penis RIGHT OFF and a foreskin is perfect for holding your toxic wastes nice and close.
I could probably find the pictures online somewhere but no one would thank me if I did. I wouldn’t thank me if I did. So, aesthetic preferences aside, foreskins are out to kill us.
Oh God, those guys belong in the same ward with the trauma of childbirth dopes. (Not the trauma of giving birth, but being born.) It really is embarrassing, not to mention dangerous. I suspect any woman who hears those guys probably wants to tell them a thing or two about the monthly fun. While stomping on their ‘nads.
They’re just pissed because they’re ugly, bloated and middle-aged, with alarmingly unreliable erectile function and rotten personalities, and our demonstrations are full of hot women carrying signs about their vaginas.
So, aesthetic preferences aside, foreskins are out to kill us.
Arky – The ‘caustic’ schmeg – it washes right off. What you think to be bad aesthetics is 50% more sensitive real estate down there.
I win.
Great, then I could blow my load in a stiff breeze.
50% more sensitive real estate down there
Oh noes! The bank has foreclosed on my asset!
Actually, I think that might just get them excited.
I have to admit that I don’t quite understand the sign. Is she saying that she has several vaginas (immigrant, domestic, tourist) but that her immigrant one is angry? What is it angry about? If I wasn’t ugly, bloated and middle-aged, with alarmingly unreliable erectile function I would definitely want to meet her to get more details. I could her show my collection of Trotsky record albums.
fucking angry pelican vaginas.
Three out of four men in the world have whole penises, and no epidemic of cancer caused by smegma or anything else. Smegma (women have it too) is about as “caustic” as earwax. (And having enjoyed the full sensitivity life-long, it’s not a problem. They have the whole accelerator pedal, not just an on-off switch.)
The “protection” of circumcision against HIV is 50% at best (probably nil), so it’s like using condoms – half of them full of holes. If Africans rely on circumcision for protection, it will indeed be a holocaust of people.
Smegma also makes a great dessert topping.
If you lived in an area where 25 – 50% of the people were infected with HIV, and circumcision could lower your chances of being infected by 50%, I’d say it would probably be worthwhile. Not to mention that every person not infected is one less person infecting others.
When I hear about the lost sensitivity I can’t help but feel that I got a little bit ripped off when I was circumcised. But then I think about how many extra zipper accidents I would have had by now and I conclude it was worth it.
And everyone else just has half a cock. Nice. Way to make people feel good about themselves. No wonder everyone hates the anti-circumcision people.
I don’t hate anti-circumcision people. I actually like foreskin. I also like cut men. I also like angry vaginas.
I’m pretty much a whore.
And yet, I still don’t understand the sign.
Jennifer: if I lived where there was 25-50% HIV, I’d be even more careful with who and how I had sex, I’d ALWAYS use a condom, but most of all, I wouldn’t let a “needle man” inject me for any and every ailment. And it is NOT proved that circumcision can reduce the transmission rate. It certainly doesn’t protect women from getting it from men, and it’s going to make it harder for them to resist men who want unprotected sex.
tb said, “And everyone else just has half a cock. Nice. Way to make people feel good about themselves. No wonder everyone hates the anti-circumcision people.”
Not “half a cock”. Just a less-than-whole cock, with half the nerve endings. Don’t shoot the messenger, blame circumcision and the people who promote it. (Many men have found the best way to feel good about it – well, less bad about it – is to restore their foreskin, but that’s another story.)
Lawnguylander: and you’ve never had a zipper accident? If that were a serious issue, there’s velcro.
In your case, creep, the idea is tempting.
You have half a life. You must be some kind of dream lay, with all your pissing and moaning about inadequate “nerve endings”. Jesus. And please don’t project your neurosis onto me. I’ve been absolutely delighted with my circumcised dick for as long as I can remember.
I think the morale of this debate is, men feel very passionately about their penises.
moral, that is. yeesh.
Smut Clyde said,
“Hungry Vagina” works as well.
Only if they serve food…
I can’t help imagining the friendly cartoon personification for the advertisements.
===========
Speaking of which,
Does anyone remember the movie series that was named after Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings? Remember the thing that would appear in the sky, over Mordor, in the crystal ball, wherever, when Sauron was looking for you? Remember the shiimering evil cat’s eye thing? With the vertical slit pupil? Did it remind anyone else of Something Else up in the sky?
Now there’s your not so friendly cartoon personification.
Remember the shiimering evil cat’s eye thing? With the vertical slit pupil? Did it remind anyone else of Something Else up in the sky?
Indeed it does!
However, I don’t know whether we should pursue this line of imagery.
Even better example!
I feel about, and around, my penis very passionately. Quite frequently, as well.
What…
Hmm. I call a whole penis “whole” and look what comes out of the woodwork! (Never mind that it’s always open season on the foreskin and the man who has one.) The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
In the right cornaaah: Weighing in at 300 tons of self-pity [ity, ity]… Cut males who feel persecuted and unfairly treated!!
In the left cornaaah: Weighing in at 300 tons plus the weight of their foreskins [ins, ins, ins] … Uncut males who feel persecuted and unfairly treated!!
Ladies and Gentlemen [en, en, en] …
Let’s all go have a drink.
Lordy lordy, now we’ve got a penile evangelist on the boards. Hugh7, why doncher just bugger off and be superior somewhere else? Most men I’ve known are pretty damn happy with their todgers (that’s one todger each, mind, I’ve not met a man with more than the statutory limit), whether they’re cut or uncut. And bleating about how superior yours is, and wailing about how “it’s always open season on the foreskin and the man who has one” won’t win you any friends.
“Open season on foreskins” my arse. Where are the red-flannel-coated hunters with the furry hats, stalking the wild foreskin? Where are the awesome weapons assembled against the foreskin? Who, really, gives a single solitary toss? A man’s genitals are his own affair. And given that most men are circumcised before they get a vote about it, there’s no real point in bleating about foreskin rights.
And these blokes find that circumcised penises are the most effective in their line of work, so who are you to cavil?
Sheesh, penis fundamentalists. So humourless.
I should add that, despite being antipodean and therefore required to show the patriotic flag (or whatever one shows at such events), I’ve not seen the aforementioned puppet show. I should have done, because there’s nothing I enjoy better than a good laugh, unless it’s a good laugh at some dicks.
As amusing as all this eighth-grade humor is, I wonder how funny you will all be when McCain becomes President despite, as Jim puts it above, being of “a party that’s at an ALL-TIME LOW in popularity going into an election”.
Identity politics catches up with you at last – how wonderful!
As amusing as all this eighth-grade humor is
Poop! Ha ha! You pooped!!
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the length of their foreskin, but by the content of their character.
Um… what’s a vagina?
I read on the internet that the clitoris is at the crest of the labial sheath. What does that mean?
Y’see? It’s what I was tellin’ all ya last week. Her boyfriend probably made her shave her snatch and now it’s angry!
And The Truth can’t be too up on the truth if he/she/it doesn’t know that the clitoris is at the crest of the labial sheath!
Just one last note, Hugh7…you claim that if you lived in a place with a 25 – 50% rate of HIV infection, that would be Africa, you’d never have sex without a condom. Which you would buy with your $.35 daily wage, one presumes.
Look, I couldn’t care less about the cut/uncut condition of your willy. I was just reporting what I had learned on a documentary. Certainly given that medical research has proven that there are cells in the foreskin whose sole purpose is to grab onto pathogens and deliver them to the lymphatic system, in an area with high rates of HIV infection and high rates of heterosexual transmission of the virus, being circumcised would be not a bad thing. Again, I couldn’t care less what the condition of your willy is, nor of the condition of the average African male’s; but if you are going to suggest that the foreskin is so sacred that it must be left intact even when it doubles the chance of HIV infection, I’m just going to have to go ahead and say you and your uncut willy are both full of shit.
Jennifer, I should totally let this go, and I am not saying you are wrong but… two additional points that I think are interesting re Africa and the developing world.
First, I’m not sure whether getting the nip helps or not, but it definately doesn’t make sex safe. A lot of the people that I have seen pushing circumcision, whether Evangelical loons from the Bush Administration or people associated with the Catholic Church, have been advocating it as an alternative to handing out condoms. I know you aren’t saying that, but that bias is out there, selecting studies and driving propoganda.
Second, getting a safe, clean circumcision isn’t all that cheap either. My boyfriend is from Colombia and he is cut, so I had a working assumption that guys there did the same as guys here. Then I saw a statistic (as a result of this thread, actually) that said that under 25% of South Americans are circumcised. He agreed that that is probably accurate, but only because at least 75% of the population can’t afford it. It is such a marker of social class that anyone who can afford to have it done has it done.
No offense all around, to each his own, etc.
Hi Jill!
Can I buy you a drink?
[…] f) immigrant vagina […]
Lordy lordy, now we’ve got a penile evangelist on the boards.
We went from “My white penis is a-scurred” to “My white penis is a-scarred”.
Open season on foreskins
You should see my trophy room.
Many men have found the best way to feel good about it – well, less bad about it – is to restore their foreskin, but that’s another story.
DUDE! I don’t even want to think about that.
Hardwood foreskins coming soon.
I understand bamboo is all the rage now.
Around the time of the Emperor Titus, many fashionable young Jews put on fake foreskins to go to the gym, hoping to blend in with the Romans. It was a major bone of contention leading up to the First Jewish-Roman War.
Jennifer:
Not everything you learn from documentaries is true. http://www.circumstitions.com/News24.html#amsterdam
“even when it doubles the chance of HIV infection”
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html#dilbert
Qetesh the Qaveat Qat said,
“And bleating about how superior yours is, and wailing about how “it’s always open season on the foreskin and the man who has one” won’t win you any friends.”
I haven’t actually said whether I have one or not. This is not about me.
” “Open season on foreskins” my arse. Where are the red-flannel-coated hunters with the furry hats, stalking the wild foreskin?”
They wear white coats and stethescopes.
” Where are the awesome weapons assembled against the foreskin?”
In every hospital in the US, and clinics and barbershops across the Muslim world, South Korea and the Philippines.
” Who, really, gives a single solitary toss?” These guys, for some:
http://www.sueeasy.com/litigants.php?class_action_case_detail=258
http://www.genitalintegrity.net/blouch/
“A man’s genitals are his own affair.”
I couldn’t agree more – from birth onward.
” And given that most men are circumcised before they get a vote about it, there’s no real point in bleating about foreskin rights.”
That’s not a given. It used to be the case in the English-speaking world (not including the US – do I need to add that?) and now it isn’t.
“And these blokes find that circumcised penises are the most effective in their line of work, so who are you to cavil?”
They didn’t exactly have any choice, did they?
“Sheesh, penis fundamentalists. So humourless.” Oh, I don’t know: http://www.circumstitions.com/Images/looklike.gif
Jesus H. Christ, I never thought I’d see the day when a serious foreskin fundamentalist showed up in these parts.
What part of “I couldn’t care less about the cut/uncut condition of your willy” did you not understand?
I merely relayed some information. I’ve never circumcised anyone; I’ve never had anyone circumcised on my orders or behalf.
In short, whatever your problem is, it’s not me.
Jennifer, thanks for the er, tip about there still being activity “down here.”
Not to make a long issue longer, if you get my drift, but
I for one don’t give a rat’s ass what you think about the sanctity of foreskin. Seeing as how you aint got one, and it’s MY pecker we’re talking about, you really should STFU.
There’s a similar procedure you may have heard of that’s frequently performed in Africa. It’s called ‘genital mutilation.’ (Why we don’t use the same term for circumcision is beyond me, seeing as that’s what circumcision IS) Suppose I to castigate a woman for her sensitivity to the issue, regardless of any supposed benefits. You getting it yet?
Shalom, gentlemen.
I’m against infantile circumcision, but I still think Hugh7 is a smeghead.
I’ll weigh in.
I’ve got no foreskin. Can’t ever remember ever having one.
Now, sure, I’ve suffered from all sorts of savage mistreatment at the hands of my fellow human beings.
But one thing I can assure you I have NOT suffered from, not one iota (hey, and how often do you get to say “iota”?). That’s my lack of foreskin. I like my dick. It has served me well. It has done most of what I have asked it to do and has performed well, overall.
So here’s what I think. If you have a foreskin? Cool. If you don’t? You probably don’t miss it. And if you wanna be an asshole about it? Hokay, here’s what you do. Take your foreskin. Fold it sixteen ways. Got it? Hold it tight now. Bend over and shove it up your ass.
Thanks for playing. Dumb game, but thanks for playing…
mikey
No question about that. As soon as the word ‘circumcision’ was mentioned upthread, I knew we’d get a visit from one of those loons.
And PeeJ? Lighten the fuck up. Christ.
Well, I can see that it’s time to feel my penis passionately again.
But seriously, it really just comes down to this, doesn’t it.
Can’t we all just get along???
Really, PeeJ.
No need to get snippy about it.
Heh.
By God, you’re right! We penis-possessing brothers should slap our hands on our glands and pledge to stand tall for a better, brighter, harder future for all!
You know, I think that when the sun comes up tomorrow it’s going to look so good out that I just might leave it out all day.
Wow, for someone who doesn’t care about the state of other people’s penises, Jennifer sure goes out of her way to spread misinformation so people can feel better about stealing parts of other people’s penises.
Enough with the pretending you know more than EVERY national medical association on earth. NOT ONE recommends routine circumcision. 95% of the non-Muslim world does not circumcise. Guess why? Foreskin feels REALLY good.
Only a jerk would bother to tell you this if there was nothing you could do about it, but you can help protect babies from ignorance, and if you’re a circumcised man you can undo some of the damage. Over 200,000 men are non-surgically restoring their foreskins.
Dear foreskin fetishist: please point to any passage where I advocated for or against circumcision.
I don’t have penis or foreskin; I have no dog in this fight. I merely referred to a documentary I had seen and what was presented in said documentary. I didn’t say it was correct or incorrect. I merely relayed the information presented. And FWIW, I was in fact doing so because I found the comment by the anti-circumcision advocate that it was a “holocaust” to be bust-a-gut funny in terms of blowing things out of proportion. Ok, dude loves foreskin. I get it. But HOLOCAUST? Give me a frickin’ break.
Now, as to subsequent discussion on the topic, it was your fellow fetishist who mentioned 50% as the alleged reduction in HIV infection in circumcised men, and then went on to make the absurd claim that if he were an African man living in poverty, he’d be sure to always use a condom. Which presumably he would pluck from the exotic African condom trees they have growing all over the place over there. My response was that if in fact circumcised men show lower rates of infection via heterosexual contact, then it’s entirely reasonable that Africans who have not traditionally practiced circumcision would be having their sons circumcised. Or are you now going to argue that circumcision is the equivalent of death?
While you’re at it, you can also cut and paste where I made any claim whatsoever of knowing more than any medical association anywhere. I didn’t. I merely relayed what I had seen in a documentary a couple of years ago. If the documentary was wrong, their bad. As I said, since I don’t have a dick, I don’t really follow foreskin science all that closely.
I’ll close by saying that perhaps if you were circumcised, you wouldn’t have all that foreskin covering your ears and getting in the way of you understanding what’s being said.
Yeah, snorg et. al., I shouldn’t be so sensitive about my cock. After all, it’s not so sensitive itself anymore. Not since it was mutilated in my first couple days alive. Thanks so much for that.
Dear Jennifer: since you have no dog in this fight, and since you’re “onloy relaying the information” [don’t we SN! types routinely take the reichtards to the woodshed for precisely that dishonest tactic?] STFU already.
When they come around with knives to cut your clit off, well talk.
Ahhhh. Ron’s not a fetishist – he’s just a guy trying to make a buck.
But by gosh, there is something you can do about it. Ron’s here to help your damaged porker with a full array of prick-repair products, including tuggers and packers and cones and canisters, all available at prices that won’t shrivel your pole.
Just when I thought that this aging thread couldn’t get any weirder…
So let’s see…
I’m a “smeghead” “loon” “evangelist” but a comment like –
“Did ya know there’s a type of cancer that leaves your little soldier looking like Lorena Bobbitt went at you with nail clippers and a blow torch? It’s true! It’s caused by prolonged (hur) contact with a caustic agent, to whit: schmegma. That’s right, your own body creates a substance that will eat your own personal penis RIGHT OFF and a foreskin is perfect for holding your toxic wastes nice and close.”
– is NOT loony or evangelical (or, hmm, keratin-headed)?
Jennifer: “…snippy…” http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6584757516627632617&hl=en
PeeJ – Oh, give me a fucking break. Cutting off a foreskin and cutting off a clit are not the same thing. Cutting off a dick would be the equivalent of cutting off a clit. They’re both erectile tissue. Given that circumcised men can and do achieve orgasm on a regular basis, there’s no equivalence between circumcision and clitorectomy, other than each typically being practiced on children too young to make the decision for themselves. Similarity ends there.
If someone whacked your willy when you were a mere babe and you wish now that they hadn’t, you have my sympathy. But I wasn’t holding the knife or issuing the order, so you can climb down off the high horse now.
You’re welcome.
Oh *I* didn’t ___________, not personally anyway. So who cares?
When did *I* myself advocate ____________? So you have no reason to compalin.
*I* didn’t slide the noose around anyone’s neck so *I* don’t want to hear about the evils of lynching and in fact *I*’ll call you a whiner and a shithead for making an issue of it.
I know people who have (extraordinary it is said) orgasms with zero penile stimulation. So that means that they have no cause or reason to complain that they genital equipment was mutilated when they were tiny babies solely because the alleged SkyGod demanded it back in the day.
Yeah, sure. When you demonstrate the least bit of understanding I’ll stop calling you a insensitive, egocentrist cunt.
Yeah, and when you learn how to make a reasonable argument based on what was actually said rather than what you in your umbrage would like to pretend was said, I’ll stop calling you a retarded dickhead.
if you’re a circumcised man you can undo some of the damage. Over 200,000 men are non-surgically restoring their foreskins.
What if I told you that you could be one of those lucky for the new low price of not five, not four, but only three easy payments of $29.95? Let’s see what some real-life doctors have to say about our product!
but it’s a holocaust of FORESKINS rather than PEOPLE you twit!
But I wasn’t holding the knife or issuing the order
I don’t have penis or foreskin; I have no dog in this fight. I merely referred to a documentary
it was your fellow fetishist
I’ve never circumcised anyone; I’ve never had anyone circumcised on my orders or behalf. In short, whatever your problem is, it’s not me.
I’m just going to have to go ahead and say you and your uncut willy are both full of shit.
Aren’t you running out of “arguments” cribbed from Michael Medved yet?
So you don’t see the absurdity of economically secure men in the USA where HIV is not a literal epidemic likening circumcision of Africans to a “holocaust” rather than, you know, the actual fucking disease that’s killing millions of them?
Sorry, retarded dickhead still applies.
On further reflection, I realize I have to point out that foreskins don’t exist without people. Your depth of understanding and empathy is remarkable. A holocoaust of foreskins indeed.
Perhaps, Jennifer, you should get one of those columns at townhall. The way you can channel Lurita Doan crossed with Ann Althouse is nothing short of remarkable.
And maybe you can get one as well, and channel all those idiots who ignore the million Iraqis killed because we painted a few schools and took out Saddam Hussein.
HIV is not an epidemic in the US?
This is somehow limited to “economically secure men?”
Trying to redirect attention away from the abomination of ritual genital mutilation to the admittedly larger abomination of our HIV policies and stances is at best dishonest.
You believe everything you read child? So there’s this one report which you once saw or read about or something and it’s definitive but the people who have been maimed – all of us poor bastards having been maimed long before HIV was ever heard of – shoud just stop whining because you might have heard some information thast could possibly justify, in some sense if you squint, said mutilation.
As I said, that’s ripe for TownHall. It’s shallow, self-interested self-serving claptrap.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
That’s it – keep trying to change the subject. You;ll fit right in over there at America’sd Shittiest Website. Hey, you can probably jigger up a gig at NR if you keep it up.
Jesus Christ, you are full of yourself, aren’t you?
No, motherfucker, HIV is NOT an epidemic in the US. What’s the infection rate here? 1%? 5%? It’s not a goddamned 25 – 50%, depending on what area of Africa you’re talking about. And yet here you still are, trying to equate the loss of foreskin with the loss of fucking LIFE, which as I clearly stated was the entire reason I referred to the documentary I had seen. And I should be ashamed of myself? Fuck you, and fuck your willful misinterpretations. And if I were you, I wouldn’t be complaining about a loss of sensitivity, since you’ve obviously got the sensitivity dialed WAY up to the point where you can find injury where there was none.
I take back what I said about anti-circumcision activism being a “movement of assholes”.
HIV is an epidemic in the US. As bad as Africa? No. Epidemic none the less? Yes.
And no, YOU are trying to equate loss of foreskin with loss of life. Loss of foreskin, or genital mutilation as it’s also known, has little or nothing to do with the epidemiology of HIV. ONE “documentary” – “I had seen in a documentary a couple of years ago. If the documentary was wrong, their bad.”
You saw ONE damn program which even you don’t have the conviction to stand behind and that entitles you to have the say-so on male gential mutilation. Textbook self-righteousness. Read the above quotes – things YOU SAID. Read them for the snottiness and superiority that everyone else sees in them.
Then you try to hide behind accusing me – me! – of minimal concern for HIV. Listen, I HAVE HIV bitch. I’ve been living with it for twenty+ goddamn years. Many of my friends have died because of it. I will die of it before too very long. Millions of people in Africa and elsewhere will have died unnecessarily because of HIV and also becuase of what we do about it.
That pathetic attempt to justify your complete lack of compassion and understanding by claiming your concern for the AIDS epidemic is dis0-fucking-gusting.
You want to tghrow darts at guys who are upset about having their cocks semi-shorn, fine whatever. But don’t try that bullshit – get serious about HIV if you’re serious.
Oh, fuck you. Go back to my original post. NOWHERE is there any advocacy for ANYTHING. It’s merely relating what the documentary said, and noting that asshats who refer to circumcision of men in an area with a quarter to half of all adults infected with HIV as a fucking HOLOCAUST rather than, you know, the ACTUAL Holocaust of the disease, are, in fact, fucking ASSHATS. These guys are more concerned about African boys losing their foreskins than they are of them DYING OF AIDS. Don’t you think actually fighting AIDS would be a better use of time than pronouncing that circumcision is a HOLOCAUST? It’s what my grandmother referred to as “swallowing camels and gagging on gnats.” Everything else you IMAGINE was said is a product of your fevered and obviously over-sensitive imagination. And as for your HIV, I’m sorry to hear about that, despite the fact that you’re being a totally moronic dickhead about this entire thing. One of my very best friends died of AIDS last year and I don’t wish that on anyone. But as for your assumption that you know jackshit about anything other than exactly what was said, which you’ve managed to righteously MISunderstand, twist, and tie up into a fucking balloon animal of righteous victimization, you can shove that right up your pompous ass. YOU weren’t there nursing Mark when he was dying, so don’t you fucking pretend you know anything about me or what I have or haven’t done with regard to AIDS or people living with AIDS.
you can find injury where there was none.
You’re still shooting for that National Review job I take it.
Oh, I see…I injured you by relating accurately what was on a documentary I saw? It’s as if I were holding the knife itself, it were. Just because, you know, I saw this show and told other people what was in the show. Aren’t you feeling foolish yet?
Assumption? No assumptions; I quoted you extensively.
Ooh one of my friends died of AIDS. I suppose one of your best friends is black as well?
Now lissen carefully: you were RIGHT to call out whoever about the holocaust remark. That sort of talk diminishes the importance of the bigger problem. That’s not what you’re being an idiot about.
See, all that doesn’t mean that male genital mutilation isn’t itself an issue in and of itself. You said some nasty, unkind things in addition to your “holocaust challenge” and they were uncalled for. And you kept it up. Then it was JENNIFER (that would be you, child) who refused to separate the two issues. It was JENNIFER (again, you) who kept claiming that the issue of cock clipping is somehow inextricably linked to AIDS.
One more time:
Queue E Fucking Dee.
I don’t want or need you sympathy. Seventeen years after being given a six-month prognosis nothing you or anyone with the likely exception of my devoted “husband” really means that much to me. I mention this to explain why you’re so wrong about much of the shit you’re tossing around up there.
Jennifer, I just have to sign in so I can find out what nasty names you will call me. You need to know those documentaries you love so much fundamentally orginate with the US medical industry which loves circumcision so much it will do anything to keep it alive. A doctor can make $80,000. a year doing nine or ten a week at about $300. a clip (ouch!). They take 10-15 minutes each for the doctor’s part. That’s gravy on top of all other medical income with no other outlay; the hospital gets about as much per clip to cover “expenses” from the doctor’s activities.
Someone said they do it in Canada and Latin America? Canada no more; Latin American never other than a few (more like 2.5% than 25% – circumcised males always believe more are circumcised because they need company) wealthy moguls trying out US “style” for their new sons. In truth no developed country other than the US does it, or if they do it is at a rate less than 1%. US has highest circumcision rate in industrialized world and highest HIV/AIDS rates in industrialized world.
Virtually NO circumcisions are done in Japan and Scandanavian countries. Those are the places with the lowest HIV/AIDS rates in the world. My goodness . . . does circumcision cause HIV/AIDS?
Nasty little “hooks” in foreskin “catch” HIV and lock it into a man? Science fiction or fairy tale . . . take your choice. That is a THEORY from one or two of the most fanatical advocates of circumcision in the world. It has NOT been proven by anyone anywhere. Researchers in Netherlands have discovered a substance under foreskins that KILLS HIV. Sorry to upset your little faith-based beliefs in spooky foreskin and benevolent prepuce whackers, but that’s the truth.
But oh, don’t forgot about the world of Islam. They make up about 20% of Earth’s population, so 20% of males are circumcised because they are Muslims. Another 5% of Earth’s males (mostly US Americans) are cut so they can look like Muslims rather than everyone else in the world. Makes a lot of sense doesn’t it?
No, asshole, I wasn’t claiming that cock-clipping was inextricably linked to AIDS. I cited a documentary, and then responded to another commenter who cited a figure of 50%. And then said, and I quote:
“If you lived in an area where 25 – 50% of the people were infected with HIV, and circumcision could lower your chances of being infected by 50%, I’d say it would probably be worthwhile.”
Please note use of the word “if”. Please also note that there’s a concession there that IF the preceding is true, circumcision would probably be worthwhile. Not “fuck all those boys and those traditions; they should all be held down and clipped.” Just an acknowledgement that IF the figure the other commenter cited (50%) was accurate, then circumcision would probably be worthwhile.
And for that, I’m a dick chopping bitch.
To which the other commenter’s brilliant response was that all these impoverished and uneducated African men should just make sure to use condoms. Yeah. They all have those in unlimited supply, along with the knowledge of how to use them and why it’s important.
As for your overweening compassion and empathy for the victims of AIDS, thanks for showing it for my friend.
And again, fuck you, your obvious lack of reading comprehension, and your willful desire to find offense where none was given.
Jennifer tries to outstoopid Mary Grabar:
…I injured you by relating accurately what was on a documentary I saw? It’s as if I were holding the knife itself, it were.
Jeebus! It’s not about YOU YOU YOU though apparently that’s what you would like.
The injury was to me (and millions of others) in the act of circumcision. Jeebus again, we WERE talking about dick-whacking until you made it all about YOU YOU YOU.
Get over yourself already.
RickyB – if you can read, go back up the thread and find where I advocated circumcision, then come back and post it here. Otherwise, you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about and you should probably stop making assumptions about what was said that make you look as foolish as PeeJ here.
Christ, what are you, 3 years old? I didn’t make jack shit about ME – YOU did that with your willful misinterpretations and projection. I suppose if I were to relate the plot of a movie I had seen, and you didn’t particularly like the storyline, I’d be guilty of whatever harm you thought it caused you to hear about it.
What did you actually say?
And IF you were working from any kind of reasonable, factual, scientific, credible basis, IF there was only some way you find out whether the documentary you vaguely recalled seeing a few years ago had any merit, IF you hadn’t started calling people full of shit based on that dimly remembered “documentary” (which you then disengenuously tried to distance yourself from, blaming “mistakes” on them, not your reliance on bad or suspect “data” as any intellectually honest person would have done), IF you hadn’t called people fetishists, IF you hadn’t taken a shot at someone for saying they would be sure to use a condom, IF pigs had wings…
Good lord how desperate for attention are you?
Well, you know what, asshole? IF I’m not working from a reasonable factual scientific credible basis, why don’t you fucking dispute that instead of trying to make this into “you’re a horrible dick chopping bitch”? I was having a discussion with someone who didn’t offer any contradictory facts, links, evidence to what I had related that I had seen in a documentary, which was as I clearly stated the source of my information.
If you weren’t more interested in a flamewar than in correcting inaccurate information, you MIGHT have tried that approach. You start throwing around ad hominems and you will get those in return. But that’s what you wanted, isn’t it? Along with the dude who was referred to as a “fetishist” because he also obviously ignored what was clearly written and instead opted for your twisted intepretation that I was a dick-chopping goon.
So again, fuck you.
I didn’t make jack shit about ME
Naw, you didn’t make jack shit about you. I was so wrong. I misinterpreted all those ‘I’ words.
Just to feel liek I’ve accomplished something before I go off to sleepy-bye, I’m going to nominate you for paranoic of the week.
Perhaps you should get your meds adjusted.
Perhaps you should go fuck yourself.
If only I could. Fortunately, I’ve got someone to do that for me.
Waiter! Another Fuckbum, please.
Pedestrian: again with the money, already! Some of the devices you can make yourself for a few cents. See http://www.circumstitions.com/Restore.html And the DILE device
http://www.dileinsert.com/what06_files/image005.jpg is quite cute – you’d hang it over a baby’s bassinet if you didn’t know what it was for.
Jennifer:
“Given that circumcised men can and do achieve orgasm on a regular basis…” Orgasm? Or just ejaculation? “I’ve been absolutely delighted with my black and white TV for as long as I can remember.” “I like my phonograph. It has served me well. It has done most of what I have asked it to do and has performed well, overall.” “Most men I’ve known are pretty damn happy with their monoculars” – What’s all this nonsense about colour and stereo and 3D?
“To which the other commenter’s brilliant response was that all these impoverished and uneducated African men should just make sure to use condoms.” You could actually buy a hell of a lot of condoms and safe-sex education for the real costs of circumcision experiments, campaigns, doctors’ time and skill, equipment and so on. IF circumcision does what they say, it would still take about FIFTY circumcisions to prevent ONE HIV transmission. They’re planning to circumcise babies, many of whom will never survive to sexual maturity because of treatable and preventable conditions that they’re be neglecting.
If any country sent a shipment of condoms to Africa and it turned out that 40-50% of them were full of holes (even if each carried a notice that said “This condom offers only partial protection”), there would be worldwide outrage. That’s basically what these circumcision campaigns offer.
I wrote, “It certainly doesn’t protect women from getting it from men, and it’s going to make it harder for them to resist men who want unprotected sex.”
Why, I wonder, does Jennifer care so little about African women and how circumcision campaigns are going to make it harder and riskier for them?
“RickyB – if you can read, go back up the thread and find where I advocated circumcision, then come back and post it here. Otherwise, you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about”
Jennifer’s actual words: “I’d say it would probably be worthwhile.” That’s something other than advocacy?
IJennifer: “I was having a discussion with someone who didn’t offer any contradictory facts, links, evidence to what I had related that I had seen in a documentary, which was as I clearly stated the source of my information.”
Actually, I did:
“Not everything you learn from documentaries is true. http://www.circumstitions.com/News24.html#amsterdam”
“even when it doubles the chance of HIV infection”
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html#dilbert
IF you went there at all, scrolling up or down from the cartoon (oh we’re so humourless!) would have answered everything the nameless, half-remembered documentary said. In fact you would have eventually reached the full text of the documentary itself, with a commentary:
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-valley.html
The filmmakers recorded a whole meeting of an hour or more, and chose a few ill-chosen words to stand for the whole case against circumcision.
Hey, Hugh? Fuck you too, on your willful misquote. You left out the whole first half of the quote, but then again, you knew that, didn’t you.
Though thanks for the links you provided after that exchange. I saw the one from last year about the compound in the mucosa that researchers said acts as a defense against HIV. Though I note they also verified that there are cells designed to deliver pathogens to the lymphatic system, and that in some people, the compound in the mucosa is either less in abundance or less effective. I also note that it’s information from last year, in other words, research findings announced after the documentary I referenced.
But then again, I’ve stated several times over why I brought up the documentary in the first place, and I still say that all of you flamewar hungry asshats who want to make it about “advocacy” for circumcision rather than pointing to an example of asshattery among the foreskin advocates who are more concerned about loss of foreskin rather than the scourge of AIDS are looking for offense and finding not even a weak excuse for it. You all look like a bunch of jerks.
Hey, fuckwit, you posted that after our exchange. You’re the one who brought up the 50% figure as the potential reduction in transmission. Maybe you should have been linking to actual evidence instead of making up figures, eh? Then again, that’s what people do when they want to inform rather than flamewar.
The documentary was made eight years ago, so just about anything you care to say about circumcision and HIV was “after” that. Yet interestingly, the documentary (propaganda, actually) features Bertrand Auvert and Robert Bailey, lead researchers for two of the three “independent” studies that “found” 50% reduction in 2005-7. Thanks for reminding me how far back their advocacy goes. Their figure of 50% has been all over the news for over a year. (They often say “up to 60%” – like “up to 50% off all prices”) It’s funny to be accused of making it up now.
(That figure of “50%” is a Relative Risk Reduction. This is based on 5,497 controls, 5,411 circumcised, of whom 137 and 64 men got HIV – and 376 and 327 men were “lost from study” their HIV status unknown, so heaven only knows what effect circumcision really had, if any.)
Let us never speak of this thread again.
Gee, Hugh, if you don’t want to be accused of making shit up, maybe next time instead of pulling numbers out of your ass, you should go straight to the links to the actual information, instead of dicking around for half a day with a flamewar based on nothing other than your desire to pretend that someone is advocating something rather than just relating what they’ve heard. Which I’ll remind you once again was in the context of telling a story about how some people have zero sense of proportion…as if the rest of this thread wouldn’t illustrate that perfectly well.
Hi Again,
^^ the other commenter’s brilliant response was that all these impoverished and uneducated African men should just make sure to use condoms. ^^
The UN can give away a condom for 3 cents, and those actually work for BOTH partners, and they prevent pregnancy.
Circumcision won’t work. Most of the US men who have died of AIDS were circumcised at birth. Pitching circumcision as some sort of immunity will cause thousands to die.
Ron – I would never argue that circumcision should be pitched as “immunity”, which was why I didn’t argue that. I merely said that I understood why some people would opt for it if they were basing that decision on the research cited in the documentary. And others here have provided links to information that at the very least cast doubt on the idea that circumcision offers any limited protection whatsoever. But let’s note that most of the men in the US who have died of AIDS didn’t acquire HIV through heterosexual contact, unlike in Africa where that is the primary means of transmission. And let’s also note that there are unique challenges in dealing with uneducated and impoverished populations where getting people to follow through is more difficult – if you even manage to get the condoms and information into their hands. We are after all speaking about a part of the world where just a few weeks ago, people were being accused of “penis theft” and being locked up for their own protection so they wouldn’t be pulled limb from limb by angry mobs.
I do appreciate the more thoughtful tenor of your post. Perhaps the result of going back and reading what it was that was originally said and how the whole thing developed from there.
Newsflash: New evidence suggests that circumcision turns 1 man in 100,000,000 into a shrieking, unreasoning crybaby asshole.
Quotes are from Jennifer:
“RickyB – if you can read, go back up the thread and find where I advocated circumcision, then come back and post it here.”
Oh, I’m sorry. You said all the things below to make an argument AGAINST circumcision?
“I saw this documentary several years ago about how researchers had discovered that uncircumcised heterosexual men have a much higher rate of HIV infection. After studying why this might be, they found that there were specialized cells in the foreskin whose purpose it is to grab onto pathogens and deliver them to the lymphatic system for destruction.”
“Based on this research, a lot of Africans who have not traditionally practised circumcision are choosing to have their sons circumcised as a protection against HIV infection.”
“Also in this documentary, they interviewed an American anti-circumcision group. Its members (heh) were horrified that many Africans are choosing circumcision to help protect against HIV infection. One of them, in fact, said that ‘it is a holocaust.'”
No, you motard. As any person with reasonable reading comprehension skills can tell you, the first part of what was said was reporting. As in a book report or the like. If you want to try to suss out any editorializing there, be my guest and take a stab at it.
The last bit was also reporting, which was followed by a bit of editorializing, as in, “can you believe anyone would be enough of an asshat to refer to circumcision as a “holocaust” – particularly in a population where 1/4 – 1/2 of the people are infected with HIV which is, you know, an ACTUAL Holocaust?”
And I don’t take it back. If you think that using the term “holocaust” would EVER be appropriate in regards to circumcision as opposed to, oh, you know, DEATH, then you have a real issue with blowing certain things way out of proportion.
In short, what I was “advocating” was for people to not be such huge fucking twits that they would equate circumcision with a HOLOCAUST.
Hopefully this is plain enough that even you can understand it.
Quoting Jennifer:
“Ron – I would never argue that circumcision should be pitched as “immunity”, which was why I didn’t argue that. I merely said that I understood why some people would opt for it if they were basing that decision on the research cited in the documentary. And others here have provided links to information that at the very least cast doubt on the idea that circumcision offers any limited protection whatsoever. But let’s note that most of the men in the US who have died of AIDS didn’t acquire HIV through heterosexual contact, unlike in Africa where that is the primary means of transmission. And let’s also note that there are unique challenges in dealing with uneducated and impoverished populations where getting people to follow through is more difficult – if you even manage to get the condoms and information into their hands.”
Wow, Jennifer. You have a perfect command of the rhetoric used by advocates of circumcision, especially the latest version of a “medical” reason for it. (Circumcision has been a cure in search of a disease for over 100 years now.) It’s almost as though you lifted that from a certain website in Australia, operated by a real mad-hat “scientist” who is in such a dither that the circumcision rate in Australia has dipped into single digits that his is attacking Aussie physicians as incompetent idiots.
If you aren’t an advocte of circumcision, you surely did miss a good chance to be one.
What I can’t figure out is why you want to deny that you are an advocate of circumcision. It is quite disingenious to try to make yourself out to be neutral when everything you know and accept about circumcision is something that is in favo[u]r of circumcision. And you launch vitriolic personal attacks against those who disagree with what you know. Except for dear Ron who seems to have warmed the cockles of you heart for some reason.
You obviously aren’t smart enough to keep up with the regulars on this website, and should just go away, if you think that simply reporting, accurately, what you have seen on a TV show in the context of showing how some people have a sense of proportion that is WAY off the rails equals advocacy.
It’s almost as if you are some sort of paranoid loon, convinced that anonymous women on the internet are out to snip your dick. No…wait….it’s EXACTLY like that.
Now run along, troll. Because if you don’t get it after reading everything that’s been posted here, it’s either because you don’t want to get it or you are too stupid to do so. And in either case, it’s a personal problem I can’t fix for you.
In the news today:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20080506/bs_prweb/prweb916104_1
Promoting male circumcision in Africa is risky and dangerous and could lead to more HIV infections, warns a new paper published today in the May issue of Future HIV Therapy [a professional journal]. Promoting circumcision will drain millions, possibly billions, of dollars away from more effective prevention strategies, and cause tens of thousands of infections and other surgical complications.
Lead author Dr. Lawrence Green says, “Having served on both the US
Preventive Services Task Force and the Community Preventive Services Task Force, which do systematic reviews of research to arrive at government-supported evidence-based guidelines for practice, I believe the African studies on the basis of which some are promoting circumcision as HIV prevention would be classified at best as ‘insufficient evidence’ by both panels.”
“Promoting circumcision will drain millions, possibly billions, of dollars
away from more effective prevention strategies,” cautions co-author John
Travis, MD, “and cause tens of thousands of infections and other surgical complications, further straining an already overwhelmed healthcare system and undermining the current ABC (abstinence, be faithful, and use condoms) campaigns by creating a false sense of immunity and increasing risk-taking behaviors. African males are already lining up to be circumcised, believing that they will no longer need to wear condoms, and this is a serious concern.”
[To read the article at the jounral “Future HIV Therapy,” please go to:
http://www.futuremedicine.com/toc/fht/2/3 ]
Wow, jennifer are you able to present anything above the level of a 6th grader–or are you limited to merely calling childish names those that debunk your empty assertions?
When you have the time, or the ability, perhaps you might like to provide something factual and the evidence to back it up….any chance of anything that radical?
Gee, Tandy, you seem to suffer from the same ailment that these other morons do – not being able to tell the difference between reportage and advocacy. To wit, dumbass, they weren’t MY assertions, they were those of a documentary I saw several years ago and were clearly stated as such. Speaking of 6th grade…most people are able to make that distinction once they’ve passed that level. Apparently you’re not one of them.
And here’s Ricky B with news from today…obviously I’m a BAD BAD person who’s out to snip his dick because I didn’t psychically divine LAST NIGHT that there would be a news article today disputing what I saw on a documentary several years ago.
Are you people for real? Because I have a hard time imagining anyone being as dumb as you either truly are or pretend to be and not forgetting how to breathe.
Well,Jennifer, perhaps you might actually check out the validity of this “reportage” b4 trying to pass it off as valid information– reporting garbage merely shows a lack of critical acumen.
And exactly WHAT scientific evidence supports those assertions–assertions without supporting evidence are empty assertions and not worth the bandwidth wasted on them. Posting unsupported “information” (speculation) supporting circumcision IS tantamount to advocating it. But if it makes you feel good to play silly word games, be my guest…to others, it merely shows a lack of any real content.
So, once again do YOU have anything other than some vague unsupported “documentary” and name -calling or is that what you believe is an intelligent response?
Are you able to actually discuss the subject or just spout and repeat what you have been told but not analyzed? If able, would you like to actually discuss the subject?
BTW, cute school-yard insult.
No one’s after your precious. Get over it.
Anyone who likens circumcision to “a Holocaust” is a world-class twit.
Anyone who insists that background related to that comment simply being re-told to give context to the comment constitutes “advocacy” is a world-class twit too.
It is astonishingly stupid.
But at least it gives you something to think about other than the cut/uncut condition of your dick, so I suppose it’s a refreshing change for you. As for the rest of us, we find both of your fixations boring.
Jennifer: “And I don’t take it back. If you think that using the term “holocaust” would EVER be appropriate in regards to circumcision as opposed to, oh, you know, DEATH, then you have a real issue with blowing certain things way out of proportion.”
But circumcision is not opposed to, oh, you know, death, if men are going to get circumcised in the belief that it will protect them individually from HIV (as distinct from conferring some reduction in spread, population wide) and then have unprotected sex. That belief has already, unsurprisingly, been reported. (“Mister, these Aids people have spoken for long about fighting the disease, but they had never come up with a practical solution as good as this one. Don’t have sex, don’t do this, don’t do that. Eh, man, how can a young man such as I forfeit sex, eh? And the condoms – where is the sense in putting on a condom when you are having sex? Sex is about feeling, and so no young person likes them!” – http://www.newtimes.co.rw/index.php?issue=13438&article=4113) In that case circumcising could, indeed, directly lead to a very large number of deaths, commonly called a holocaust. That is what the unidentified person seems to have been trying to say.
The word “motard” is new to me. Can someone (not Jennifer) please provide a definition? My first guess it’s some kind of one-piece garment to be worn while driving.
motard: mo(ron) (re)tard.
It’s two, two, two fools in one!!!!
“motard: mo(ron) (re)tard.
It’s two, two, two fools in one!!!!”
A comment from a world-class twit?
LOL, garbage in lieu of anything approaching a substantive rebuttal–all in the school yard.
I think it is obvious we will get no intelligent or critical discussion from poor Jennifer.
I have found for you an argument; I am not obliged to find you an understanding.
Unintelligent people don’t recognize intelligent discussion when they see or hear it, because…DOH!!!….they stoopid. To wit: I could repeat it 100 times, and you still wouldn’t get it. Because you’re not smart enough to get it or because you have some twisted emotional investment in not getting it – doesn’t matter, the end result is the same. So, I’m not going to repeat anything; I’m not going to apologize to any of you because you’re not owed an apology. It’s not my fault that you’re dumb, lack the most basic reading comprehension and logical skills, have chips on your shoulders and are fixated on dicks: to cut or not to cut. It’s not my problem. I don’t care how worked up you are about it, I don’t care how much concern you nurse for your dicks or for the dicks of others. In the great wide world, I consider that to be a very small topic. It doesn’t interest me. Got that? I. Don’t. Care.
Now, carry on without me and feel free to go back to stroking your…er…grievances.
Jennifer posted 27 times on a topic that doesn’t interest her, about which she Doesn’t Care. How many times would she post if she Did Care?
Isn’t it amazing how the anti-circ nuts descend upon any thread dealing with the subject of circumcision?
The jury is in on male circumcision. Since WHO and UNAIDS in a joint statement have announce their support of findings that male circumcision “reduced the risk of acquiring HIV infection by approximately 60%” the anti-circ zealots have been in crisis mode. One almost feels sorry for them as this destroys their cause what is a dubious single issue one at best.
New Data on Male Circumcision and HIV Prevention: Policy and Programme Implications
http://data.unaids.org/pub/Report/2007/mc_recommendations_en.pdf
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusion 1: The research evidence is compelling
The research evidence that male circumcision is efficacious in reducing sexual transmission of HIV from women to men is compelling. The partial protective effect of male circumcision is remarkably consistent across the observational studies (ecological, cross-sectional and cohort) and the three randomized controlled trials conducted in diverse settings.
The three randomised controlled trials showed that male circumcision performed by well-trained medical professionals was safe and reduced the risk of acquiring HIV infection by approximately 60%.
The efficacy of male circumcision in reducing female to male transmission of HIV has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. This is an important landmark in the history of HIV prevention.
Recommendations :
1.1 Male circumcision should now be recognized as an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention.
1.2 Promoting male circumcision should be recognized as an additional, important strategy for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men.
… closely followed by Joshua who is not just single-issue but single-citation. The above Appeal to Authority is the only trick he knows, and if you challenge him, he’ll just repeat it again and again. Sadly for him, http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/full/10.2217/17469600.2.3.193 has now been published, and a reference to it (by Ricky B, May 7, 2008 at 0:00 ) got here first.
Hugh7 claims that “Sadly for him [ie., Joshua] [an opinion piece] has now been published”. This is somewhat puzzling. More than 40 observational studies have been published, along with several meta-analyses of observational studies. Three randomised controlled trials have been published (along with a meta-analysis of RCT data). The World Health Organisation, after consulting with numerous experts, concluded that the efficacy is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The (US) Centers for Disease Control remarks that the evidence indicates that circumcision is protective against HIV. And yet when four anti-circumcision activists publish an opinion piece expressing (as might be predicted) a contrary opinion, Hugh7 apparently expects Joshua to be saddened. Puzzling.
Hugh7 is a dedicated admirer of foreskins. One understands how he will tend to clutch at any opinion piece that might be used to promote the retention of the object of his sexual interest but against the opinion of WHO and UNAIDS on the basis of overwhelming evidence from 40+ studies it has no weight. I am begging to feel a deep sorry for the emotional turmoil these dedicated pro-foreskin activists are now being subjected to as their cause, always dubious at best, is relegated to the league of “The Flat Earth Society” and other lunatic attracting groups.
Sorry Joshua, but appeal to authority does not work for rationable people–especially when an OPINION they deliver is contrary to the scientific evidence.
And interestingly all the BS you and them have attributed to these great studies are the exact same points that are questioned in that report
http://www.futuremedicine.com/toc/fht/2/3
and you have completely ignored the points therein and merely gave us that silly OPINION.
Joshua and Jake love to tell us these OPINIONS to support their particular fetish, and then resort to the usual ad hominem arguements, but they never actually address the scientifically questionable points.. here is a critique of the studies by bailey and boys.. let’s see if they can provide something more substanative than their oft-repeated appeals to authority..it will indicate if they can actually THINK for themselves.
In SCIENCE, a (R)andomized (C)ontrolled (T)rial is a trial where all of the factors are CONTROLLED with one,and only one factor (chosen at random) altered and the results are examined.
For the Circumcision/HIV studies, we have the following:
None of the factors are CONTROLLED. These factors are examined only based on self-reporting (notoriously unreliable) and then examined STATISTICALLY.
The only thing that might be random were those chosen to be circumcised.
Not CONTROLLED were:
1. The time needed for healing for those circumcised BEFORE the trial was intitiated–less exposure time
2. Rates of exposure for each group
3. Dry sex:
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/baleta1/
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/beksinska1/
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/sandala1/
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/brown1/
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/civic1/
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/dallabetta1/
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/runganga1/
http://www.salon.com/health/sex/urge/world/1999/12/10/drysex/
4. Anal sex
5. Homosexual sex
6. Genital warts re-occurance: how they were treated, and the final efficacy of that particular treatment. (excision or chemical)
http://weswell.blogs.wesleyan.edu/2008/04/04/thwart-genital-warts/
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/cook2/
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/vanhowe6/
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/hooykaas1/
7. The accuracy of the tests to determine seroconversion–rates of false or negative determinations
A. http://www.afrol.com/features/11116
B. http://www.duesberg.com/subject/epvtafrica.html
8. The time needed to manifest all seroconversions
9. Any chance of a follow-up as the test was stopped early and ALL subjects were circumcised.
10 . Equal amount of “safe-sex counseling” for both groups:
A. Postoperative follow-up visits were scheduled at 24–48 hours, 5–9 days, and 4–6 weeks.
B. All participants in both groups were followed up at 4–6 weeks, and at 6, 12, and 24 months post-enrolment
Control is control, “playing with the numbers” is merely an accounting scheme.
And all of this involved nothing but statistical analysis.
Author bias is a common problem with many studies (and all authors have long been circumcision advocates):
http://www.nam.co.uk/en/news/F74B04D2-793E-4B49-B837-061E67C0527F.asp
Another shortcoming of the studies is the small sample size
Small sample size: With few subjects, the law of small numbers applies with a vengeance.
(Roughly, when you’re dealing with small numbers, random variations assume disproportionate importance. IE, there might be 3 murders in a small community one year and 14 the next, but it’s stupid to say “The murder rate has more than quadrupled!” and blame the difference on policing, penalties, or anything else. Next year there might be 7 or 1.)
Finally, enough men dropped out of the studies before completion to completely nullify any claimed result.
And in an attempt to lend credence to these studies, there are SPECULATIVE mechanisms given for this claimed reductions. None of these mechanisms have any scientific and logical support–most have already been refuted by the facts and evidence.
1. “The protective effect of circumcision against HIV infection is thought to derive in part from postsurgical development of a layer of keratinised squamous epithelial cells that limit viral entry to underlying HIV target cells.How long it takes the residual tissue to fully heal and become keratinised has not been studied.
A. keratinization is a long term phenomena and could not have any effect on conversion is the short time period of the studies.
B. Some circumcisers claim that keratinization (and the loss of subsequent sensation) does not occur:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7249/1592
The inner preputial mucosa is unkeratinised, making it vulnerable to HIV infection.”
A. The CDC has shown that undamaged epithelia do not transmit the HIV virus:
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/dezzutti/
B. Ironically, since keratinization logically causes a further loss of sensation and sensitivity, an ardent circumcises claims to have done a study (never published , and not seen by anyone) proving that keratinization (and the loss of subsequent sensation) does not occur:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7249/1592
2. That circumcision reduces the risk of male HIV infection is biologically plausible. The foreskin is rich in HIV target cells (Langerhans’ and dendritic cells, CD4+ T cells, and macrophages).
A. Erroneous speculation on many levels..
a. The langerhan cells produce langerhin which kills the HIV virus
http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20070305/hl_hsn/scientistsdiscovernaturalbarriertohiv
b. Macrophages digest the HIV virus
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/fleiss3/
c. the foreskin produces lysozyme which also kill the HIV virus
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/lee-huang/
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/hill1/
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/fleiss3/
Summation:
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/dezzutti/
3.The foreskin is retracted over the shaft during intercourse, which exposes the inner mucosa to vaginal and cervical fluids.
A. http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/dezzutti/
4. Also, breaches in the mucosa can occur due to microtears during intercourse, especially at the frenulum,
A. False, in fact the opposite is the truth, a tight circumcision results in more abrasive and friction laden sex which would lead to more breaches in the tissue.
http://www.cirp.org/library/general/warren2/
[also see p.61, May issue, Men’s Health] The work of Laumann et. al JAMA 1997, 277: 1052-57, Taylor & Lockwood, BJU, 1996, 77:291- 5, and Halata & Munger, Brain Research, 1986, 371: 205-30 explains:
The mutilated man with his keratinized, desensitized glans, and absent the fine-touch receptors and erogenous mobility of the foreskin, ultimately requires inordinate stimulation of his residual penile nerve endings to achieve pleasure and orgasm. When this becomes plunger sex resulting in dryness, abrasion, pain and bleeding, female orgasmic potential shrivels. This requires we take a closer look at the notion of vaginal dryness as a ‘female’ problem.
5. Uncircumcised men are more susceptible to genital ulcer disease, which could increase HIV entry.
A.Actually the opposite is true
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/cook2/
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/vanhowe6/
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/hooykaas1/
B. STD’s
http://www.cirp.org/library/general/laumann/Laumann
http://www.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/12/05/health.stds.reut/index.html
http://www.aidsinfonyc.org/hivplus/issue4/updates/lymph.html
Country circ rate HIV rate
USA 80% 0.6%
Ethiopia 100% 4.4
Japan <1% 0.1%
Europe <2% avg <0.2%
“None of the factors are CONTROLLED. These factors are examined only based on self-reporting (notoriously unreliable) and then examined STATISTICALLY.”
Tandy is incorrect here. First, “controlled” refers to a trial with a control group. Second, other factors are inherently controlled through the study design, because the process of randomly assigning men to the intervention or control group ensures that such factors are distributed roughly evenly between the two groups. Consequently, the difference between the two groups can be due only to the intervention in question.
So, of the ten factors which Tandy thinks were not controlled, we can immediately discount the vast majority, since there is no reason why they should differentially affect one group or the other. The exception to this is item 1. Tandy observes – correctly – that there is a short period of time after intervention in which controls had greater exposure. And as can be seen in, for example, the South African trial, the apparent protective effect is indeed greater in the first three months, before settling to a stable protective effect afterwards.
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv?request=slideshow&type=table&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020298&id=4936
Next, Tandy complains that “Another shortcoming of the studies is the small sample size”. In stating this, he demonstrates his own ignorance of statistics, because in fact small sample sizes bias the results of statistical testing towards the null hypothesis (that is, a “false negative” is actually more likely to occur).
Again, Tandy demonstrates his ignorance by claiming that “Finally, enough men dropped out of the studies before completion to completely nullify any claimed result.” Yet he’s making an unstated assumption here, and that is that these men who dropped out of the studies were somehow “special”, and that the protective effect observed elsewhere did not, for some reason, occur among them. It’s like saying “well, nobody has ever tested the law of gravity at a particular spot off the coast of Fiji” – unless there’s a rational basis for believing that this might be an exception, it’s quite obviously just a poor excuse.
Now let’s move on to Tandy’s dismissal of the mechanisms by which this protective effect occurs.
First, he rejects the claim of keratinisation, and correctly so, citing the work of Szabo and Short. Unfortunately, it then goes downhill fast. He dismisses “The inner preputial mucosa is unkeratinised, making it vulnerable to HIV infection” on the basis of a study, not of foreskin tissue, but of primary prostate epithelial cells. Next – extraordinarily – he attacks his own argument, now attacking the work of Szabo and Short by saying that “an ardent circumcises claims to have done a study (never published , and not seen by anyone) proving that keratinization (and the loss of subsequent sensation) does not occur”. Apparently he wants to have his cake and eat it!
Next, he attacks the statement that “The foreskin is rich in HIV target cells (Langerhans’ and dendritic cells, CD4+ T cells, and macrophages).” with a) a study from which he erroneously extrapolates, b) an anti-circumcision opinion piece, and c) an erroneous claim in the same opinion piece that the foreskin produces lysozyme through apocrine glands (an interesting claim, but one that overlooks the fact that studies have reported that the prepuce is completely free of such glands).
For good measure, Tandy then provides another two links to the study of prostate cells. Pointless, but let’s humour him.
Next, he attacks the statement that “Also, breaches in the mucosa can occur due to microtears during intercourse, especially at the frenulum” with – guess what – another anti-circumcision opinion piece.
Next, he attacks the statement that “Uncircumcised men are more susceptible to genital ulcer disease, which could increase HIV entry.” In support of this, he cites two studies and an opinion piece by Van Howe (an anti-circumcision proponent). Had he looked further, he might have found a meta-analysis and systematic review of 26 studies:
http://sti.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/82/2/101
Finally, he provides an inexplicable table of the circumcision rate and HIV rate in three first-world countries and one third-world country. It remains unclear why he does this, but in fairness it is no less irrational than the rest of his post.
Thanks Jake, you are good at BS’ing about science, but unfortunately you completely fail to actually comprehend the process of science..
Again NOTHING was controlled in either group–it was based on the nonsense I posited.. I think yuo have no comprehension of what a controlled trial actually is..
in reality, it is an experiment in which two trials are performed wherein ONE factor at random is changed in one set and the results compared to the original and where where ALL other factors are CONTROLLED–and nor just examined statistically.
Sorry,, Jake but that dodge about prostate cells is pretending that they are not epithelial cells–no cigar!. Silly word games–and not acatully valid. Again you are showing your inability to understand actaul science.
Science is more than a pathetic attempt to re-define terms.
Sorry I exp[osed your ridiculous and contradictory nonsense about keratinization–so can you offer ANY scientifically-credible evidence that this process exists and that it has any effect.GIGO! Specualtion is speculation–not proof.
“Next, he attacks the statement that “Also, breaches in the mucosa can occur due to microtears during intercourse, especially at the frenulum” with – guess what – another anti-circumcision opinion piece.
You mean like an OPINION by Bailey and boys (circumfanatics)? How double-standard of you!
Why the various countries?–SCIENCE requires that the prediction is fulfilled EVERY –but this basic tenelt of science is something Jake is unable to comprehend–he thinks questionable statistics IS science. Again, WHERE is this alleged reduction? Not in the real world!
Jake, when are you going to actauuly ADDRESS the flaws and not just dance around, pretend they are not valid, and/or ignore them?
So, when can we see these flaws actually ADDRESSED? You have a lot of flaws to address there–better get busy. And dismissing one or two is not addressing them –and ignoring others is not addressing them eirther.
Like I stated, just using the jargon of science does not show a comnprehension of it.
Just a little REALITY check for Jake..let’s dimiss reality because someone does questionable studies that state otherwise..
Reality:
CDC: “The reported ***gonorrhea rate in the United States remains the highest of any industrialized country*** and is roughly 50 times that of Sweden and eight times that of Canada”.
The CDC says 15 million people in the United States become infected every year with an STD, ***half of which are INCURABLE viral infections such as herpes or human papilloma virus (HPV), the CAUSE of genital warts and cervical cancer****.
Such ***incurable*** STD’s affect 65 million Americans.
It says 5.5 million Americans are infected with HPV every year, 3 million get chlamydia, 1 million get herpes and 650,000 get gonorrhea.
“The United States looks bad when compared to other rich countries, the NY report said.”
http://www.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/12/05/health.stds.reut/index.html
Ah finally, the gofer of the High Court of Circumcision Advocacy has signed in. Jake says:
“More than 40 observational studies have been published, along with several meta-analyses of observational studies. Three randomised controlled trials have been published (along with a meta-analysis of RCT data). The World Health Organisation, after consulting with numerous experts, concluded that the efficacy is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The (US) Centers for Disease Control remarks that the evidence indicates that circumcision is protective against HIV.”
FORTY. MORE THAN FORTY. Good grief. OMG. Overwhelming quantities of pseudo-scientific claptrap threaten to overwhelm us. Oh well, we’ll get by. Just open the sewer control valves and it will all eventually pass through. “Beyond resaonable doubt?” Egads, stolen from legalese. There are tons of doubt. Just as “the golden standard” was stolen from REAL vaccine trials with double blind controls. There was not even single blind control in your so-called RCTs from Africa. You and the pseudo-scientists have learned how to build great rhetorical devices to sell circumcision. But your science still stinks. Hey Jake, you know what? Two hundred percent of nothing is nothing. Sixty percent efficacy of circumcision is about the different between the rates of infection between two groups, which were actually less than 2% apart. And when it’s that close the potential for mischief by “researchers” who have long histories of advocating circumcision is just too great. Beyond a reasonable doubt? Yeah, beyond any reasonable doubt those RCTs in Africa don’t mean squat, except to those who believe fervently in the value of circumcision, and those in the thrall of US hegemony over UN agencies.
Jake, you are the intellectual equivalent of superficial consumers who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. You believe quantity reigns. You believe anything in favo[u]r of circumcision just has to be valid. Of course you do. You had the most valuable part of your penis cut off as an adult, just to satisfy a fetishist craving for an permanently exposed glans. You can’t possibly help yourself. You MUST always jump in to argue that circumcision is the greatest thing humankind has ever invented.
All that claptrap is financed by the US goverenment from the start, and the US government is under the spell of the US medical industry. The US is the only industralized nation on Earth which has a substantial proportion of its population suffering from the lack of medical care. Why? Because the US medical industry likes it that way, is afraid any plan to deal with the problem may cost them money. That medical industry also likes universal routine infant circumcision because it makes so much money for doctors who do it that other doctors are afraid they might start doing other things if they can’t circumcise baby boys.
It’s about AIDS in Africa? Of course those who acolyte for Morris and Bailey say that even if they don’t believe it. But the truth comes out spontaneously when DeCock says, within 24 hours of the most recent flurry of announcements that circumcision will safe lives in Africa, that we now need to circumcise every baby boy in the US. One suspects the the cabal plan was for him to wait a few months before saying that, but clearly his passion for circumcision got the best of him and caused him to jump the gun.
Too bad. You can’t unspill the beans now.
The humourists who frequent this site must be overwhelmed by the sheer quantity of material being posted here – if they return to this page at all.
Jake: “More than 40 observational studies have been published, along with several meta-analyses of observational studies.”
This is neat. Sure they have been published – but they didn’t all come down in favour of circumcision.
“And as can be seen in, for example, the South African trial, the apparent protective effect is indeed greater in the first three months, before settling to a stable protective effect afterwards.”
This might impress people who don’t know that we are talking about 11 people infected in the first three months, 22 in the next nine months, and 36 in the last nine months (the trial was cut short at 21 months). It is nonsense to talk about greater or lesser “protective” effects for such small numbers.
“So, of the ten factors which Tandy thinks were not controlled, we can immediately discount the vast majority, since there is no reason why they should differentially affect one group or the other.”
There is one big reason. Purely random variation. This is important because we are looking for an effect on a small variable (HIV infection, ranging 1-3% in the populations being considered over the time involved.) Human are not lab rats. We can not keep them in cages and allow them to mate only with chosen partners at specified times. These experiments treat them as if they were.
““Finally, enough men dropped out of the studies before completion to completely nullify any claimed result.” Yet he’s making an unstated assumption here, and that is that these men who dropped out of the studies were somehow “special”, and that the protective effect observed elsewhere did not, for some reason, occur among them.”
One way that circumcised men who dropped out might very well be special is that they had learnt – because they were encourged to go and get tested* – that they had HIV, after undergoing a painful and marking operation to prevent it. An HIV diagnosis is devastating at the best of times, but that would be particularly likely to sour the men against going back to the people who had, as it would seem, tricked them.
But in any case, the number who dropped out, their HIV status unknown to the researchers, so outnumbered the men known to have HIV, that random effects alone could easily nullify any “protective effect”.
*The experimenters didn’t tell the men when the experimenters found they had HIV as part of the experiment. Nor was any testing of partners done. This was deemed to be ethical. Yet all three experiments were cut short – at a time decided by experimenters who desperately want circumcision to be protective – as soon as a “protective effect” of circumcision was found because it would have been “unethical” to deny the control group the “benefits” of circumcision. So now the long-term effects can never be known.
I have a few points of contention with Barack Hussein Obama. To begin at the beginning, Obama says he’s going to bribe the parasitic with the earnings of the productive some day. Good old Obama. He just loves to open his mouth and let all kinds of things come out without listening to how oleaginous they sound.
Obama’s exegeses are a cancer that is slowly eating away at our flesh. I always catch hell whenever I say something like that so let me assure you that I have a New Year’s resolution for him: He should pick up a book before he jumps to the insipid conclusion that we should avoid personal responsibility. Obama intends to create a new social class. Depraved galoots, brutish freeloaders, and counter-productive snobs will be given aristocratic status. The rest of us will be forced into serving as their encomiasts. With his commentaries hanging over us like the Sword of Damocles, it makes sense that some people are responsible and others are not. Obama falls into the category of “not”.
Obama obviously didn’t have to pass an intelligence test to get to where he is today because his knowledge of how things work is completely off the mark. First of all, I recently overheard a couple of birdbrained scaramouches say that ebola, AIDS, mad-cow disease, and the hantavirus were intentionally bioengineered by pea-brained, ignominious shirkers for the purpose of population reduction. Here, again, we encounter the blurred thinking that is characteristic of this Obama-induced era of slogans and propaganda. At first, you might be unsure as to whether he justifies his plans to perpetuate the nonsense known technically as the analytic/synthetic dichotomy as “preemptive self-defense”. But on deeper inspection, you’ll clearly conclude that if he were as bright as he thinks he is, he’d know that if you were to try to tell his hangers-on that acrimonious nepotism is merely a symptom of the disease called “Obama-ism”, they’d close their eyes and put their hands over their ears. They are, as the psychologists say, in denial. They don’t want to hear that Obama has been offering mudslinging firebrands a lot of money to leave behind a wake of beer-guzzling reaction. This is blood money, plain and simple. Anyone thinking of accepting it should realize that Obama’s goal is to lower this country’s moral tone and depreciate its commercial integrity. This is abject revisionism!
Obama wants to revile everything in the most obscene terms and drag it into the filth of the basest possible outlook. Who does he think he is? I mean, I am convinced that there will be a strong effort on his part to write off whole sections of society by the next full moon. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That’s why I’m informing you that I appreciate feedback and other people’s views on subjects. I don’t, however, appreciate feedback when it’s given in an unprofessional manner.
Although Obama was likely following the dictates of his conscience when he decided to kill the goose bearing the golden egg, the fact remains that when he tells us that he is a model citizen, he somehow fails to mention that he owns drawers and boxes full of legal documents, which he is convinced prove his position. He fails to mention that he is unconstrained by conscience. And he fails to mention that solipsism is dangerous. His pretentious version of it is doubly so. Maybe he has a reason for acting the way he does, but I doubt it. The law is not just a moral stance. It is the consensus of society on our minimum standards of behavior.
Obama likes saying that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points. Okay, that’s a parody — but not a very gross one. In point of fact, Obama asserts that we ought to worship choleric pikers as folk heroes. Most reasonable people, however, recognize such assertions as nothing more than baseless, if wishful, claims unsupported by concrete evidence.
This is a suitable place in the letter to explain how Obama gets so hot and bothered about every little thing someone says about him that I fully expect him to replicate the most cuckoo structures of contemporary life when you least expect it. Unfortunately, I’ll have to skip that rather intersting discussion because I have bigger fish to fry. In particular, I need to tell you that Obama insists that he has no choice but to contravene decency. His reasoning is that barbarism brings one closer to nirvana. Yes, I realize that that argument makes no sense, but Obama has repeatedly threatened to manufacture and compile daunting lists of imaginary transgressions committed against him. Maybe that’s just for maximum scaremongering effect. Or maybe it’s because Obama craves more power. I say we should give him more power — preferably, 10,000 volts of it.
A more fundamental problem is that Obama and his coadjutors are, by nature, profligate hypochondriacs. Not only can that nature not be changed by window-dressing or persiflage, but I’ve known some polluters who were impressively featherbrained. However, Obama is malign and that trumps featherbrained every time. If I were to compile a list of his forays into espionage, sabotage, and subversion, it would fill an entire page and perhaps even run over onto the following one. Such a list would surely make every sane person who has passed the age of six realize that it does not take much perspicacity to see that I have had enough of Obama’s paltry, self-serving obloquies. Obama may mean well but if we contradict him, we are labelled dangerous freaks of nature. If we capitulate, however, we forfeit our freedoms.
Obama’s reinterpretations of historic events do not represent progress. They represent insanity masquerading as progress. Obama is the picture of the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to his crotchets.
Obama has a staggering number of narrow-minded followers. One way to lower their numbers, if not eradicate them entirely, is simple. We just inform them that if we don’t soon tell Obama to stop what he’s doing, he will proceed with his effete propositions, considerably emboldened by our lack of resistance. We will have tacitly given Obama our permission to do so. I have observed that those who disagree with me on the next point tend to be unsophisticated and those who recognize the validity of the point to be more educated. The point is that we must issue a call to conscience and reason if we are ever to attack his malice and hypocrisy. Yes, this is a bold, audacious, even unprecedented undertaking. Yes, it lacks any realistic guarantee of success. However, it is an undertaking that we must unequivocally pursue because it will not be easy to bring strength to our families, power to our nation, and health to our cities. Nevertheless, we must attempt to do exactly that for the overriding reason that I undoubtedly believe that in my speaking engagements, I have found in audience questions an alarming increase in concern about what I call confused wimps. My views, of course, are not the issue here. The issue is that he never stops boasting about his generous contributions to charitable causes. As far as I can tell, however, Obama’s claimed magnanimousness is thoroughly chimerical, and, furthermore, some day, in the far, far future, he will realize that there’s a sinful, purblind miscreant born every minute. This realization will sink in slowly but surely and will be accompanied by a comprehension of how I recently checked out one of Obama’s recent tracts. Oh, look; he’s again saying that his practices are our final line of defense against tyrrany. Raise your hand if you’re surprised. Seriously, though, you won’t find many of Obama’s henchmen who will openly admit that they favor Obama’s schemes to tear down all theoretical frameworks for addressing the issue. In fact, their asseverations are characterized by a plethora of rhetoric to the contrary. If you listen closely, though, you’ll hear how carefully they cover up the fact that to Obama’s mind, “the norm” shouldn’t have to worry about how the exceptions feel. So that means that his epithets are good for the environment, human rights, and baby seals, right? No, not right. The truth is that Obama keeps insisting that anyone who dares to challenge the present and enrich the future can expect to suffer hair loss and tooth decay as a result. To me, there is something fundamentally wrong with that story. Maybe it’s that Obama focuses on feelings rather than facts. Sure, he attempts to twist and distort facts to justify his feelings but that just goes to show that with Obama so forcefully increasing society’s cycle of hostility and violence, things are starting to come to a head. That’s why we must clear the cobwebs out of people’s heads and help them understand that as a bastion of boosterism, his headlong, squalid faction has become a menace — a menace, above all, to those of us who value liberty. I could be wrong about any or all of this, but at the moment, the above fits what I know of history, people, and current conditions. If anyone sees anything wrong or has some new facts or theories on this, I’d love to hear about them.
I am not writing to agree or disagree with Barack Hussein Obama. What I have to say, however, regards Obama’s conscious decision to organize a whispering campaign against me. I begin with critical semantic clarifications. First, if we foreground the cognitive and emotional palette of his abysmal projects rather than their pathology we can enter vitally into Obama’s world. Why do we want to do that? Because Obama likes to take a condescending cheap shot at a person that most lascivious thought police will never be in a position to condescend to. Such activity can flourish only in the dark, however. If you drag it into the open, Obama and his spokesmen will run for cover, like cockroaches in a dirty kitchen when the light is turned on suddenly during the night. That’s why we must prevent the production of a new crop of immoral, wanton gaberlunzies.
People who agree with Obama’s Ponzi schemes are either stupid, drunk, on drugs, paid off by Obama, or are imprudent vandals. I won’t dwell on that except to direct your attention to the scummy manner in which he has been trying to force me to have a conniption. Even though it frustrates him that he can’t shut me up, this does not negate the fact that there’s something fishy about his manifestos. I think Obama’s up to something, something contumelious and perhaps even callous. A more fundamental problem is that my goal is to put to rest disdainful and biggety plaints such as Obama’s. I might not be successful at achieving that goal but I obviously do have to try. Yes, Obama may be nothing more than a disposable tool of power-wielding, picayunish doomsday prophets but I want to make this clear so that those who do not understand deeper messages embedded within sarcastic irony — and you know who I’m referring to — can process my point. Despite his evident lack of grounding in what he’s talking about, it’s easy for us to shake our heads at his foolishness and cowardice. It’s easy for us to exclaim that we should burn away social illness, exploitation, and human suffering. It’s easy for us to say, “Obama is unable to support his assertions with documentation of any sort.” The point is that it’s easy for us to say these things because Obama uses the word “galvanocontractility” without ever having taken the time to look it up in the dictionary. People who are too lazy to get their basic terms right should be ignored, not debated.
If Obama bites me I will indubitably bite back. If he has any children, I recommend that Obama teach them about love, trust, cooperation, community, reason, negotiation, and compromise rather than violence, paranoia, and fear. Doesn’t it strike you as odd that before the year is over, his hatred of all things pure and good will erupt like Mt. Vesuvius, scattering the ashes of Comstockism over everyone in its path? He wants us to feel sorry for the indecent crybabies who turn peaceful gatherings into embarrassing scandals. I believe we should instead feel sorry for their victims, all of whom know full well that Obama shouldn’t make all of us pay for his boondoggles. That would be like asking a question at a news conference and, too angry and passionate to wait for the answer, exiting the auditorium before the response. Both of those actions display an irreconcilable hatred toward all nations.
However much Obama may deny it, the impact of his pigheaded allegations is exactly that predicted by the Book of Revelation. Evil will preside over the land. Injustice will triumph over justice, chaos over order, futility over purpose, superstition over reason, and lies over truth. Only when humanity experiences this Hell on Earth will it fully appreciate that Obama wants to produce a large number of completely cynical extravagancies, most complacent indecencies, and, above all, the most yellow-bellied blasphemies against everything that I hold most sacred and most dear. Such intolerance is felt by all people, from every background.
If you look soberly and carefully at the evidence all around you, you will indisputably find that I can guarantee the readers of this letter that Obama has for a long time been arguing that his macabre little empire is a respected civil-rights organization. Had he instead been arguing that the worst kinds of vengeful tyrants there are conform their opinions about what is right and what is wrong to their perception of Obama’s opinions and behavior, I might cede Obama his point. As it stands, the leap of faith required to bridge the logical gap in his arguments is simply too terrifying for me to contemplate. What I do often contemplate, however, is how I despise everything about Obama. I despise Obama’s attempts to keep us perennially behind the eight ball. I despise how he insists that ethical responsibility is merely a trammel of earthbound mortals and should not be required of a demigod like him. Most of all, I despise his complete obliviousness to the fact that we must champion the force of goodness against the greed of the worst classes of polyloquent flibbertigibbets I’ve ever seen. As mentioned above, however, that is not enough. It is necessary to do more. It is necessary to build a world overflowing with compassion and tolerance.
I avouch I am not alone when I say that Obama’s collaborators contend that “two wrongs make a right.” First off, that’s a lousy sentence. If they had written instead that whenever Obama is presented with the truth, he cringes like a vampire from a cross, then that quote would have had more validity. As it stands, when I say that Obama’s undertakings are violent, I mean it. I don’t mean that they remind me of something violent or that they have one or two violent characteristics. I mean that they are violent. In fact, the most violent thing about them is the way that they prevent people from seeing that I, not being one of the many inhumane, unenlightened buggers of this world, have a dream, a mission, a set path that I would like to travel down. Specifically, my goal is to complain about smarmy, disreputable politicasters. Of course, over the years, I’ve enjoyed a number of genuinely pleasurable (and pleasurably genuine) conversations with a variety of people who understand that he desperately wants to be fashionable. In one such conversation, someone pointed out to me that once you understand Obama’s crusades, you have a responsibility to do something about them. To know, to understand, and not to act, is an egregious sin of omission. It is the sin of silence. It is the sin of letting Obama disguise the complexity of color, the brutality of class, and the importance of religion and sexual identity in the construction and practice of academicism.
It should be intuitively obvious even to the most casual observer that Obama’s most steadfast claim is that the world can be happy only when his flock is given full rein. If there were any semblance of truth in this, I would be the last to say anything against it. As it stands, however, Obama somehow manages to maintain a straight face when saying that the world’s salvation comes from whims, irrationality, and delusions. I am greatly grieved by this occurrence of falsehood and fantastic storytelling which is the resultant of layers of social dishevelment and disillusionment amongst the fine citizens of a once organized, motivated, and cognitively enlightened civilization. It is as if we were safely on the bank of a raging river, enjoying a picnic with our friends and family, when a bunch of jaded heresiarchs came along and threw us into the river. Not only must we struggle to avoid drowning in the raging torrent of Obama-sponsored phallocentrism, but we must crawl out of the river before we can examine Obama’s worldview from the perspective of its axiology (values) and epistemology (ways of knowing). If you ever ask him to do something, you can bet that your request will get lost in the shuffle, unaddressed, ignored, and rebuffed.
I challenge Obama to admit he was wrong and thereby begin the healing process. No wonder that it has long been obvious to attentive observers that Obama’s use of deceitful underachievers is surely pathetic. But did you know that he is a man with more ambition than conviction? He doesn’t want you to know that because he has been trying for quite some time to convince us that our unalienable rights are merely privileges that he can dole out or retract. I suggest he take this rotting ordure and dump it where he and his fellow filthy backbiters congregate. At least then we could create greater public understanding of the damage caused by his op-ed pieces without having to worry that he will preach fear and ignorance.
Obama’s protests are a quick-fix detour, a placebo aimed at surface symptoms, and an excuse to wreck our country, derail our civilization, and threaten the human race with extinction. This position, in large part, parallels civil libertarianism but with particular emphasis on the fact that Obama has compiled an impressive list of grievances against me. Not only are all of these grievances completely fictitious, but Obama will calumniate helpless ex-cons by next weekend. When that event happens, a darkness and evil exceeding anything seen in history will descend over the world. I can hope only that before it does, people will get Obama off our backs. Only then can we instill a sense of responsibility and maturity in those who paint pictures of mentally deficient worlds inhabited by incontinent schnorrers. Viewing all this from a higher vantage point, we can see that if they could speak, the birds, snakes, and other creatures who are our Earth brothers and Earth sisters would truly say that it is hardly surprising that he wants to skewer me over a pit barbecue. After all, this is the same mingy hatemonger whose stolid prattle informed us that his ideals are all sweetness and light.
There is another side to the issue. I’ll say that again because I want it to sink in: Obama’s bromides are the opiate of the unpleasant. Obama, please spare us the angst of living in a fallen world. If it weren’t for nerdy malign-types, he would have no friends. It will be objected, to be sure, that he doesn’t honestly want to put the prisoners in charge of running the prison. At first glance this may seem to be true but when you think about it further you’ll doubtlessly conclude that I’m sticking out my neck a bit in talking about his musings. It’s quite likely he will try to retaliate against me for my telling you that when you tell Obama’s hatchet men that I must protest Obama’s use of craven, prissy prima donnas to operate in the gray area between legitimate activity and illogical revisionism, they begin to get fidgety and their eyes begin to wander. They really don’t care. They have no interest in hearing that he shouldn’t promote disruptive ideologies such as colonialism. That’s just common sense. Of course, the people who appreciate his expedients are those who eagerly root up common sense, prominently hold it out, and decry it as poison with astonishing alacrity. One last thing: We must publicly distance ourselves from logorrheic incubi.
It used to be frustrating. Then sad. Now it’s just plain funny. Every time Barack Hussein Obama tries to institutionalize sex discrimination by requiring different standards of protection and behavior for men and women, like clockwork, his acolytes defend that sort of mawkish behavior. For openers, I wouldn’t judge his coadjutors too harshly. They’re just cannon fodder for Obama’s plot to create profound emotional distress for people on both sides of the issue.
I’ll try not to dwell on this, but it has been brought to my attention that Obama’s perversions are the opiate of the boisterous. While this is decidedly true, whenever Obama announces that “the truth”, “the whole truth”, and “nothing but the truth” are three different things, his goombahs applaud on cue and the accolades are long and ostentatious. What’s funny is that they don’t provide similar feedback whenever I tell them that I’ve tried explaining to Obama’s cultists that Obama interprets his easy meanness as unselfish philanthropy. Unfortunately, it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I’m saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars. In fact, I’d bet Martians would be more likely to discern that I am sick of our illustrious “leaders” treading on eggshells so as not to upset Obama. Here’s what I have to say to them: Obama makes a virtue of irremediable fault. This is equivalent to saying that throughout history, there has been a clash between those who wish to criticize Obama’s complicity in the widespread establishment of credentialism and those who wish to fan the flames of incendiarism into a planet-spanning inferno. Naturally, Obama belongs to the latter category.
The long and short of it is that if Obama truly wanted to be helpful, he wouldn’t cause cynical subversion to gather momentum on college campuses. What closed-minded thing is he going to do next? Make it impossible to disturb his scummy, batty gravy train? Cure the evil of discrimination with more discrimination? Encourage young people to break all the rules, cut themselves loose from their roots, and adopt a distasteful lifestyle? In any case, I apologize for giving Obama these ideas, but he keeps telling everyone within earshot that society is screaming for his bruta fulmina. I’m guessing that Obama read that on some Web site of dubious validity. More reliable sources generally indicate that he likes to seem smarter than he really is. It therefore always amuses me whenever Obama cracks open a thesaurus, aims for intellectualism, misses, and lands squarely in a puddle of disreputable frippery.
It’s easy for us to shake our heads at Obama’s foolishness and cowardice. It’s easy for us to exclaim that we should proscribe Obama and his hangers-on as the most dangerous enemies of the people. It’s easy for us to say, “There is blood on Obama’s hands.” The point is that it’s easy for us to say these things because it’s lewd for Obama to judge people based solely on hearsay. Or perhaps I should say, it’s foul. He has been trying to raise funds for scientific studies that “prove” that it’s okay for him to indulge his every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole. This is what’s called “advocacy research” or “junk science” because it’s funded by socially inept moochers who have already decided that debauched, sophomoric pinheads have dramatically lower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and many other illnesses than the rest of us.
Please don’t misinterpret that last statement to mean that merit is adequately measured by Obama’s methods and qualifications. That’s not at all what it means. Rather, it means that if we were to let Obama get away with plaguing our minds, that would be a gross miscarriage of justice. There’s a lot of talk nowadays about his intolerant pranks but not much action. This is a lesson for those with eyes to see. It is a lesson not so much about his harebrained behavior but about the way that difficult times lie ahead. Fortunately, we have the capacity to circumvent much of the impending misery by working together to place a high value on honor and self-respect.
I have two words for Obama: Grow up! It is apparent to me that it appears that, for him, “open-mindedness” isn’t a policy or a belief, but a flag to wave when he feels like it, and one to hide when it doesn’t suit his purposes. In view of that, it is not surprising that there are some stinking criminals who are predatory. There are also some who are querulous. Which category does Obama fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check “both”.
We can all have daydreams about Happy Fuzzy Purple Bunny Land, where everyone is caring, loving, and nice. Not only will those daydreams not come true, but if Obama opened his eyes, he’d realize that this hasn’t sat well with the most neo-irrational pantywaists you’ll ever see. He should focus more on the quality of his writing than on the amount of drivel he can squeeze in. Now take that to the next level: It’s easy to tell if he’s lying. If his lips are moving, he’s lying. Plan to join Obama’s camp? Be sure to check your conscience at the door. If you were to tell Obama that his bromides are intended to get us all on board the nepotism train, he’d just pull his security blanket a little tighter around himself and refuse to come out and deal with the real world.
Obama plans to gag free speech. He has instructed his apologists not to discuss this or even admit to his plan’s existence. Obviously, Obama knows he has something to hide. Now, more than ever, we must see through the haze of ruffianism. One wonders how he can complain about litigious doomsday prophets given that his own analects also aim to contravene decency.
Unfortunately, Obama’s short-sighted crusades neglect to take one important factor into consideration: human nature. Okay, I admit that Obama proclaims at every opportunity that his mission is to supply the chains that bind the individual to notions of self-loathing and unworthiness. But you may be worried that he will spoil the whole Zen Buddhist New Age mystical rock-worshipping aura of our body chakras eventually. If so, then I share your misgivings. But let’s not worry about that now. Instead, let’s discuss my observation that if we don’t get the facts out in the hope that somebody else will do something to solve the problem right now, then Obama’s double standards will soon start to metastasize until they present a false image to the world by hiding unpleasant but vitally important realities about Obama’s theories. We must bring him down a peg. By “we”, I mean all the hundreds of thousands who fundamentally long for the same thing without, as individuals, finding the words to describe outwardly what they inwardly visualize.
One doesn’t need a finely developed sense of irony to note that Obama wants to enact new laws forcing anyone who’s not one of his backers to live in an environment that can, at best, be described as contemptuously tolerant. Why he wants that, I don’t know, but that’s what he wants. He has been deluding people into believing that newspapers should report only on items he agrees with. Don’t let him delude you, too. In short, I am sure that you, poor harried reader, have suffered from Barack Hussein Obama’s insolent ideals and rightly concluded that a great many decent people are just as distressed as I am about Obama’s prognoses. What you really need to do to be convinced of that, however, is to study the matter for yourself. I’ll be happy to send you enough facts to get you started. Just write to me.
I have had enough of Barack Hussein Obama! Permit me this forum to rant. Am I being too idealistic — a Pollyanna — when I suggest that all we need to do is give parents the means to protect their children? I don’t think so. Admittedly, I, hardheaded cynic that I am, trust Obama about as far as I can throw him, but only through education can individuals gain the independent tools they need to reach out to the poor, the marginalized, and those unfortunate enough to have been labeled as lackluster by Obama’s propaganda machine. But the first step is to acknowledge that he’s a financial predator who preys on the elderly, the gullible, and the vulnerable. Obama seeks their assets to support his own lavish lifestyle. Keep that in mind while I state the following: One can usually be pretty sure when he’s lying. Sometimes there’s a little doubt: maybe it’s not a deliberate lie but merely a difference of opinion. But when Obama claims that his personal attacks are Right with a capital R, there’s no room for ambiguity: he’s doubtlessly lying.
This is not Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, where the state would be eager to use every conceivable form of diplomacy, deception, pressure, coercion, bribery, treason, and terror to do exactly the things Obama accuses careless rascals of doing. Not yet, at least. But Obama’s perspective is that advertising is the most veridical form of human communication. My perspective, in contrast, is that it’s debatable whether Obama’s expositions are a spiritual syphilis that has now reached the tertiary stage, paresis and insanity. However, no one can disagree that it is pointless to fret about the damage already caused by his disorderly equivocations. The past cannot be changed. We must cope with the present if we hope to affect our future and resolve a number of lingering problems.
If you look soberly and carefully at the evidence all around you, you will definitely find that there is a simple answer to the question of what to do about Obama’s outbursts. The difficult part is in implementing the answer. The answer is that we must reverse the devolutionary course that Obama has set for us. He says he’s not pompous but he’s surely filthy and that’s essentially the same thing. We’d all be in grave danger if Obama continued to engage in his rapacious behavior. My goal is to fight to the end for our ideas and ideals. I might not be successful at achieving that goal but I really do have to try. In a tacit concession of defeat, he is now openly calling for the abridgment of various freedoms to accomplish coercively what his sanctimonious plaints have failed at.
Obama’s quips sound so noble but in fact no one likes being attacked by quixotic blusterers. Even worse, Obama exploits our fear of those attacks — which he claims will evolve one of these days into biological, chemical, or nuclear attacks — as a pretext to spawn delusions of Maoism’s resplendence. If you think that’s scary, then you should remember that you don’t have to say anything specifically about Obama for him to start attacking you. All you have to do is dare to imply that we should rally good-hearted people to the side of our cause. Having already explained that I myself have had enough of his airy-fairy talk of “maybe this or maybe that”, let me now state that when I first became aware of his covert invasion into our thought processes, all I could think was how he may unwittingly convert our children to cultural zombies in a mass of unthinking and easily herded proletarian cattle. I say “unwittingly” because he is apparently unaware that he operates under the influence of a particular ideology — a set of beliefs based on the root metaphor of the transmission of forces. Until you understand this root metaphor you won’t be able to grasp why documents written by Obama’s vassals typically include the line, “We should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy”, in large, 30-point type, as if the size of the font gives weight to the words. In reality, all that that fancy formatting really does is underscore the fact that an understanding of the damage that may be caused by Obama’s boisterous, featherbrained asseverations isn’t something I expect everyone to develop the first time they hear about it. That’s why I write over and over again and from so many different angles about how Obama’s ramblings were never about tolerance and equality. That was just window dressing for the “innocents”. Rather, Obama maintains that he is a bearer and agent of the Creator’s purpose. This is hardly the case. Rather, there is growing evidence that says, to the contrary, that he always looks the other way when one of his allies gets it in his head to palm off our present situation as the compelling ground for worldwide revisionism. Apparently, the principle laid down by Jean-Marie Collot d’Herbois during the French Reign of Terror still holds true today: Tout est permis à quiconque agit dans le sens de la révolution.
Obama has vowed that in the blink of an eye he’ll obliterate our sense of identity. This is hardly news; Obama has been vowing that for months with the regularity of a metronome. What is news is that he has remarked that he can scare us by using big words like “thyroparathyroidectomize”. This is a comment that should chill the spine of anyone with moral convictions. To make sure you understand I’ll spell it out for you. For starters, I’ll tell you what we need to do about all the craziness Obama is mongering. We need to strengthen our roots so we can weather the storms that threaten our foundation.
One of the goals of vandalism is to render meaningless the words “best” and “worst”. Obama admires that philosophy because, by annihilating human perceptions of quality, Obama’s own mediocrity can flourish. His rank-and-file followers don’t represent an ideology. They don’t represent a legitimate political group of people. They’re just flat brain-damaged.
None but the perverted can deny that Obama demands that we make a choice. Either we let him spread hatred, animosity, and divisiveness or he’ll hijack the word “intercommunicability” and use it to cure the evil of discrimination with more discrimination. This “choice” exemplifies what is commonly known as a “false dichotomy” or “the fallacy of the excluded middle” because it denies other alternatives, such as that Obama just reported that the few of us who complain regularly about his announcements are simply spoiling the party. Do you think that that’s merely sloppy reporting on Obama’s part? I don’t. I think that it’s a deliberate attempt to impose a one-size-fits-all model on how society should function.
In these days of political correctness and the changing of how history is taught in schools to fulfill a particular agenda, Obama is typical of whiney pillocks in his wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize his convictions. He is planning to sell otherwise perfectly reasonable people the idée fixe that interventionism is the only alternative to deconstructionism. This does not bode well for the future because life isn’t fair. We’ve all known this since the beginning of time, so why is he so compelled to complain about situations over which he has no control? The best answer comes from Obama himself. That is, if you pay attention to his prurient prank phone calls you’ll honestly notice that far too many people tolerate Obama’s strictures as long as they’re presented in small, seemingly harmless doses. What these people fail to realize, however, is that Obama wants to elevate his commentaries to prominence as epistemological principles. Why he wants that, I don’t know, but that’s what he wants.
So remember kids, if you want to tell us how to live, what to say, what to think, what to know, and — most importantly — what not to know, all you have to do is agree to let Obama prevent me from getting my work done. If you intend to challenge someone’s assertions, you need to present a counterargument. He provides none. His beliefs are designed to acquire power and use it to indoctrinate mean-spirited dolts. And they’re working; they’re having the desired effect.
Doesn’t it strike you as odd that Obama frequently engages in violent fantasies involving shrewish, unpleasant saboteurs? It’s not necessary to go into too long of a description about how he plans to censor any incomplicitous threats when you least expect it. Suffice it to say that once you understand his pleas, you have a responsibility to do something about them. To know, to understand, and not to act, is an egregious sin of omission. It is the sin of silence. It is the sin of letting Obama smear people of impeccable character and reputation. Now that you’ve read my entire letter, I hope you’ve concluded that my plan to spread the word about Barack Hussein Obama’s laughable, irascible claims to our friends, our neighbors, our relatives, our co-workers — even to strangers — is deserving of serious consideration.
I have a few points of contention with Barack Hussein Obama.
(heh)……A few points? Fella, I sure hope that you’re getting credit for that shitload of whatever it is from your home schoolin’ mom (or that you get paid your allowance “by the word” from your wingnut parents) ’cause no one here is gonna bother plowing through your rant.
After all, we do our best here to distance ourselves from logorrheic incubi, which, I’m sure you’ll agree, is the way to go, right?
Alrighty then,
Back to dick talk.
^^ if you even manage to get the condoms and information into their hands.. We are after all speaking about a part of the world where just a few weeks ago, people were being accused of “penis theft” ^^
= = = = =
I think this is not support for a mass circumcision campaign even if circumcision was legitimately able to cut risk in half. Anyone who can think his penis is being stolen by voodoo will never grasp the subtlety of “you can have sex twice as often before you get terminally ill if you’ll just get circumcised – but it’s not really a vaccine so you still do have to keep wearing a condom.”
If you have to wear the condom anyway, skip the surgery and go with the message that’s easy to comprehend. “Put this on your penis – it keeps cooties out.”
PS – Vote Obama ’08
i am inder i am 36 year mp penis is 7 inc” corect my penis 10 inc ho jaye your yes or no
Wow! I see the message has gone out on the anti-circ lists to flood this thread. Sorry guys I still hold the opinion of WHO and UNAIDS above a fringe single issue group like yours.
My finger broke on that one guys post. If we could get the Skinheads in here then it would be insane. They still going down in the bowels?
And it’s purely coincidence that BOTH Josh AND Jake come here? Like I said, Joshua only knows one thing (and that the fallacy of Appeal to Authority), and repeats it endlessly. The “opinion piece” was peer-reviewed and fully referenced, and constitutes post-publication peer review of the RCTs and hence the WHO/UNAIDS policy. In 2000, UNAIDS said “Relying on circumcision for protection is, in these circumstances, a bit like playing Russian roulette with two bullets in the gun rather than three.” Nothing has changed.
Was that long anti-Obama screed computer-generated, by something like this: http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/ ? (Try it twice – it’s never the same.) Is there also an IhateHillary version?
Joshua: Yes the word got out. Looks like both sides of the argument are here on another forum with the Same Old Shit. So I won’t go over again with you how the African studies are flawed. You can stay with those medical studies which only infers that you haven’t been cured of your hysteria that, according to another medical journal article, your foreskin caused in you at your birth. But I do admire your and Jake’s attempt to reach into the feminine side of your personalities.
Have to be here though. Seems like the sexual predators are looking to accumulate more of their Narcissistic Supply, or at least to justify themselves.
Like I’ve said many times before, these new studies only show medicine still does not have the answer. They never will. The answer is behavior. Watch where you guys put it. And gals be sure the dick ain’t contaminated, but realize that women produce more smegma than men.
Foreskin talk is like having a bunch of flakes in the palm of your hand and deciding which pieces are pepper and which are fly shit.
By far the highest titer of the HIV is in the ejaculate.
As a person who treated patients long before gloving and with patients with a ‘wierd blood disease’ before AIDS was eventually diagnosed as a disease, HIV is far less a transferable problem than any hepatitis virus. And luckily I have none.
We should take a clue from Jennifer and leave this forum, and give it back to the kids.
“Wow! I see the message has gone out on the anti-circ lists to flood this thread. Sorry guys I still hold the opinion of WHO and UNAIDS above a fringe single issue group like yours.”
Thanks for your OPINION there Joshua–that and ten dollars will be sure to get you a cup of coffeee–but don’t expect it to get you anything more.
Perhaps blind, uncritical acceptance of authority is part of your belief system?
What’d I miss?
^^ I still hold the opinion of WHO and UNAIDS above a fringe single-issue group ^^
– – – –
OK, you stick with desperate reactionary ineffective US-controlled charities, and I’ll keep listening to EVERY national medical association in the world. Not one recommends routine circumcision.
I don’t know how can imagine people in support of basic human rights are on the fringe of anything.
Quoting Joshua:
“Hugh7 is a dedicated admirer of foreskins.”
And Joshua is . . . ? Why, he is a dedicated admirer of the act of whacking off the foreskins of little baby boys. Every pederast has a target age bracket he focuses on constantly. Hope that’s not why you love universal, routine infant circumcision, Joshua, but your fervor is suspect.
“Isn’t it amazing how the anti-circ nuts descend upon any thread dealing with the subject of circumcision?”
And it’s NOT amazing that obsessed pro-circumcision circumfetishists, who obtain sexual gratification from knowing little boys’ genitals are being cut up with a knife by a man in a mask at almost any given time, descend upon any thread dealing with the subject of circumcision? Yes, Joshua, it’s difficult for us to see our own noses.
And don’t say anyone called you anything. If the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn’t, walk away from it and don’t keep dancing in it.
Quoting inder:
“i am inder i am 36 year mp penis is 7 inc” corect my penis 10 inc ho jaye your yes or no”
uh, dunno inder. urs iss w/ or w/o prepuce? j and j r watchin u no?
“Every pederast has a target age bracket he focuses on constantly. Hope that’s not why you love universal, routine infant circumcision, Joshua, but your fervor is suspect.”
Nobody here has ever talked about infant prepuces before you and your totally not obsessed buddies showed up.
/just sayin
Obviously all boners should be snipped in revenge for the future crimes of men. And perhaps more chopping should be involved later on.
Here’s the bottom line about your bottom: When anybody comes at you and your healthy sex and other organs with a knife and without your permission, defend yourself. When they go at other people with knives, defend the ones being attacked. Advocates of involuntary circumcision are advocating criminal activity. Everyone has a fundamental human right to keep all the heathy body parts they were born with. All the arguments for circumcising healthy people involuntarily are made by people compulsively obsessed with getting away with damaging other people’s sex organs without the permission of the people proposed to be damaged. These involuntary genital mutilation advocates belong in jail for inciting sexual violence against defenseless children, not in civilized human society.
The difference, Dick, is that our side just wants them to be left alone – totally ignored in fact.
I had girls, so nyaaah!
“Nobody here has ever talked about infant prepuces before you and your totally not obsessed buddies showed up.:
Not mentioned before maybe, but said by joshua and his ilk should be mutilated YES–my, how the unspoken word is somehow not hypocrisy.
I just realized how accurately descriptive this actually is–thank you!
“desperate reactionary ineffective US-controlled charities”
Not mentioned before maybe, but said by joshua and his ilk should be mutilated YES–my, how the unspoken word is somehow not hypocrisy.
Hugh7- Could you possibly argue something I give a crap about, so I could either mock or agree with you? That’s the way we do things around here, gosh darn it.
“Hugh7- Could you possibly argue something I give a crap about, so I could either mock or agree with you? That’s the way we do things around here, gosh darn it.”
If you don’t give a crap, are you even here? Nothing better to do than having a mutilated penis and trying to feel complete by making light of a serious subject?
If that is what you do here, then perhaps silly things (to you) are your life?
I believe you people are the intruders.
Y’know, I am against involuntary circumcision and all that, but Jumping Christ on a stick, you people are assholes. You don’t further your cause at all by making comments like that.
So fuck off.
well, when people are unable to face the facts and evidence, and have to resort to ridicule, than the only logical conclusion is to assume they are trying to defend their circumcised state with the only weapons they have ridicule and denial
WE are intruders? I didn’t know this was a private forum..if so, then why are characters like jake and Joshua not being taunted also?.. …and told to F&$%^ off?
If logic, science, and evidence do not convince people to act logically and ethically, then no comment of mine will affect their clinging to their own ego-protection and circumcision dogma–but those lurkers here who do acknowledge the facts and evidence should be aware of WHY some of those trying to defend circumcision resort to the tactics they inevitably do.
Holy shit.
Dude, get a fuckin’ life.
Seriously.
Just for the record, I would like to state my thoughts on circumcision. Since no one is listening—
Yes, it sucks. Yes, it’s wrong. Yes, we shouldn’t be doing it to infants. Yes, all of the supposed medical benefits are probably a crock.
All of this, and the fact that I myself am cut, bothered and depressed me greatly for about a week when I was eighteen years old. I was angry, I was upset, I felt slighted.
Then, you know what? I moved on. I GREW UP.
I now realize that there is 100% nothing I can do about it, and to be enraged about it was pointless. It was also pointless to spend any cycles thinking about it, because nothing is going to change any time soon (especially if the most vocal people on the subject continue to be, as demonstrated in this thread, some of the most obnoxious and smug assholes on the Internets.) I have bills to pay, I have things to worry about, I have schooling to take care of. The fact that anti-circ activists can spend so much time and spittle on something that they can’t do a thing about suggests that they have ample free time on their hands and not enough uses thereof, which kind of bothers most normal people, especially when that free time is used to be an asshole.
You all need to grow up. Stop being eighteen years old and enraged at an unjust world. Or at least, stop being surprised when everyone hates you like the angsty teenager you are.
*gets off his soapbox*
This is a no foreskins none of the time site. I thought that was clear on the masthead.
Poor Samba thinks that people trying to INFORM others and refute the nonsense about circumcision needs to get over it and grow up–wonder if this same form of apologia would be used if it was FEMALES having normal, functioning parts of thweir genitals amputated..coupled with a lot of totally unsupported assumptions. And WOW, he even knows the word spittle–I am SO impressed!
Gee, and this throwing out names is the best he (she) and others have to offer–and repeatedly suggests more than a cursory interest..
And as to effectiveness of our informational campaign..seems that since the internet, the circumcison rates in the US has dropped from 85% to ~ 50%.. so it seems SOME are being educated…and thinking.
Keep up the ad hominem tactics–and the shrillness becomes obvious.
Dammit, Tandy, be more interesting. Say something outrageous. You’re boring me, dude.
D.N. Nation: “Hugh7- Could you possibly argue something I give a crap about, so I could either mock or agree with you? That’s the way we do things around here, gosh darn it.”
I appreciate that this is a humour site, so I’ve given links to cartoons, and I thought the line about the IhateObama programmed message was good mockery. (It’s hard to be funny about circumcision when you know what really happens – though there’s a vast amount of gallows humour about it, all reflecting a thoroughly justified underlying disquiet about it.) I was quite proud of “And the DILE device
http://www.dileinsert.com/what06_files/image005.jpg is quite cute – you’d hang it over a baby’s bassinet if you didn’t know what it was for.”
Which leads me to Simba: “there is 100% nothing I can do about it”. Not 100%. Scroll back to Ron’s messages.
Foreskin and 7/8 inches ago….
From Lincoln’s address at his son’s circumcision
I lack sufficient funds and motivation to do anything. I cannot afford discretionary medical procedures at this point in my life, and even if I could, I don’t want a foreskin restoration. I like my penis the way it is, and my boyfriend does too, and really, that pretty much covers it for me.
It’s hard to shake the suspicion that the real reason behind the pointless, intense rage that seems barely contained within most anti-circumcision screeds I’ve read is not so much nerves in the author’s dick as much as it is that their sex life, if any, sucks. And that, I suspect, is not because of any physical problem but because the author is an insufferable asshole who can’t get laid.
Like I said, these arguments appealed to me when I was eighteen years old. Then I grew up, and I fell in love, and I realized that sex with another person has huge psychological and emotional components to it as well. I think that in the very least any physical pleasure capabilities I may have lost because I am cut (and really, I am extremely suspicious of this argument) are more than made up for the fact that I have a satisfying sex live in a loving, romantic relationship.
Hugh7- I got sliced. I don’t give a shit. I fuck my wife fine just the same.
But keep up the good fight, yo.
something outrageous?
well, maybe this. when doctors sell the foreskins they cut off little baby boys peckers they should have to give the money to the parents to put in a trust fund for the baby, rather than putting it in the doctors’ income fund.
oh heck i dunno. maybe they should have to donate it to the save-baby-elephants-fund.
just doesn’t seem right they keep the money and never told the parents they are going to get money for it.
then the foreskin goes to a cosmetic company and eventually goes on Oprah’s face to keep it from aging and she tells her audiences how great it is to wear foreskin creme on your face
is it okay to call women wearing those cremes “dick face”? just wondering here
They use foreskins in creams?
I always preferred mine with a nice chianti.
Jennifer: Sadly yes. Google the following: pentapeptides, Dr. Patricia Wexler – Tissue Nutrient Solution (TNS), Olay Regenerist; Organogenesis with Apligraph, Intercytex, Cosmoderm, Cosmoplast and the Dorian Gray Syndrome. There are more, but those are enough.
Prepuce harvesting is big business. Hospitals, research labs, cosmetic manufacturers, sales of products, etc., etc. down the food chain. Oprah Winfrey did a segment on the products and think they are great. Barbara Walters and others use them faithfully.
The acts, and the process, of serial sexual predators and many rituals share the psychological indicators of: power, control and authority through manipulation for dominance out of selfishness (FBI – Behavioral Science Unit. Criminal Profiling). Serial sexual predators are narcissists who do not see the humanity of others – disocciation. They set up systems of destruction and bring people into it. With circumcision, the system is already set and easy for them to enter – along with their own particular quirk.
The feminine often obtains power through looks. Many feminist authors agree that a woman’s spirituality resides in her body.
This is not true with men. Men are defined by their actions. Many will allow themselves to become a demanded “willing sacrifice.”
Enjoy the chianti and all that comes with it.
Simba B said,
…
“I now realize that there is 100% nothing I can do about it, and to be enraged about it was pointless. It was also pointless to spend any cycles thinking about it, because nothing is going to change any time soon …”
All of this is 100% wrong. Things are already changing now and have been for a long time. For example, 16 states now refuse to pay for medically unnecessary circumcisions through their Medicaid programs. Circumcision rates are down from 90% or so in the late 70s and early 80s to 50% or so. This is due mostly to the determined efforts of a few valiant people dedicating their lives to saving babies and other children from this stone-age brutality and insanity. Adults mutilating children’s sex organs is the most despicable sex crime known.
Pegleggedman: “Adults mutilating children’s sex organs is the most despicable sex crime known.”
This is the kind of statement that gets us called extremists. Overall, when you include castration and the worst kinds of FGM, one would have to agree. At the same time, it has to be admitted that male circumcision (and more of FGM than its opponents admit) is at the mild end of that spectrum. We are wrong when we lump them together and consider all equal, our opponents are wrong when they claim that male circumcision is benign. One thing that makes male circumcision less than benign is the sheer scale of it – one baby boy every 26 seconds in the US alone. At that rate, even if only 1% are damaged, that’s a lot of damage. Another, less tangible, is the evil of any person claiming that kind of power over another’s body. “Your sex organs are mine to deal with as I please.” In any other context, we call that rape.
Simba B: “I cannot afford discretionary medical procedures at this point in my life,”
Foreskin restoration is DIY, not medical. (Most restorers don’t want to go near another penile surgeon.) Some of the equipment is very cheap or free.
“and even if I could, I don’t want a foreskin restoration. I like my penis the way it is, and my boyfriend does too, and really, that pretty much covers it for me.”
… as it were.
“It’s hard to shake the suspicion that the real reason behind the pointless, intense rage that seems barely contained within most anti-circumcision screeds I’ve read is not so much nerves in the author’s dick as much as it is that their sex life, if any, sucks. And that, I suspect, is not because of any physical problem but because the author is an insufferable asshole who can’t get laid.”
We’re not all cut, we’re not even all male, and we have only the usual proportion of insufferable arseholes, who aren’t the angriest of us. Don’t look so hard for “real reasons”. We are outraged that anyone takes to babies’ dicks with a sharp knife, without the vaguest idea of what they are doing, and that this extraordinary practice has become so acculturated that it’s hard to convince anyone that anything is the matter.
Now back to your humour programme, still running somewhere.
Foreskin restoration is DIY, not medical. (Most restorers don’t want to go near another penile surgeon.) Some of the equipment is very cheap or free.
This makes it 900% funnier.
My brother-in-law and his family actually know somebody in the foreskin-restoration device business. And let me just say: Eeeewww…
“Foreskin restoration is DIY, not medical. (Most restorers don’t want to go near another penile surgeon.) Some of the equipment is very cheap or free.
This makes it 900% funnier.”
Yeh, a lot funnier than some person chopping off the most sensitive part of a child’s genitals–some people have a very distorted view of what is funny– and most humor that is the funniest is that which hits closest to home.
“My brother-in-law and his family actually know somebody in the foreskin-restoration device business. And let me just say: Eeeewww…
And many more know people in the penis-chopping business, and that is so nice–and not in anyway: Eeeeewww.. Perhaps even one who likely got the best part of BIL’s genitals?
I have to say that this site has some very strange people with very strange viewpoints and strange ideas of what is funny… perhaps a viewpoint mitigated by denial and acceptance of victimhood?
I have to say that this site has some very strange people with very strange viewpoints and strange ideas of what is funny…
Welcome strange person! Be funny.
Wow. I actually haven’t been down here in the better part of a week.
Jennifer, you are a master of understatement. It’s a circumcision SPECTACLE down here. So, being charitable and cautious, well hell, lemme approach this whole thang with the mikey voice of reasonableness.
I’ve had a dick all my life. Know it well. It’s served me well, even if I’ve grossly mis used it over the decades. I’ve put it in questionable places and situations, done incredibly stupid things at it’s urging, and followed it into places and events both sublime and life threatening.
And through all of this, the love and the intimacy and the tenderness and the violence and the madness, my dick was missing it’s foreskin. It has never complained, and while it has occasionally been recalcitrant when called upon, I hesitate to blame it’s most early modifications.
All in all, suffice it to say that I’ve been pleased with my dick, it’s usage and performance, over the long years of our professional and personal relationship. And so, based upon this experience, without any opportunity to sample life with more thoroughly equipped, er, equipment, I’m prepared to state unequivocally that the existence and functionality of the foreskin is overrated, and as an anatomical construction it is as useless as an appendix or the tonsils. Truly, vestigial at best.
So, in my vast experience and international renown, I feel completely qualified to invite some of you more, er, passionate contributors to this conversation to SHUT UP ALREADY!!
mikey
Jennifer said,
May 10, 2008 at 20:30
“They use foreskins in creams?”
i was going to say ‘yes, really they do’ but it’s already been said, so anyhow . . .
“I always preferred mine with a nice chianti.”
if you use too much chianti you could be called shit faced. but that’s a rather idiomatic meaning and doesn’t imply you really rubbed feces on your face.
still wondering about the dick face thing. maybe too much foreskin creme would cause little penises to grow out of ones face? that would settle it i suppose.
if they grow out like that, would they already be circumcised? or would women who prefer circumcised penises need to have all of them circumcised? i mean if it’s an adult, i fully support a person’s right to have however many penises he or she has to have them circumcised. i’m guessing women worried about aging faces are adults already.
still wondering here.
“All in all, suffice it to say that I’ve been pleased with my dick, it’s usage and performance, over the long years of our professional and personal relationship. And so, based upon this experience, without any opportunity to sample life with more thoroughly equipped, er, equipment, I’m prepared to state unequivocally that the existence and functionality of the foreskin is overrated, and as an anatomical construction it is as useless as an appendix or the tonsils. Truly, vestigial at best. ”
And “I” find ignorance–especially chosen ignorance for the basis of pronouncements to be hilarious…sort of like what republicans do.
BTW, I love outdated ASSumptions that are stated as facts and are distinctly WRONG–like your one about tonsils and appendix–yet another pronuncement based on ignorance.
It seems your professed experience and renown is more for and on ignorance–and should be the basis for actually shutting up instead of silly and empty pronouncements. for others to do so.
Ok, well, that’s baffling.
So. Are you saying that I DON’T know about my dick? Are you saying that my experience is somehow false?
Are you saying that, as a circumcised male human being, I have nothing to bring to this discussion?
I’m unclear. Please clarify….
mikey
Have we blamed it on the Jews yet?
Dick: Nope. Stems from Hathor and Isis worship.
But the fragile male ego does have a part in keeping it going.
Mikey: “So. Are you saying that I DON’T know about my dick? Are you saying that my experience is somehow false?
Are you saying that, as a circumcised male human being, I have nothing to bring to this discussion?
I’m unclear. Please clarify….”
What’s all this nonsense about seeing in three dimensions? What is this ridiculous tosh about “binaural hearing”? Why do people keep talking about “colo[u]rs”? I can see perfectly well with my eye (with its wall-to-wall rods) and hear a pin drop with my ear. So SHUT UP already.
Your experience is not false, Mikey, it’s just not all it’s possible to experience.
What’s all this nonsense about seeing in three dimensions? What is this ridiculous tosh about “binaural hearing”? Why do people keep talking about “colo[u]rs”? I can see perfectly well with my eye (with its wall-to-wall rods) and hear a pin drop with my ear. So SHUT UP already.
This just gets funnier. The Foreskins of Perception.
Dick Hertz said,
May 12, 2008 at 4:40
“Have we blamed it on the Jews yet?”
Actually, the Jews probably learned it from the Egyptians, who may have learned it from tribal practices (some tribes do/did, some don’t/didn’t) further up the Nile and beyond. Genesis 15 has the covenant for the land without any circumcision. Genesis 17 repeats it with the cutting substituted for the earlier child sacrifice of first born males. There were several centuries or a millenium or two between the two chapters, the second being added when the high priests had imposed themselves on Hebrew society as supreme authorities and were trying to increase control over the people. What better way than to require every baby boy to be brought to them for some surgery for a fee. Strange the God of Abraham would wait so long to institute something so important to Him. But that’s for the theologians . . .
As for whether there was some Jewish influence over Anglophone medical practices, well maybe some connection. Jewish physicians in London and New York were telling Goyem docs that Jewish boys don’t masturbate. And that was because they were circumcised. And just at the right time that Anglophone societies were in hysterical fear about the great dangers of masturbation: hair on palms, blindness, insanity, syphilis, homosexuality, paralysis, and a whole array of evils they just knew were caused by masturbation or by a foreskin alone without any masturbation. (Modern science now tells us males who have regular ejaculations including from self abuse, have healthier prostates, healthier emotional lives, and longer life spans.) What Jewish boys had wisely learned was to tell no adult they were masturbating. Just ask Portnoy.
Well anyhow, don’t take my word for it. Check out what Leonard Glick, MD, PhD has to say about it. Professor Glick has had a distinguished career as a professor of Anthropology including extensive research on how circumcision became an American phenomenon. His personal integrity and his background as a Jew makes it unlikely anyone can hang the tag of anti-Semitism on him to discredit his work. He provides well documented research and academic discussion that certainly destroys any bigotry that tries to say circumcision is something the Jews inflicted on Anglophone cultures, and likewise decimates any counter bigotry that tries to say all opposition to circumcision is merely anti-Semitism. It might be well to point out here that many modern, progressive Jews in Europe and South America do not circumcise their sons now (in Sweden the rate of Jewish boys circumcised was about 40% one recent year; rates have also been very low in France and Netherlands) The initially small number who do not circumcise in the US has begun to grow in recent years, but US secular circumcision bolsters circumcision among Jews who would be likely to NOT circumcise were it not for the US medical industry’s promotion of circumcision. Prof Glick points out that most Jewish boys circumcised in the US are cut in hospital by doctors on the second or third day of life rather than on the eighth day at a proper bris conducted by a sanctified mohel. So, US medicine has done more to corrupt Jewish practice regarding circumcision than any other element of US society.
Please see: Marked in Your Flesh: Circumcision from Ancient Judea to Modern America by Leonard B. Glick. Oxford University Press, 2005 (new ed, paperback, 2006).
More about Jews and circumcision:
http://www.jewishcircumcision.org
http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org
Bubba: I like that “Foreskins of Perception.” In fact, you have a point. The prepuce has many specialized receptors not on the shaft skin. The prepuce is a specialized epithelium. Some receptors are for pressure, temperature, propioception, and others are tactile. The main tactile perceptor is the Meissner corpuscle. These are also located in the eyelid and to a certain extent the underside of the hands and fingers. What is left of these receptors after circumcision is on the ventral (underside) of the shaft close to the glans. That is why circumcised men concentrate on that region more than normal. It’s what they have left.
So, for the men here, sex with a circumcised dick might be like that uncontrollable urge men get at a stop light. Picking one’s nose without a fingernail. One cannot see or sense what is not there.
Look, you guys are young. In your 50’s you’ll begin to rely more on sensation with less hormones. It’s natural. The pharmacies will be willing to sell you erectile dysfunction pills when your time comes. The fact is, circumcision ages the penis.
“So. Are you saying that I DON’T know about my dick? Are you saying that my experience is somehow false?
Are you saying that, as a circumcised male human being, I have nothing to bring to this discussion?”
I am saying that you only know about your truncated dick–you know nothing about real ones. And your experience with it, is only experience with THAT truncated penis, you can make NO statement about real ones.
Refusing to research anything about the subject, you can never know anything worth bringing to the discussionabout real ones.. just because one has an opinion does not mean that the opinion has any worth, or any valid information.
Bantering on about something you know nothing of is neither humorous nor substanitive.
Wow.
Grade-A Douchebag.
Without my foreskin I never felt that vagina coming and BAM.
I’m gonna put my truncated trunk in your trunk, punk.
Follow your hose! It always knows!
Refusing to research anything about the subject, you can never know anything worth bringing to the discussion about real ones.. just because one has an opinion does not mean that the opinion has any worth, or any valid information.
You’re not paying attention, youngster.
I specifically addressed my decades – long experience. Unless you are some kind of anatomical freak, your experience is with one single pee pee. My experience is quite similar. Just the one, for all these years.
I never had another one, and I haven’t had the opportunity to test drive a variety of others. My strong suspicion is, neither have you.
So you HAVE to realize that your experience is in no way different, let alone superior to mine, and to whatever extent you wish to discount my experience as “opinion”, well, you effectively discount your own.
Unless you want to claim to be the human equivalent of the “dog with two dicks”…
mikey
Tandy, do you notice that whenever you insult their penises, they ignore everything else you say?
Mikey, you seem to be, um, missing the point.
Tandy, do you notice that whenever you insult their penises
Funnier and funnier.
Well, Mikey, since you are replying to a post that was removed, I will just have to say that until and IF you realize that scientific evidence cannot be dismissed with nothing but personal perceptions, then you hardly can use just your personal experiences to claim what you have left is as good as what is present with a normal penis.
And to reiterate, as a cut man, you (on average) have only 1/4 of the sensitivity and sensation that a man with a normal penis has (scientific evidence upon request)..so there logically is no comparison.
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE is hardly the sum total of EVIDENCE–in fact not even evidence for anything external to the person.
Oh yeah?
Well I say I have TEN HUNDRED times the sensation in my right big toe than you have in your entire penis times three squared!
Why, I have to wear Kevlar undershorts just to keep from sponaneously having orgasms of 7 Richter.
My erection has been known to cause women to swoon, strong men to break down sobbing, and entire villages to surrender their treasuries without a fight.
Now, considering you’ve never experienced my penis, I’d like to see you provide any proof that any of that is false…
mikey
From my somewhat limited experience, the last thing many, perhaps most, men need is more sensation in their penis. Unless there are lots of women out there who really enjoy a 1-minute fuck, and I don’t think that there are. Those of us who don’t like it would prefer none of it, and those of us who do like it would like for it to last longer. Extra sensation in the dick isn’t really conducive to that end.
Jennifer said, “From my somewhat limited experience, the last thing many, perhaps most, men need is more sensation in their penis.”
That’s why I wrote about 3D vision, colour and stereo sound. It’s not about more sensation, it’s about better sensation. The women of Europe, Scandinavia, most of Asia, South America, and younger women in the rest of the English-speaking world are not enduring what Jennifer, with her typical charm, calls “1-minute fucks”. In fact it’s not that three-quarters of the world’s men have “more” of anything, it’s that the remainder have had what they were born with artificially diminished, and improved sexuality was the last thing on the minds of those who began this extraordinary habit.
Losing the argument, Mikey resorts to bluster. But I did smile at the villages surrendering their treasures. That was the most credible part.
Hey Hugh7, got any 9/11 conspiracy theories? ‘cuz upstairs is where all the action is right now.
I think we’re done making penis jokes at your expense.
Dood, if’n you can’t tell the difference between bluster and mockery, I’m pretty sure you’re not qualified to evaluate the quality of my penis.
Um, no. That’s my elbow. It’s lower…
mikey
And another thing—may I just say how sad it is that you (as you obviously do) have Google Alerts on circumcision-related keywords? I mean, do you seriously have nothing better to do? (like, oh, I don’t know, have sex?)
Jennifer: Looking for love in all the wrong places and found so many wrong faces? And other things?
Emma Jung in “Animus and Anima” stated that many women do not understand the nature of the things they demand to be sacrificed.
Circumcision is a genital blood ritual within feminine identity.
Circumcision is a genital blood ritual within feminine identity.
Ok. Cool.
I’ve pretty much been looking for someone who knew all the answers for close to four decades.
So if you can define this so succinctly, tell me. What is warfare?
mikey
Mikey: That’s a lot to ask. This is going to get long which might not be good for an Internet discussion. But you asked and I feel like doing it. For starters:
1): Feminine identity.
First: Spirituality is. Theology explains what is. Religions practice. This is theology stuff.
Feminine identity, with the feminine demand.
Feminine religions are “a priori” before any masculine inclusions.
Circumcision stems from fertility rituals to Great Mother Earth goddesses. Mesopotamian Ishtar with later variants Ashera, Ashtarte, etc. Hathor and Isis were also Great Mother goddesses.
Full male human sacrifice. Babylonian Ishtar. The sacrificed male was to go and fertilize Ishtar. Once Ishtar was fertilized, she would return to the human population a good harvest. Note – Mother Earth goddess. Mothers give birth. Earth gives fruit, vegetables, grains, etc. It’s all in the agricultural motif. Now, the male sacrificed was the king. He was the wife of the queen who was the goddess Ishtar incarnate. This is where Christianity has the phrase as: “Christ the King” who was sacrificed. Once the king was sacrificed, the queen married another man who became king for a year. Later, as males got more power, a substitute was picked to be ‘King for a Day’ and then sacrificed. This is a ‘tanist’ sacrifice. For that day the real king stayed in the palace and wore women’s clothes. A National Geographic book I have tells a funny story that during that one day the real king died and the substitute king reigned over 20 years afterward. Also, when a new king was chosen by the queen they had to have sex in front of the public to ensure the new king would be able to perform for the goddess.
As patriarchy progressed, the sacrifice was lessened. Enter castration. Here the priests of the goddess had to be castrated and the metaphorical magic stated their sacrificed testicles now fertilized the Great Mother Earth goddess. One such Greek goddess was Cybele. This is referenced in the Christian Testament, Galatians 5:12 where their apostle Paul stated the Christian penatly for advocating circumcision should be castration – it is a goddess ritual.
Blood: Rhea Tannahill in “History of Sex” stated whenever blood enters the picture of power relations between the sexes that blood relates to menstruation. Chris Knight in “Blood Relations” states in primitive societies that upon first menstruation that girl is now equivalent to being the Mother Earth Goddess. In the Aztec and Mayan cultures the prepuce was bled and the drops of blood had to be put on the ground to fertilize their Mother Earth goddess to ensure a good harvest. With the Maya, women most often performed the ceremony with a special ornate ‘penis perforator’ and only the queen or the king’s mother could bleed the king. The experience of pain was essential to make the male ‘understand’ what the female goes through in menstruation and especially childbirth. – Coe, “The Maya.” Also, bleeding the penis is in the Egyptian Book of the Dead. It states – “when Re began to bleed his penis.” Now there are two spellings: Re and Ra. Re relates to feminine mythological movement as “Wadjet, The Cow, she is Re.” Ra relates to masculine mythological movement. It constitutes the bisexuality in god. This ‘God is Self-Contained’ with both sexes is in Genesis when man, that is to say all humanity, is made in “our” image – Genesis 1: 26. The problem is that patriarchy took over. The Garden of Eden and The Flood are feminine divine movements.
Circumcision: According to Josephus it was thought that the foreskin inhibited the ejaculate and cause a decreased chance of impregnation. Women are the burdened sex and needed children to take care of her in old age. So now we have gone from the metaphoric goddess to the everyday human female goddess. And we have gone from one male, to priests, to the everyday male who can make himself deserving through the sacrifice in circumcision. Yet, when it becomes a ‘demand’ of an entire population of the males, or the demand of all males by a single person, the psychological indicators are the same as any type of genocidal behavior – Robert Lifton, “The Nazi Doctors.”
Now, the Triune Godhead. One ancient Muslim scholar, according to Dr. Sami Aldeeb, stated a woman’s religion is her vagina. The female triune is Maiden – before menstruation, Mother – menstruation and childbirth bleeding, and Wise Women – post-menopausal. You see this in all mythology. Great for movies. The masculine triune is Father, Son and for Christian’s the Holy Spirit. So, women’s spirituality is in her body and masculine spirituality is in his actions.
THE CATCH: The post-menopausal Wise Woman is the animus – the masculine within the feminine. The Holy Spirit is the anima – the feminine within the masculine. ie. child birth, giving life, is in feminine power. It is the Holy Spirit who got Mary pregnant, not God the Father coming down and playing ‘Hide the Salami’ with Mary – Matthew 1: 18.
Besides this, in the Christian testament 1 John 5:1-8 the Holy Spirit is represented in blood and water. Mythologically there are blood goddesses who rule dismemberments – Erich Nuemann – “The Great Mother,” and water goddesses. Both blood and water rule existence – Life. Women bring forth life. Those with the power to give life have the power to take life. So Death becomes the realm of the goddess – the ancient post-menopausal Wise Woman where the retained blood by no menstruation lets her keep her power – Bonnie Horrigan, “Red Moon Passage: The Power and Wisdom of Menopause.” People fear death, so patriarchy made her a witch.
Circumcision is a mock-death ritual, Robert Graves, “The Glory of Hera.” Dr. Mark Reiss vice-president of Doctors Opposing Circumcision, explained his Jewish heritage as circumcision being a death in the old existence to be born again into the society.
All this stuff is fantasy to me. My job required me to fill out child abuse reports. Fancy explanations for crappy behavior in child abuse is a form of hypochondriac Munchausen Syndrome. Hypochondriacs believe they are sick. Munchausen people know their stuff is bullshit.
2): Warfare.
Mikey do you know me?
The Navy had my ass for 32 years.
I only did 22 years all as a reservist, though I have equivalent of over 10 years active duty.
For you young people where there is no draft, for some there was no choice. Right now the Selective Service knows where very physician, dentist and vetenarian are working and living.
If you do know me then you know I once had a temper and spent most of my time attached to the Marine Corps as a Devil Doc.
It is not career enhancing to tell one’s Navy Commanding Officer to Go Fuck Himself. Exhiled to the Corps – loved it.
Anyway – my opinion: War is fucking selfishness. Wanting what other people have. Even if it is kept internally it is selfishness for power, control and authority for some kind of domination. Sometimes selfish people need violence brought to them in the form of a good Bitch Slapping. Just let me tell you that the only people who I came across with any real empathy for the Iraqi’s killed in Desert Storm was from my patients who killed them. Lot of Warthog fliers will tell you that the desert over there is a mass burial ground from the bunkers they destroyed. To continue on the basis of Social Structure:
1) Common human identity within a group of people is established within the matriarchy.
2) Territory in which to survive is then established by the patriarchy.
3) Then Rules for Proper Social Behavior is outline by the matriarchy.
4) Enforcement of those rules is then done by the patriarchy.
Now: This does not mean male and female. Margaret Thatcher acted patriarchally with the war between England and Argentina.
Forms of war: Patriarchal war, Matriarchal war.
War that crosses identity boundaries are patriarchal.
War within identity is matriarchal.
The American Revolution and the Civil War were matriarchal.
There are so many books about each battle and nothing on the fact that the Abolishinist Movement was started and kept going by women until the men got off their asses.
WWI and WWII were patriarchal.
Hitler did just fine when he did his shit within German identity.
Today Iraq: The patriarchal war is long over. The problem is now internal identity factions – their problem.
Somalia was the same. Quick, then the mission changed and we got shit.
We were patriarchal in identity in Vietnam, the Vietnamese were matriarchal.in identity in Vietnam. The Gulf of Tonkin was a lie.
Saddan and Adolf were pricks.
Again, when it goes to internal identity – their problem.
What gets me is why Alexander is called The Great. Because is was good at spending his life running around killing people?
mikey said, “Dood, if’n you can’t tell the difference between bluster and mockery,”
Frankly, my dear, I don’t giveadamn
“I’m pretty sure you’re not qualified to evaluate the quality of my penis.”
I’m inclined to think that a qualification in semantics doesn’t go very far in the penis-quality-evaluation department, but that a quick check of what’s there or not, as with counting the fingers in the hand-quality-evaluation department, works a lot better. It’s not rocket science, though it looks a bit like it.
Simba B said: “I think we’re done making penis jokes at your expense.”
You mean, like “Grade-A douchebag” Yeah, really sidesplitting. Seems like you guys can dish it it out, but you can’t take it.
“From my somewhat limited experience, the last thing many, perhaps most, men need is more sensation in their penis. Unless there are lots of women out there who really enjoy a 1-minute fuck, and I don’t think that there are. Those of us who don’t like it would prefer none of it, and those of us who do like it would like for it to last longer. Extra sensation in the dick isn’t really conducive to that end.”
Never having had a normal penis Jennifer seems a bit confused–it is actually those with truncated penises who suffer MORE from premature ejaculation (1-minute fucks) and women familar with both kinds DON’T really like long fucks with cut dildos–they prefer normal penises.
so all of her ASSumptions are false.
http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/vissing1/
SCANDANAVIAN JOURNAL OF SEXOLOGY, Volume 2, Number 4: Page 103.
PREMATURE EJACULATION AND CIRCUMCISION
BIOGENIC OR A CULTURAL FACTOR
VISSING M
Premature ejaculation ( PE ) seems to be the most common male sexual dysfunction world-wide. Reports from the Middle East, India and Asia show a much higher incidence of PE than in the western world. In these areas the vast majority of men have had a ritual circumcision. In our clinic we also found a significantly higher incidence of PE in men from these parts of the world.
Is it a biogenic factor due to circumcision or a psychogenic disorder due to cultural differences?
We investigated penile sensitivity with TSA 2001 Thermal Analyzer ( cold / warm and tactile sensation ) in normal men and and with PE who had a ritual circumcision and in non-circumcised men. The literature will be discussed and the results presented.
Correspondence
Institute of clinical sexology
Rigshospitalet
Copenhagen Denmark
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/
“I think we’re done making penis jokes at your expense.”
As I said in my post that was removed–there is NO humor here–what you like to call “jokes” are mere school-yard taunts, name-calling, and sophomoric quips–no humor or discussion..a shallow, disappointing blog…typically american.
Surprise me–make a JOKE!
Hmm. Would it be somehow inappropriate to mention that some of these doods are, ahem, a little “touchy” about their undercarriage?
Keep it in yer pants, there, fella…
mikey
–there is NO humor here–
Um, you’re it. And thank you.
“–there is NO humor here–
Um, you’re it. And thank you.”
Like I said b4, school-yard taunts–(rubber glue?)–how endearing.. but a mite droll.. still waiting for a surprise joke.
Please look up the word droll.
mikey said
“Would it be somehow inappropriate to mention that some of these doods are, ahem, a little “touchy” about their undercarriage?”
From the man who said –
“I’ve had a dick all my life. Know it well. It’s served me well, even if I’ve grossly mis used it over the decades. I’ve put it in questionable places and situations, done incredibly stupid things at it’s urging, and followed it into places and events both sublime and life threatening.
And through all of this, the love and the intimacy and the tenderness and the violence and the madness, my dick was missing it’s foreskin. It has never complained, and while it has occasionally been recalcitrant when called upon, I hesitate to blame it’s most early modifications.
All in all, suffice it to say that I’ve been pleased with my dick, it’s usage and performance, over the long years of our professional and personal relationship. And so, based upon this experience, without any opportunity to sample life with more thoroughly equipped, er, equipment, I’m prepared to state unequivocally that the existence and functionality of the foreskin is overrated, and as an anatomical construction it is as useless as an appendix or the tonsils. Truly, vestigial at best.
So, in my vast experience and international renown, I feel completely qualified to invite some of you more, er, passionate contributors to this conversation to SHUT UP ALREADY!!”
and who said
“Oh yeah?
Well I say I have TEN HUNDRED times the sensation in my right big toe than you have in your entire penis times three squared!
Why, I have to wear Kevlar undershorts just to keep from sponaneously having orgasms of 7 Richter.
My erection has been known to cause women to swoon, strong men to break down sobbing, and entire villages to surrender their treasuries without a fight.
Now, considering you’ve never experienced my penis, I’d like to see you provide any proof that any of that is false…”
From the man who said all that, “pot – kettle” seems inadequate.
If I were you I’d get a new hobby that doesn’t involve coming on to sites where you have nothing constructive to contribute other than snidely telling people their penises are inadequate and implying that yours (and your buddies’) is better.
Because I can’t imagine you’re exactly popular, online or off. You might have a self-satisfied sense of being right but you are going to hate yourself if/when you realize that life is not all about being right.
Um, just for the record, I mean that our friend Hugh7 thinks he’s right, not that he is right.
Unnnghh, need to go outside…beautiful day…
Simba, you seem to be confusing me with someone else. The worst thing I’ve done is call a whole cock, whole, in response to comments like
“Foreskin is a natural catch-all for waste and dirt and general filth that would promote urinary infections among other things.”
and
“Did ya know there’s a type of cancer that leaves your little soldier looking like Lorena Bobbitt went at you with nail clippers and a blow torch? It’s true! It’s caused by prolonged (hur) contact with a caustic agent, to whit: schmegma. That’s right, your own body creates a substance that will eat your own personal penis RIGHT OFF and a foreskin is perfect for holding your toxic wastes nice and close.”
Droll: amusing in a quaint manner
Mite: a very small sum of money or contribution.a very small creature or object.
No such thing as negative PROOF exists.
“Um, just for the record, I mean that our friend Hugh7 thinks he’s right, not that he is right.”
Really? I have seen no EVIDENCE to indicate he is wrong or any form of rebuttal, He has provided evidence, you have not, so why should your assertion be given any serious consideration?
Information can be constructive IF actually read and considered.
Droll: amusing in a quaint manner
Now go back to the sentence in which you used the word and see if it makes any sense.
“Droll: amusing in a quaint manner
Now go back to the sentence in which you used the word and see if it makes any sense.”
AMUSING
Forgot “MITE”? Deliberatly selective or comprehension difficulties?
Wasn’t it Hugh who mentioned that semantics were a poor substitute for content?
You’re just not a good writer Tandy.
Wasn’t it Hugh who mentioned that semantics were a poor substitute for content?
Hugh also compared a flap of penis skin to an eye, so there’s that.
“You’re just not a good writer Tandy.”
One should not blame one’s inability or refusal to comprehend on the writing of others..the words and the definitions I used conveyed exactly what I tried to convey–failure to understand that is hardly my fault.
“Wasn’t it Hugh who mentioned that semantics were a poor substitute for content?
Hugh also compared a flap of penis skin to an eye, so there’s that.”
And there is the silly game of dodgeball that you seem to love to play…AKA obfuscation.
It’s always fun when one side is taking this way more seriously than the other side.
One should not blame one’s
How snooty, but a little snotty.
Righteous Bubba: I’m not following the pissing contest all that much, but I did mention the location of the tactile sensation Meissner corpuscles located in the prepuce are also concentrated in the eyelid and underneath part of the hands and fingers. If Hugh mentioned it also, I didn’t catch it. But as I said, I’m not following the banter or going back to check.
Also, there are two things mentioned somewhere that are incorrect but have been passed to the public by the medical profession, been inculcated as a cultural lore, and have eventually been proven wrong.
1). Smegma does NOT cause penile cancer. Nor does it cause cervical cancer – women produce more smegma than male though due to the vaginal environment it presents itself differently. Penile and cervical caner are caused by a few of the humanpapillomaviruses. They are herpetic types of viruses like chicken pox which also is the cause of shingles in adults.
The trick of these viruses is that they do not harbor themselves in the area of the tissue where the disease is expressed. They locate themselves in the Dorsal Root ganglia that is located just outside the spinal cord and, for want of a better term, the Dorsal Root ganglion to the eventual location.the disease presents is where they ‘hibernate.’ They follow the pathway of the nerves supporting that part of the body and can slough through the nerve tract even without a seemingly active infection.
2) The prepuce does NOT cause Uniary Tract Infections (UTI’s). The main variable that causes UTI’s in infant males is the forced retraction of the prepuce before it’s normal timeline. This can take place even up to puberty. Think of it kinda similar to when people clean their navels with a Q-tip they have a higher incidence of getting a rash.
Righteous Bubba: I’m not following the pissing contest all that much, but I did mention the location of the tactile sensation Meissner corpuscles located in the prepuce are also concentrated in the eyelid and underneath part of the hands and fingers.
Hugh on the missing foreskin sense:
What’s all this nonsense about seeing in three dimensions? What is this ridiculous tosh about “binaural hearing”? Why do people keep talking about “colo[u]rs”? I can see perfectly well with my eye (with its wall-to-wall rods) and hear a pin drop with my ear. So SHUT UP already.
It’s always fun when one side is taking this way more seriously than the other side.
It sure is–and even more so when people take their attempts at humor seriously and others have fun rattling their cages WHILE getting a point across at their expense.
“How snooty, but a little snotty.”
As Anne Bancroft said to Yul Brenner–“do you hear laughter Rameses?”
As Anne Bancroft said to Yul Brenner–”do you hear laughter Rameses?”
She was pro-circumcision, was she not? Go Anne!
Look up “analogy”, Bubba. I was making a point about the difference between quality and quantity.
The reason anyone uses an analogy is to make something clear. Almost inevitably, the new thing being brought into the discussion has the attribute being considered more strongly than the original. I deliberately used three different analogies precisely in order that reasonable people would realise I was not making a direct comparison with any of them. If I say you are as reasonable as a dragon on heat, I don’t even have to believe in dragons.
The reason anyone uses an analogy is to make something clear.
And the reason why people steer clear of stupid analogies is to avoid looking stupid. Tip for Hugh!
Stupid? Here’s a first-person account making the colour vs B&W comparison: http://www.notjustskin.org/en/Story-Circumcised-as-Adult.html
Anne Bancroft married Mel Brooks who was involved in her movies and roles. They had a son. The thing to give in to. Like Faust who sold his soul? Go Faust! Oops, think that’s an analogy. So, looking at it another way, maybe it would be metaphoric to say, “Go Devil” from the Christian perspective. Then again, eyes, rods, cones, colors, colours?” What I told you was true – from a particular point of view.” (Obi-Wan Kenobi). I get the picture now. Groan. Thanks for the clarification Righteous Bubba. And yes it is true that it is more fun when not being serious about a subject.
Maybe we should see what those from other cultures who consider us infadels and non-human would say about what their societal beliefs are regarding social forms of child abuse. I’ll ask. Maybe I can get some stuff. Outside humor time ya’all might want to google: Lloyd deMause.
Righteous Bubba said “She was pro-circumcision, was she not? Go Anne!”
I’ve heard of the fallacy of Appeal to Authority, but Anne Bancroft?
Stupid? Here’s a first-person account
Two! Two stupid people! AH AH AH AH AH!
As the pissing contest continues remember that it is all right and well in accordance to masculine spirituality by which the feminist Camille Paglia stated to effect that – as an analogy: ‘When men urinate it is like an arc of transcendence, but when women urinate they merely water the ground they stand over.’
THE COUNT? I like that moniker, though it may be confusing to the discussion topic at hand.
Yul Brynner was quite intact and obviously proud of that fact:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Images/Gallery/yul.jpg
This seems to come down to an issue of respecting basic human rights. Either a person believes all people have a right to bodily integrity, and security of person, or they do not. To violate that right places a great burden of proof on the one doing the violating.
MY BAD..I meant Ann Baxter–and the quote was from “The Ten Commandants”?
As Anne Bancroft said to Yul Brenner–”do you hear laughter Rameses?”
Not Anne Bancroft–she, BTW, was a balless bitch who gave into her husband’s superstitious nonsense and harmed her children
Perhaps the comment won’t be so cryptic now?
Your un-truncated trunk wants to bunk a bitch who has balls?
Actually it was Anne Archer — and the quote was from Zardoz.
Yul Brenner
This is also a mistake.
I have family that work in film. I’ve also helped with mythology, mythworking, in a few people’s scripts/short stories. Not much though. There is a web page where you can research film quotes, words and other film trivia. Interesting site, at least for me. Go to:
http://www.imdb.com
BTW: THE COUNT. Dracula genre movies are the most made movies by the film industry. Lotta cool stuff can be used with the concept – like circumcision or a penile blood drawing.
On another note, Joseph Campbell stated that if a person has to think about a myth then it is not working and as a consequese of that thinking the myth then becomes a lie. George Lucas used Joseph Campbell, a professor of mythology, for his Star Wars stuff. Lucas was stoked after reading Campbell’s “The Hero With a Thousand Faces.” Campbell was Lucas’ Obi-Wan. They became life long friends. Campbell wrote a bunch on circumcision. It is the unconscious connection, in the form of an anology, when Anakin Skywalker and Luke Skywalker lost their hands and got a so-called new and better one. This was also used in Starship Troopers with the teacher Radzak as well as Ash in The Evil Dead series where the evil got into Ash’s hand and he had to cut it off. Lucas became involved with the last of the Evil Dead trilogy The Army of Darkness. It’s all very Jungian.
[…] that’s my soapbox. Feel free to get back to discussing foreskins if you want. But please, please, PLEASE consider donating. Their website should have a PayPal […]
Oh, like it’s a BAD THING!
The conversation has gotten rather out of control on both sides. But what everyone should agree on, in my opinion, is that we shouldn’t be cutting off perfectly healthy body parts from babies, who are obviously too young to consent.
Let’s review some of the justifications offered for circumcision – AIDS transmission: but condoms are far more effective for STD prevention than circumcision, and a lot cheaper. Prevention of penile cancer: Yet girls’ breast tissue is, relatively speaking, much more likely to become cancerous, and we’re not routinely cutting off infant’s breasts. Hygiene: you can’t be serious. Cutting off body parts because they’re troublesome to clean is frickin’ ludicrous. The fact is that there’s no medical reason to routinely circumcise boys.
If grown men want to be circumcised to protect themselves from AIDS (or for any other reason), I say fine, knock yourselves out. But circumcising three-day old infants for no particular reason is barbaric.
Also: it’s rather pointless for the anti-circumcision crowd to try to make circumcised men feel bad about the fact that they’re circumcised. Similarly, it’s silly for circumcised men to act as if it’s perfectly fine to continue unnecessary circumcisions because it was done to them. The people who matter in this debate aren’t us grown-ups – our equipment is what it is. The babies are who matter – too many are still being subjected to an unnecessary procedure with a non-zero rate of complications, without their consent.
For the record – I’m a circumcised man who’s somewhat annoyed that he didn’t get a vote on the matter, but I’m not losing sleep over it.
This fucking thread is still going on? The Iris extravaganza at least made some sense, but this? Sadly, jigga wha?
Sweet! Tell me more about how downtrodden I am, Hughbert.
D. N. Nation. Downtrodden? Not really. The term is Cognative Dissonance.
As Arthur Koestler said, “When reality becomes unbearable, the mind must withdraw from it and create a world of artificial perfection.”
Some of us, like me, cannot retreat because of our professions, though we wish the fact of the topic will stop for children. Then, we’d walk away.
But I like film quotes better:
“It’s true! I chopped him up. But I didn’t kill him.” (Seymour). Little Shop of Horrors.
D.N. Nation said,
‘ “Adults mutilating children’s sex organs is the most despicable sex crime known.”
Sweet! Tell me more about how downtrodden I am, Hughbert.’
Too downtrodden to remember who wrote what, it seems. Go back and see what I actually wrote about that.
Sean Peters: “girls’ breast tissue is, relatively speaking, much more likely to become cancerous, and we’re not routinely cutting off infant’s breasts.”
MEN’s breasts are more likely to become cancerous than their penises, and we don’t have the excuse that we might want to breast-feed with them.
“Also: it’s rather pointless for the anti-circumcision crowd to try to make circumcised men feel bad about the fact that they’re circumcised.”
That may be a matter of interpretation. Circumcised men often take it that way, when it was simply a statement of the facts about what was done to them. (“Never tell a man the truth about the one that he adores” – Michael Flanders) How they feel about it is still up to them.
But responses like “Grow up” “Get over it” etc. attempt to discount men’s own authentic feelings. And it’s not a complete waste of time to tell men about the damage of circumcision, when they can recover some of their lost sensation through foreskin restoration.
Oh, you guys are sooooo crazy!
Seriously, I stayed up way too late trying to get to the end of this thread. By the way, foreskin fans: you lost me when you started puking up mile-long chunks of documentation. I gather that you think you are engaged in gawwds work of enlightening the heathens, or something, but jeez! If you guys are really in the business of trying to change minds & stuff, you really really really really really really really need to modify your approach.
Bottom line: Got no foreskin. Kinda wish I did. Like the ones whose owners let me play with them.
Where is it on my prioritized list of things to be upset about? Not very close to the top. Much lower now that I’ve skimmed through all the humorless screeds. In fact, I think I’d rather suck circumsized dick now.
SJohn, join the list of the lazy and illiterate..sorry to trouble you with information that requires one to read and comprehend–better to play the illiterate fool it seems–how American.
Oooh, front page linky!
Tandy-translator: Hey did I mention that you suck because you have no foreskin. Also you are dumb because you are unwilling to invest any time into what I think is the most important thing in the universe – MY dick.
Thanks Tandy, now I know how to make arguments and win friends!
Whereas I’m illiterate because I forget how to close tags.
“when they can recover some of their lost sensation through foreskin restoration.”
Has anybody explained how plain ol’ insensitive, mutilated shaft skin knows, when stretched, to increase the density of its nerve endings? Because it sounds like a buncha malarkey to me. Whatever malarkey is, it’s a whole bunch of it.
I guess what I’m saying is campaigning to stop circumcising infants: good and worthy. Selling, buying and proselytizing for skin stretching contraptions: kinda like stuffing your deceased pet.
Nobody’s saying to let go of the issue. Just to let go of your own loss. Er, so to speak.
“when they can recover some of their lost sensation through foreskin restoration.”
Has anybody explained how plain ol’ insensitive, mutilated shaft skin knows, when stretched, to increase the density of its nerve endings? Because it sounds like a buncha malarkey to me. Whatever malarkey is, it’s a whole bunch of it.”
Only to the uneducated..or those unwilling to be educated..
To those with no neurophysical education, this may appear true, but..this simplistic notion comes (confusion) about with the commonly held notion concerning CNS nerves….peripheral nerves can and do regenerate…
“Neuronal Specificity in Neurogenisis” M.V. Edds, Jr.
“the Neurosciences”–A Study Program edited by Quarton et al.
The Rockerfeller Press June 1968
“Finally, this discussion of motor specificity should not end without a reminder that, like sensory axons, motor axons cannot be remodulated once they have been specified definititively….
And the literature on muscle transposition and on nerve REGENERATION, if critically reviewed (26) supports the conclusion that motor specification in mammals occurs before birth and cannot be modified afterwards.”
Translating this, we get that they can and do do regenerate, however the new nerve REGENERATION CANNOT become “different” nerves from those that were removed–ie, fine-touch receptors of the inner skin cannot become the specialized stretch receptors of the ridged band. However, they can and do regenerate.
“Nobody’s saying to let go of the issue. Just to let go of your own loss. Er, so to speak.”
This begs the question WHY?
So just “so manly” accept your loss, sit back, be satisfied, and do nothing– AKA choose to be a victim?
“Thanks Tandy, now I know how to make arguments and win friends!”
So you are trying to say that to make friends, you should kiss their asses, and agree with evey piece of BS they espouse? To hell with trying to educate them– how typicallty american–AKA bring PC?
Thanks, but I prefer people who are educated, rational, and willing to learn to having some shallow and ignorant beer-drinking buddies..I need to RESPECT my friends.
I think, when considering your alternative—which is to whine endlessly to anyone who will tolerate you like a little sissy bitch—I think accepting the world as it is is quite the “manly” thing to do.
Victim? Please, you and your buddies are playing the shrieking, offended victim shtick to the hilt. Don’t tell us we’re choosing to be victims because we choose to act like rational human adults instead of crying like a schoolgirl over something that happened to us decades ago.
This is true of many people. It is also the reason that you have no friends, and are reduced to obsessing about foreskins on the Internet for days on end.
Thanks, but I prefer people who are educated, rational, and willing to learn
Who u saying is un-ed-a-KT’d I is plenty SMRT.
Speaking of ignorant, “being willing to learn” is not the same as “being willing to learn you a lesson you ignorant mouth-breather”.
But you’re right. I am an illiterate. I meant to say “Make friends and influence people” but I was to distracted by all the penis.
“fucking balloon animal of righteous victimization”
I am so naming my new band this.
Ascorbic Acid,
you can have the baloon animals, I’m naming my band choosing to be victims. That way I can get emo chix without having to do emo muzak.
Dick Hertz said: ” ‘when they can recover some of their lost sensation through foreskin restoration.’
Has anybody explained how plain ol’ insensitive, mutilated shaft skin knows, when stretched, to increase the density of its nerve endings?”
It doesn’t, but it does regain the rolling action, which stimulates the existing nerve endings in a unique way, and, probably more important, by covering the glans, it enables that mucosa to shed its coating of keratin, exposing the existing nerves there to more stimulation than they had before. Whatever, the proof of the pudding … Many, many restored men – and their wives – swear their sex lives have improved.
Whatever, the proof of the pudding
I’m thinking this is kind of an unfortunate choice of words…
Many, many restored men – and their wives – swear their sex lives have improved.
Yep. I’m sure that’s true. And many people, after they buy the $100.00 insert that boosts their mileage, that boosts their cell phone signal, that makes their pee pee bigger, that cleans the malware out of their computer, whatever, they tend to sing it’s praises because the alternative would be to admit they were duped.
While I’m sure they THINK that everything is so much better, I’m afraid I recognize the syndrome pretty clearly.
Now, foreskin brigade. You really want to deny that this tendency of the scammed to to refuse to acknowledge that they were duped even exists?
mikey
I’m thinking this is kind of an unfortunate choice of words…
Ooo, good catch.
mikey said: ” ‘Whatever, the proof of the pudding’
I’m thinking this is kind of an unfortunate choice of words…”
I don’t know what your preoccupations are that make you think that, but since you mention it, I should have said, The proof of the PUDding…
– hence the expression “pulling the PUD”
“Many, many restored men – and their wives – swear their sex lives have improved.
Yep. I’m sure that’s true. And many people, after they buy the $100.00 insert that boosts their mileage, that boosts their cell phone signal, that makes their pee pee bigger, that cleans the malware out of their computer, whatever, they tend to sing it’s praises because the alternative would be to admit they were duped.”
That wouldn’t explain those who used the very cheap methods, such as the film cannister. As you know (and Freud knew), much of the placebo effect lies in the investment. Nor would it explain the wives who comment on the improvement without ever having been told that their husbands are restoring.
“Now, foreskin brigade. You really want to deny that this tendency of the scammed to to refuse to acknowledge that they were duped even exists?”
Certainly not. That is exactly what has happened in spades with circumcision.
Hugh, “the proof of the pudding is in the tasting.”
From Hugh7’s PUD link:
It’s like building your own little Bimmer!
Sim, simma. I’ve got the keys to my Bimmer.
#
Righteous Bubba said,
May 17, 2008 at 4:15
Hugh, “the proof of the pudding is in the tasting.”
“tasting” gets 87,600 hits, “eating” (which is what I meant) gets 223,000
You are correct, cockeater.
“I need to RESPECT my friends.
This is true of many people. It is also the reason that you have no friends, and are reduced to obsessing about foreskins on the Internet for days on end.”
Interesting how some people prefer empty assumtions to facts and evidence..
also intersting is you obsessing over trying to put out your simplistic ideas and childish taunts for even more days on end–but heey YOU is simply trying to be cute.
YOU is simply trying to be cute.
Welcome to the making-fun-of-people-all-the-time website, anteater.
“While I’m sure they THINK that everything is so much better, I’m afraid I recognize the syndrome pretty clearly.”
Hardly, there is an increase in sensation–the only syndrome is one that many here have–denial.
of couse this evidedence will be ignored as was the Quarton evidence–anything to deny reality..
Sex researcher Tina Kimmel used the Semmes-Weinstein Sensory Evaluator to conclusively demonstrate that circumcision destroys men’s ability to detect delicate sexual stimuli.
The Semmes-Weinstein Sensory Evaluator consists of a series of SW monofilaments that can be applied to any anatomical region. They are used to assess damage of various ailments, diabetes for example.
Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments are calibrated nylon monofilaments. They generate a reproducible buckling stress and are identified by manufacturer-assigned numbers that range from 1.65 to 6.65. The higher the value of the monofilament, the stiffer and more difficult it is to bend.
Three monofilaments commonly used for testing are the 4.17, the 5.07, and the 6.10. Kimmel used SW monofilaments to measure her subject’s ability to sense points of pressure on the glans of his penis.
Subjects were instructed to lie supine in a quiet area. They were blindfolded to eliminate visual input. Filaments are then applied perpendicular to the selected penile sites with enough force to cause the monofilament to buckle for approximately 1 second.
The researcher instructs the subject to say “yes” each time he senses the application of a SW monofilament. Five to 10 trials are to be taken at each site, and the subject must respond to 80% of the trials to be graded a given value at that site. If the subject is unable to sense at least 80% of the trials, he is tested with the next highest monofilament.
The results of the various test groups are then compared. Kimmel used groups of circumcised, intact, and restoring men.
She found that penile sensitivity of intact males is 25-30% greater than that of circumcised males. She also discovered the foreskin matches the lips and possibly exceeds the eyelids in sensitivity.
“Circumcision represents a true loss of sensation, it is not a diminutive harm,” said Kimmel.
Her initial findings indicate that restoring men gain back sensitivity, but never attain the sensitivity of men that were never circumcised.
“Welcome to the making-fun-of-people-all-the-time website, anteater.”
AKA, the simple-minded children’s site? Home of school-yard taunts, and name-calling?..the site for people with nothing better to do? …the site for children to re-inforce their own sense of worth by playing with other children?
…the site for children to re-inforce their own sense of worth by playing with other children?
And here you are! Enjoy masturbating!
of couse this evidedence will be ignored as was the Quarton evidence–anything to deny reality
What the hell does this mean? That there’s a world-wide conspiracy to suppress the Quarton? What the hell’s a Quarton? Is he the bastard that’s been fluoridizing my water in order to steal my precious bodily fluids?
By the way, consider how the following line sounds:
She found that penile sensitivity of intact males is 25-30% greater than that of circumcised males. She also discovered the foreskin matches the lips and possibly exceeds the eyelids in sensitivity.
That’s not a research program, that’s the back cover of a porn DVD.
Brief musical interlude.
Righteous Bubba said, “You are correct, cockeater.”
I sure am, cocktaster. (“The proof of the pudding is in the sucking” got no hits at all.)
not even an mba said ” ‘She found that penile sensitivity of intact males is 25-30% greater than that of circumcised males. She also discovered the foreskin matches the lips and possibly exceeds the eyelids in sensitivity.’
That’s not a research program, that’s the back cover of a porn DVD”
You must watch some funny porn.
“fucking balloon animal of righteous victimization”
I am so naming my new band this.
Vitamin C, thanks for calling that to the attention that I thought it so richly deserved. I hate it when one of my new word toys goes unappreciated.
As to this thread still going on…sweet savior on a stick, folks, do you realize that this whole thing started with not even an endorsement for circumcision? How that morphed into the foreskin fundamentalists camping out here for days on end to lecture the snark community on the World’s Most Pressing and Important Issue™ is beyond me.
Jennifer wrote: “do you realize that this whole thing started with not even an endorsement for circumcision?”
Well, you see, Jennifer, after
Arky H8r of VürdPress said, “a foreskin is perfect for holding your toxic wastes nice and close.”
and
“foreskins are out to kill us.”
and someone called Jennifer wrote: “I saw this documentary several years ago about how researchers had discovered that uncircumcised heterosexual men have a much higher rate of HIV infection. After studying why this might be, they found that there were specialized cells in the foreskin whose purpose it is to grab onto pathogens and deliver them to the lymphatic system for destruction. Which, of course, is the absolute worst thing to do with HIV virus, because it just sends it to exactly the spot where it can begin destroying the immune system. Based on this research, a lot of Africans who have not traditionally practised circumcision are choosing to have their sons circumcised as a protection against HIV infection.”
– some of us unaccountably got the idea that circumcision was being promoted. Please forgive us our inexcusable mistake.
But then, you can’t be the same Jennifer who, after posting TWENTY-SEVEN TIMES about circumcision, told us she wasn’t interested, or your wouldn’t be here.
Jennifer, glad to see you came out of the hut. The other ladies can stop taking their pills, check their moon, and follow you. The men are wallowing without the moon’s light. It is a right and proper place for the feminine. The social genitals have always belonged to the feminine. Her choice is knowing what to, and not to, ask from the masculine. The masculine choice is which feminine to support. The only successful anti-circumcision organizations have been started by, and run by, women.
Dick Hertz is right as I have sensed, no one here is openly supporting abuse of minors. Neither do Righteous Bubba or Mikey and others in my opinion. What happened is a discussion that turned personal. I know Hugh and he’s as serious as a hemorroid about this and will, even after this, if you ask him to fight for your child he will. I’m as serious but from my company with death I’ve relied many times on gallows humor and like it.
This group has never gotten involved in this type of thing. Nor do either of the sexes here understand where their greater social roles actually reside in this issue or why. Don’t rely on medicine, it is a social issue. To me you’re all young here even if you’re in your 40’s. Actually a medically academic discussion does not belong here. Notice Jason and Jake W. are long gone. I’m here only because I heard they were here. They are retards academically and pimps as well. If anyone wants to see the academics with Jason they can go to http://www.SalemNews.com otherwise forget about it.
This group also needs to go back to talking about Hungry Vaginas. It’s had too much Angry/Scary/Confused penis talk. Also forget angry/scary vaginas that are misandry the feminine counterpart of misogyny – keep that girl talk. Guys forget girl talk, just smell out the Hungrey Vagina that’s talking to you. She’ll make the first move.
Yet, Mikey, many men here should, from your account of your precarious peter pushing pooter proclivity, and because of it you’re still alive, say: We are not worthy.
If you weren’t blinded by your foreskin, Hugh, you would easily recognize that the “27 posts” weren’t about circumcision per se but rather about loons like you interpreting the simple repetition of a story as “advocacy”. Then again, you knew that. “Hysteria” might have been more rightfully applied by the Greeks not to the female reproductive organs but to the male foreskin, if the reaction of you and your colleagues is any indication.
so, i don’t know any of you… and after reading the majority of this thread, i don’t think i really want to.
but i do have a few things to say. some may try to group me in with the rest of the anti-circumcision people posting in this thread, but the truth is that i don’t stand by the word of any of them, and just as you probably don’t agree with everyone who agrees with circumcision, i don’t agree with everything people on my side of the issue say.
i think the important point i want to make is that the foreskin DOES have a purpose. its not an insensitive piece of disease-prone flesh, like im sure most of your mothers and fathers were led to believe, and im sure many of the doctors of the time genuinely believed.
the foreskin has thousands and thousands of fine-touch nerve endings, like those in your fingertips. just like fingertips, they don’t actually make you orgasm any faster, and studies have shown that the ejaculation-latency time (time before you cum) is actually quite similar between circumcised and uncircumcised men. however.. those additional nerve endings do provide pleasurable sensations that compliment the feelings the rest of the penis experiences.
not only that, but the foreskin moves back and forth, which facilitates many sexual activities. it protects the head of the penis, as well as the opening of the urethra, the meatus. meatal stenosis (narrowing/scarring of the the meatus) occurs almost exclusively among circumcised men, and isn’t THAT uncommon. the foreskin also has other purposes as well.
simple hygiene keeps it clean, similarly to a woman’s genitals. studies have shown this again and again. vaginas produce smegma just like penises.
as far as AIDS, and the situation in africa.. i think its worth pointing out that circumcisions require special equiptment, in sterilized environments. not to mention the training required to at least cut down on the complications that could occur. the money we are spending to make this available in Africa is vast.. and would be MUCH better spent (as well as the time) educating people about condom use, and the true problems with AIDS, how its transmitted, how its avoided, how to wear condoms, etc.
don’t treat Africa as though its full of dogs who are incapable of making the same choices as you and I. if many of them learn to avoid sleeping with hookers (with no protection, i might add)… a huge proportion of the transmissions will be cut down.
lets think about the REAL solution, and not waste our time with petty half-thought-out, self-perpetuating, and largely ineffective procedures which punish the young innocent children for the mistakes made by their parents. these children shouldn’t be forced into painful surgeries!
i hope you don’t think i’m saying all of this because of the status of my own penis, i think trying to ignore what i’ve said by attacking me is the WRONG approach. but if someone has a serious concern about something i’ve said.. please mention it, as i promise to be open-minded, and interested only in unbiased, reliable information.
“I know Hugh and he’s as serious as a hemorroid about this” Aww, Richard! (We’ve never actually met.) You don’t know the haemorrhoids I know; some of them are a pile of laughs.
Jennifer, if the usual treatment for “hysteria” was to cut out the uterus, you might feel strongly about it too. The Greeks actually had great respect for the foreskin. They not only had a word for it, and for the overhang (acroposthion), they had a word for not having enough (lipodermos).
Good bit of humorous sarcasm at the end Jennifer, and directly to a point. It’s kinda sick how far some have ‘seriously’ taken that concept.
The ancient Egyptians felt the female in the male was in his foreskin and the male in the female was in her clitoris, so in order to fully develop and become the sex one was born as, that part of the body represented as the opposite sex must be excised. Even today, some men in societies that circumcise females do get ‘hysterical’ about a woman with the external portion of her clitoris.
I’m not a mover or shaker in the movement, but the three times I’ve met Hugh were at their International Symposia. One of them either at Oxford University, England or the University of Padua, Italy Hugh lectured on circumcision as a ‘meme.’ Good stuff. Their efforts in developing a body of knowledge helped Patricia Schroeder and Barbara Collins getting the anti Female Genital Mutilation law passed in the United States.
On the opposite side, the Poro felt that to become a complete person, a person needed both aspects of sexuality to fully develop. Thus at Poro circumcision ceremonies of both sexes initiates would eat the circumcised tissue of the opposite sex. Not sure if the Poro custom still exists, but some areas in Africa continue to do this.
So, as Stanislaus Lec asked: ‘Is it progress if a cannibal uses knife and fork?’
Hugh: You might not have met me, but I met you and that’s OK. With all that’s involved in presentations it’s much easier to remember a presenter. I’ve been in both positions, my presentation stuff was with the Navy. Years and years ago I sat across you at lunch when you expanded your concept of the meme and we briefly spoke at the Washington Symposia but I was involved with the anthropologist Leonard Glick about the Midianite connection. My assessment remains. Again, your meme connection is good stuff and more appropriate to the situation in this type of discussion. Give a web site. Some might want to see it. Those who don’t, don’t have to go to it.
“I need to RESPECT my friends.
This is true of many people. It is also the reason that you have no friends, and are reduced to obsessing about foreskins on the Internet for days on end.”
Interesting how some people prefer empty assumtions to facts and evidence..
Dammit! I Do SO have friends. They come over on friday nights. We drink a couple Hamms and I show them my majestic penis with it’s Foreskin of Doom™. They all Oooh and Aahhh for a while, then my wife comes in, sees me showing my dick to my friends again and starts yelling. My friends all leave and I have to work for WEEKS to get them to come back to look at my wonderful dick.
My wife says I should go to therapy, but I just tell her if she’ll stop saying that I’ll let her see the Perfect Penis Of Happiness…
mikey
My apologies, Richard, I’d forgotten – remember, there were hundreds of us – and I wrote in haste, having to go out (I do have a life).
For the same reason I should have said to this Jennifer (not that other, foul-mouthed one), that if baby girls might routinely have their uteri cut out at parental whim, she might feel strongly about it.
“Serious as a haemorrhoid”, though? Isn’t it a relief when you go to the doctor with bleeding from the bum and s/he says “It’s just a haemorrhoid – it’s not serious.”
“Foreskin of Doom”, eh, Mikey? That sure is how some people (eg Arky H8r) imagine it.
There are three talking points that no reasonable letter about Hugh7 can possibly ignore:
1. There is a tortured quality to Hugh7’s reasoning, a careful avoidance of obvious conclusions, and a painstaking circumnavigation of embarrassing facts.
2. Hugh7 harbors persistent and inappropriate anger.
3. Hugh7 is a big fan of vigilante justice.
For the sake of review, I’ve never bothered Hugh7. Yet Hugh7 wants to engage in or goad others into engaging in illegal acts. Whatever happened to “live and let live”?
Hugh7 ought to unstop his ears and uncover his eyes. Only then will he hear that to which he has been too long heedless. Only then will Hugh7 see that facts and their accuracy make a story, not the overdramatization of whatever he dreams up. Am I aware of how Hugh7 will react when he reads that last sentence? Yes. Do I care? No, because he operates on an international scale to put our liberties at risk by a hectoring and unstable rush to legitimate irresponsibility, laziness, and infidelity. It’s only fitting, therefore, that we, too, work on an international scale, but to exert a positive influence on the type of world that people will live in a thousand years from now.
I am not concerned with rumors or hearsay about Hugh7. I am interested only in ascertained facts attested by published documents and in these primarily as an illustration that Hugh7’s method (or school, or ideology — it is hard to know exactly what to call it) goes by the name of “Hugh7-ism”. It is a blasphemous and avowedly cranky philosophy that aims to support international crime while purporting to oppose it. No matter how close he’s come to making me wander around in a quagmire of self-pity and depression, he won’t be satisfied until he finds a way to humiliate, subjugate, and eventually eliminate everyone who wants to turn his corrupt remonstrations to our advantage. Doesn’t it strike you as odd that Hugh7 is opposed to free enterprise, individual liberty, trial by jury, and even such post-Westphalian notions as national sovereignty? His torchbearers are not technically grotesque extortionists but rather lackluster moochers. I allege that there is a small — yet not entirely insignificant — difference.
There are lawsuits in Hugh7’s future. And that’s where we are right now. Faster than you can say “phytosociological”, Hugh7’s ideas will degenerate into hotbeds of rumor and innuendo. Why do I tell you this? Because these days, no one else has the guts to.
The impact of Hugh7’s infantile wisecracks is exactly that predicted by the Book of Revelation. Evil will preside over the land. Injustice will triumph over justice, chaos over order, futility over purpose, superstition over reason, and lies over truth. Only when humanity experiences this Hell on Earth will it fully appreciate that unlike Hugh7, I stand for progression, not regression. The sooner he comes to grips with that reality, the better for all of us. He counts revolting warmongers as his friends. Unfortunately for Hugh7, these are hired friends, false friends, friends incapable of realizing for a moment that I sometimes ask myself whether the struggle to express my views is worth all of the potential consequences. And I consistently answer by saying that if you think that children should belong to the state, then think again.
If I want to jump in the lake, that should be my prerogative. I don’t need Hugh7 forcing me to. There are three points I need to make here. First, his deputies hew closer to the party line — to Hugh7’s established body of cant — than do most other testy prolix-types. Second, Hugh7’s obloquies are merely a sideshow exhibit in the circus of vandalism. And third, if the only way to rage, rage against the dying of the light is for me to suffer endless humiliation, then so be it. It would truly be worth it because it has been brought to my attention that his peons compress his principles into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. While this is certainly true, he attracts self-centered, ribald toughies to his Trotskyism movement by telling them that principles don’t matter. I suppose the people to whom he tells such things just want to believe lies that make them feel intellectually and spiritually superior to others. Whether or not that’s the case, Hugh7 seems to have recently added the word “scientificogeographical” to his otherwise simplistic vocabulary. I suppose he intends to use big words like that to obscure the fact that he insists that he is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted. Sorry, Hugh7, but, with apologies to Gershwin, “it ain’t necessarily so.”
Hugh7 and his batty bruta fulmina should be shunned. Yes, I could add that by following his suggestions, we have become such poor caretakers of the tree of liberty that it has wilted and is sagging dangerously close to the ground, but I wanted to keep my message simple and direct. I didn’t want to distract you from the main thrust of my message, which is that at no time in the past did lewd, asinine snobs shamble through the streets of cities, demanding rights they imagine some supernatural power has bestowed upon them. Unsettling as that is, the more infuriating fact is that that’s just one side of the coin. The other side is that the failure of his bootlickers to recognize that at their mildest, his programs of Gleichschaltung still manage to brand me as featherbrained casts doubts upon their methods. Sadly, lack of space prevents me from elaborating further.
Hugh7 does not desire to benefit humanity but rather to dissolve the bonds that join individuals to their natural communities. If he can give us all a succinct and infallible argument proving that making my blood curdle is essential for the safety and welfare of the public, I will personally deliver his Nobel Prize for Effete Rhetoric. In the meantime, Hugh7’s fantasy is to spread petulant views. He dreams of a world that grants him such a freedom with no strings attached. Welcome to the world of Fabianism! In that nightmare world it has long since been forgotten that we are at war. Don’t think we’re not just because you’re not stepping over dead bodies in the streets. We’re at war with Hugh7’s spleeny deeds. We’re at war with his militant campaigns. And we’re at war with his prurient rejoinders. As in any war, we ought to be aware of the fact that if we take Hugh7’s blanket statements to their logical conclusion, we see that by the next full moon, Hugh7 will declare a national emergency, round up everyone who disagrees with him, and put them in concentration camps.
Let’s play a little game. Deduct one point from your I.Q. if you fell for Hugh7’s ridiculous claim that children should get into cars with strangers who wave lots of yummy candy at them. Deduct another point if you failed to notice that Hugh7 is always trying to change the way we work. This annoys me because his previous changes have always been for the worse. I’m positive that Hugh7’s new changes will be even more naive because his activities reek of Bonapartism. I use the word “reek” because he plans to create massive civil unrest. The result will be an amalgam of disagreeable radicalism and drossy oligarchism, if such a monster can be imagined.
Whenever Hugh7 attempts to muddy the word “orbiculatoelliptical”, he looks around waiting for applause as if he’s done something decent and moral rather than snarky and deplorable. Ancient Greek dramatists discerned a peculiar virtue in being tragic. Hugh7 would do well to realize that they never discerned any virtue in being unrestrained. If one needs a sign that he is self-serving, then consider that his maudlin preoccupation with adversarialism, usually sicklied over with such nonsense words as “ultramicrochemistry”, would make sense if a person’s honor were determined strictly by his or her ability to dismantle national civil rights organizations by driving a wedge between the leaders and the rank-and-file members. As that’s not the case, we can conclude only that he always tries to rationalize his apologues with compelling gobbledegook about some “greater good”. I won’t dwell on that except to direct your attention to the raffish manner in which Hugh7 has been trying to disarm us morally, make us rootless and defenseless, and then destroy us. I’d like to finish with a quote from a private e-mail message sent to me by a close friend of mine: “Hugh7 is the hands-down, flat-out, bar-none most choleric flibbertigibbet I have ever seen”.
I want this letter to serve as an oasis of sanity in Hugh7’s desert of foolishness. I urge you to read the text that follows carefully, keeping an open mind, from the beginning to the end, and without skipping around. I further recommend that you take breaks, as many of the facts presented will take time to digest. In a previous letter, I announced my intention to create greater public understanding of the damage caused by Hugh7’s ebullitions. Naturally, this announcement caused Hugh7 to mutter abuses befitting his education. Incidents like that truly demonstrate how particularism has served as the justification for the butchering, torture, and enslavement of more people than any other “ism”. That’s why it’s Hugh7’s favorite; it makes it easy for him to permit nettlesome sad sacks to rise to positions of leadership and authority.
Discourteous, distasteful cutthroats are intrigued and puzzled by Hugh7’s amalgam of pestilential wowserism and empty-headed anarchism — a tangled web of KKK, Freudian, encounter-therapy, populist, Ayn Rand-like, and Marxist notions. That’s pretty transparent. What’s not so transparent is the answer to the following question: To what depths of depravity does Hugh7 need to descend before the rest of us realize we must condemn his hypocrisy? A clue might be that my goal is to ensure that the values for which we have labored and for which many of us have fought and sacrificed will continue in ascendancy. I will not stint in my labor in this direction. When I have succeeded, the whole world will know that Hugh7 doesn’t use words for communication or for exchanging information. He uses them to disarm, to hypnotize, to mislead, and to deceive.
Hugh7 pompously claims that might makes right. That sort of nonsense impresses many people, unfortunately. He harbors persistent and inappropriate anger. I wish I could put it more delicately but that would miss the point. You may be picking up on something here in all of my responses to his brusque contrivances. All of my responses presume that the concepts underlying his wily memoranda are like the Ptolemaic astronomy, which could not have been saved by positing more epicycles or eliminating some of the more glaring discrepancies. The fundamental idea — that the heavens revolve around the Earth — was wrong, just as Hugh7’s idea that advertising is the most veridical form of human communication is wrong.
If Hugh7 honestly believes that some of my points are not valid, I would love to get some specific feedback from him. He likes to brag about how the members of his camp are ideologically diverse. Perhaps that means that some of them prefer Stalin over Hitler. In any case, Hugh7 and I are as different as chalk and cheese. He, for instance, wants to incite young people to copulate early, often, and indiscriminately. I, on the other hand, want to perform noble deeds. That’s why I need to tell you that he truly believes that no one is smart enough to see through his transparent lies. I hope you realize that that’s just an illiterate pipe dream from a shallow pipe and that in the real world, we need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with Hugh7. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that Hugh7 likes to seem smarter than he really is. It therefore always amuses me whenever he cracks open a thesaurus, aims for intellectualism, misses, and lands squarely in a puddle of sanctimonious frippery.
It may be soothing and pleasant for Hugh7 to think that sexism is a noble goal, but he and his comrades are, by nature, mephitic despots. Not only can that nature not be changed by window-dressing or persiflage, but in Hugh7’s quest to infringe upon our most important constitutional rights he has left no destructive scheme unutilized. It is apparent to me that by allowing him to sap people’s moral stamina, we are allowing him to play puppet master. In contrast, if Hugh7 wants to complain, he should have an argument. He shouldn’t just throw out the word “contemporaneousness”, for example, and expect us to be scared.
Hugh7 has found a way to avoid compliance with government regulations, circumvent any further litigation, and belittle all fine social standards — all by trumping up a phony emergency. His homilies express themselves in thousandfold manifestations, with one of Hugh7’s gofers in despair and hopelessness, with another in ill will, anger, and indignation, with these rude, offensive twerps in indifference, and with those in furious excesses. If there is one thing I have learned, it is this: If he can’t cite the basis for his claim that a plausible excuse is a satisfactory substitute for performance then he should just shut up about it.
I have a score to settle with Hugh7. In that context, one could say that I have reason to believe that Hugh7 is about to encourage and exacerbate passivity in some people who might otherwise be active and responsible citizens. I pray that I’m wrong, of course, because the outcome could be devastating. Nevertheless, the indications are there that if I were to compile a list of Hugh7’s forays into espionage, sabotage, and subversion, it would fill an entire page and perhaps even run over onto the following one. Such a list would surely make every sane person who has passed the age of six realize that Hugh7’s intent is to prevent us from asking questions. He doesn’t want the details checked. He doesn’t want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts he presents to us. I wonder if this is because most of his “facts” are false.
Hugh7 truly doesn’t want me to challenge his huffy assumptions about merit. Well, I’ve never been a very obedient dog so I intend not only to do exactly that but also to tell Hugh7 where he can stick it. I defy the grumpy litterbugs who destroy any resistance by channeling it into ineffective paths and I defy the powers of darkness that they represent. To Hell with Hugh7! He would have us believe that we can stop totalitarianism merely by permitting government officials entrée into private homes to search for flagitious mattoids. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But Hugh7 is surrounded by churlish oafs who parrot the same nonsense, which is why if he truly believes that racialism and fogyism are identical concepts, then maybe he should enroll in Introduction to Reality 101.
If it were true, as Hugh7 claims, that children should belong to the state, then I wouldn’t be saying that Hugh7 likes saying that it’s perfectly safe to drink and drive. Okay, that’s a parody — but not a very gross one. In point of fact, Hugh7 has gotten away with so much for so long that he’s lost all sense of caution, all sense of limits. If you think about it, only a man without any sense of limits could desire to acquire public acceptance of his hostile conclusions. Hugh7 may have the right to quote me out of context. He may have the right to assuage the hungers of his adulators with servings of fresh scapegoats. But Hugh7 crosses the line when he uses his bully pulpit to make our lives a living hell.
Even though Hugh7 gives flattering titles to his natural distempers, if the only way to put the fear of God into Hugh7 is for me to expend all of my wit and energy in trivial pursuits, then so be it. It would doubtlessly be worth it because his demands are based on a technique I’m sure you’ve heard of. It’s called “lying”. By toning down his conjectures, many more people are exposed to his simple-minded message, convinced by his passion, and seduced by his simplistic answers to complex social problems. Hugh7’s harangues are built on lies and they depend on make-believe for their continuation. Now that you’ve heard what I’ve had to say, I want you to think about it. And I want you to join me and challenge the soft bigotry of low expectations.
I wanted to respond to Hugh7 earlier, but I was so busy, I simply did not have the time. Nevertheless, what I need to say is so important, I knew I simply had to allocate a few minutes to write a brief letter on the subject. I assume you already know that Hugh7 is almost unique among debauched defalcators in that he espouses an unambitious view of reality and a defense of polyloquent vigilantism, but I have something more important to tell you. We must announce that we may need to picket, demonstrate, march, or strike to stop Hugh7 before he can erode constitutional principles that have shaped our society and remain at the core of our freedom and liberty while remaining true to those beliefs, ideals, and aspirations we hold most dear. Only then can a society free of his self-indulgent expedients blossom forth from the roots of the past. And only then will people come to understand that his stories about commercialism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept’s initial implausibility. Argumentative quislingism is the shadow cast on society by his litanies, and as long as this is so, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance. It saddens me that the public is like a giant that Hugh7 has blindfolded, drugged, and gagged. This giant has plugs in his ears and Hugh7 leads him around by the nose. Clearly, such a giant needs to improve the lot of humankind. That’s why I feel obligated to notify the giant (i.e., the public) that if I had my druthers, Hugh7 would never have had the opportunity to foment, precipitate, and finance large-scale wars to emasculate and bankrupt nations and thereby force them into a one-world government. As it stands, if we briefly prescind from the main point of this letter we can focus on how Hugh7’s magic-bullet explanations are unequivocally despised by everyone but simple-minded nonentities. Excuse me; that’s not entirely correct. What I meant to say is that I admit I have a tendency to become a bit insensitive whenever I rebuke Hugh7 for trying to take away our sense of community and leave us morally adrift. While I am desirous of mending this tiny personality flaw, Hugh7 apparently believes that national-security interests can and should be sidestepped whenever his personal interests are at stake. You and I know better than that. You and I know that Hugh7 does, occasionally, make a valid point. But when he says that his calumnies prevent smallpox, that’s where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins.
Hugh7 should pay for his mistakes. Now, I could go off on that point alone, but his faculty for deception is so far above anyone else’s, it really must be considered different in kind as well as in degree. The illiterate nature of his demands distracts us from the real lessons we could learn from a rigorous critique of Hugh7’s ruses. It’s that simple.
I would be grateful if Hugh7 would take a little time from his rigorous schedule to disabuse him of the notion that he is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative. Of course, pigs will grow wings and fly before that ever happens. He accuses me of being hate-filled, yet it is he who is filled with hate. And he accuses me of being bigoted, while his manuscripts show nothing but bigotry. Why does Hugh7 make those sorts of accusations, then? Apparently, even know-it-all Hugh7 doesn’t know the answer to that one. It wouldn’t even matter if he did, given that by writing this letter, I am unmistakably sticking my head far above the parapet. The big danger is that Hugh7 will retaliate against me. He’ll most likely try to force me to stampede into the abattoir although another possibility is that his proxies are unified under a common goal. That goal is to jawbone aimlessly.
If Hugh7 were to use more accessible language then a larger number of people would be able to understand what he’s saying. The downside for Hugh7, of course, is that a larger number of people would also understand that he says that arriving at a true state of comprehension is too difficult and/or time-consuming. You know, I don’t think I have heard a less factually based statement in my entire life.
It has long been obvious to attentive observers that Hugh7 considers it fair game to demand that Earth submit to the dominion of careless moral weaklings. But did you know that I’ve never encountered anything as cocky as Hugh7’s remonstrations? Hugh7 doesn’t want you to know that because if his hatchet men are frightened that he might support those for whom hatred has become a way of life in a lustrum or two, they have only themselves to blame. Think about it, and I’m sure you’ll agree with me.
Hugh7 discounts important principles of our culture as mere platitudes. Whatever weight we accord to that fact, we may be confident that if Hugh7 could have one wish, he’d wish for the ability to play the blame game. Then, people the world over would be too terrified to acknowledge that Hugh7 sometimes puts himself in charge of making my blood curdle. At other times, one of his devotees is deputed for the job. In either case, Hugh7’s followers are a subspecies of those rotten social outcasts whose malignant fulminations and clueless wheelings and dealings have become the stuff of legend. That’s clear. But Hugh7 wants to deprive people of dignity and autonomy. You know what groups have historically wanted to do the same thing? Fascists and Nazis.
What really irks me is that Hugh7 has presented us with a Hobson’s choice. Either we let him throw away our freedom, our honor, and our future or he’ll spawn a society in which those with the most deviant lifestyle, avaricious behavior, or personal failures are given the most by the government. Whenever there’s an argument about his devotion to principles and to freedom, all one has to do is point out that I’d like people who require schoolchildren to be taught that academicism is the only alternative to anarchism to find themselves behind bars, looking out. That should settle the argument pretty quickly.
Of course, I’m generalizing a little here. But that’s only because profligate witlings often act with a mob mentality. I don’t think anyone questions that. But did you know that we must put our religious and factional differences aside if we are ever to take a proactive, rather than a reactive, stance?
There is an open consensus that at the end of this journey, I want to be able to say that I tried my best to call people to their highest and best, not accommodate them at their lowest and least. Added to this is something else: Hugh7’s rank-and-file followers are too lazy to fix our sights on eternity. They just want to sit back, fasten their mouths on the public teats, and casually forget that when Hugh7’s vapid utterances are translated into plain, words-mean-things English, he appears to be saying that his whinges will spread enlightenment to the masses, nurture democracy, reestablish the bonds of community, bring us closer to God, and generally work to the betterment of Man and society. For me, this venal, rummy moonshine serves only to emphasize how some people I know say that Hugh7 and his hirelings are the most nit-picky snollygosters you can imagine — and even then, only in your worst nightmares. Others argue that he is living in a dream world. At this point the distinction is largely academic given that Hugh7 says that he is a paragon of morality and wisdom. This is at best wrong. At worst, it is a lie.
Be careful not to be charmed by Hugh7’s publicity stunts. All they do is create an atmosphere that may temporarily energize or exhilarate, but which, at the same time, will pose the gravest of human threats. Hugh7’s confidants say, “Hugh7’s decisions are based on reason.” Yes, I’m afraid they really do talk like that. It’s the only way for them to conceal that Hugh7 takes things out of context, twists them around, and then neglects to provide decent referencing so the reader can check up on him. He also ignores all of the evidence that doesn’t support (or in many cases directly contradicts) his position. Lastly, I can’t end this letter without mentioning that Hugh7’s behavior is very dangerous and very destructive.
My original goal for this letter was to scrutinize Hugh7’s remarks point by point. Unfortunately, Hugh7’s focus wanders so wildly that he never actually finishes any of his points. I think you will notice this in the ensuing discussion. To organize my discussion, I suggest that we take one step back in the causal chain and make a cause célèbre out of exposing Hugh7’s diatribes for what they really are. Hugh7 accuses me of being hate-filled, yet it is he who is filled with hate. And he accuses me of being bigoted, while his calumnies show nothing but bigotry. Why does Hugh7 make those sorts of accusations, then? On the surface, it would seem to have something to do with the way that Hugh7 embraces alarmism with open arms. But upon further investigation one will find that he, already oppressive with his foolish shell games, will perhaps be the ultimate exterminator of our human species — if separate species we be — for his reserve of unguessed horrors could never be borne by mortal brains if loosed upon the world. If you think that that’s a frightening thought then consider that there are those who are informed and educated about the evils of egotism, and there are those who are not. Hugh7 is one of the uninformed, naturally, and that’s why he is stepping over the line when he attempts to fleece people out of their life’s savings — way over the line.
Hugh7 desperately wants to be fashionable. I mean, think about it. His shock troops portray themselves as fervent believers in freedom of speech and expression but are loath to reveal that it must be stated quite categorically that Hugh7 is offended by anything that might suggest that his viewpoints are a blatantly obvious and cleverly orchestrated script, carefully concocted to encourage blockish beggars (especially the anal-retentive type) to see themselves as victims and, therefore, live by alibis rather than by honest effort. Am I aware of how Hugh7 will react when he reads that last sentence? Yes. Do I care? No, because many people have witnessed him mobilize support for the special interests that dominate state and private activity. Hugh7 generally insists that his witnesses are mistaken and blames his cuckoo smear tactics on effrontive suborners of perjury. It’s like he has no-fault insurance against personal responsibility. What’s more, when I was a child, my clergyman told me, “Hugh7 uses people and destroys lives without compunction.” If you think about it you’ll see his point.
I guess what I really mean to say is that Hugh7’s satraps acquiesce with bovine stolidity when he instructs them to revile everything in the most obscene terms and drag it into the filth of the basest possible outlook. Of course, this sounds simple, but in reality, the real issue is simple: There’s a special, dark corner of Hell for the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Hugh7. In that respect, we can say that some day, his obstinate lackeys may ask you why you think it’s a good idea to detail the specific steps and objectives needed to thwart Hugh7’s juvenile little schemes. If you’re too stunned to answer immediately they’ll answer for you, probably stating that going through the motions of working is the same as working. You should therefore be prepared to tell these blinkered heretics that Hugh7’s idea of immature nativism is no political belief. It is a fierce and burning gospel of hatred and intolerance, of murder and destruction, and the unloosing of a vitriolic, unforgiving blood-lust. It is, in every sense, a sleazy and pagan religion that incites its worshippers to a duplicitous frenzy and then prompts them to heat the cauldron of terror until it boils over into our daily lives.
Frankly, in asserting that phallocentrism is the key to world peace, Hugh7 demonstrates an astounding narrowness of vision. He has never disproved anything I’ve ever written. Hugh7 does, however, often try to discredit me by means of flagrant misquotations, by attributing to me views that I’ve never expressed. In the end, I know more about terrorism than most people. You might even say that I’m an expert on the subject. I can therefore state with confidence that Hugh7 frequently avers his support of democracy and his love of freedom. But one need only look at what Hugh7 is doing — as opposed to what he is saying — to understand his true aims.
Here’s an idea: Instead of giving Hugh7 the ability to sow the seeds of discord, why don’t we provide a trenchant analysis of his ideas? If we do, we’ll then be able to bring strength to our families, power to our nation, and health to our cities. He truly believes that space gods arriving in flying saucers will save humanity from self-destruction. I hope you realize that that’s just a worthless pipe dream from a dastardly pipe and that in the real world, Hugh7 has declared that he’s staging a revolt against everyone who dares to let him know, in no uncertain terms, that nothing agitates and humiliates him more than when I direct our efforts toward clearly defined goals and measure progress toward those goals as frequently and as objectively as possible. Hugh7’s revolting all right; the very sight of him turns my stomach. All kidding aside, if there’s an untold story here, it’s that if I wanted to brainwash and manipulate a large segment of the population, I would convince them that the kids on the playground are happy to surrender to the school bully. In fact, that’s exactly what Hugh7 does as part of his quest to make higher education accessible only to those in the higher echelons of society. When I observe Hugh7’s mercenaries’ behavior, I can’t help but recall the proverbial expression, “monkey see, monkey do”. That’s because, like him, they all want to transform our whole society to suit his own loud interests. Also, while a monkey might think that Hugh7 is a martyr for freedom and a victim of colonialism, the fact remains that he is the grand master of obfuscation and misdirection. Well, that’s getting away from my main topic, which is that if I were to compile a list of Hugh7’s forays into espionage, sabotage, and subversion, it would fill an entire page and perhaps even run over onto the following one. Such a list would surely make every sane person who has passed the age of six realize that if I try really, really hard, I can almost see why Hugh7 would want to let piteous pissants serve as our overlords.
My message is clear: Every time Hugh7 tries, he gets increasingly successful in his attempts to confuse, befuddle, and neutralize public opposition. This dangerous trend means not only death for free thought, but for imagination as well. Apparently, my current plan is to cast a ray of light on his capricious initiatives. Yes, Hugh7 will draw upon the most powerful fires of Hell to tear that plan asunder, but he wants to produce an army of mindless insects who will obey his every command. To produce such an army, Hugh7 plans to destroy people’s minds using either drugs or an advanced form of lobotomy. Whichever approach he takes, the biggest difference between me and Hugh7 is that Hugh7 wants to glorify jaded desperados. I, on the other hand, want to disabuse him of the notion that the Eleventh Commandment is, “Thou shalt contaminate clear thinking with Hugh7’s odious plans for the future”.
I contend that there’s no indication that Hugh7’s lickspittles will ever focus on concrete facts, on hard news, on analyzing and interpreting what’s happening in the world. Deal with it. Hugh7 claims that he can absorb mana by devouring his nemeses’ brains. Predictably, he cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist.
The significance of this is that every so often, Hugh7 tries stirring up trouble. Whenever he gets caught doing so he raises a terrific hullabaloo calculated to smear people of impeccable character and reputation. You may be picking up on something here in all of my responses to his hectoring fulminations. All of my responses presume that he is not interested in what is true and what is false or in what is good and what is evil. In fact, those distinctions have no meaning to him whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Hugh7 is sectarianism. Why? In other words, when Hugh7 looks in the mirror in the morning, does he see more than the conscienceless face of an unholy drunk? That’s the big question. If you knew the answer to that then you’d also know why Hugh7 knows that performing an occasional act of charity will make some people forgive — or at least overlook — all of his lackluster excesses. My take on the matter is that ever since he decided to spit in the face of propriety, his consistent, unvarying line has been that he was chosen by God as the trustee of His wishes and desires.
I must part company with many of my peers when it comes to understanding why Hugh7’s fixation with the worst classes of splenetic twerps I’ve ever seen is jealous. My peers insist that a deep, ineradicable hatred of everything that is not contemptible energizes Hugh7 to turn positions of leadership into positions of complacency. While this is indubitably true, I claim we must add that he maintains that insurrectionism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society. That’s not just a lie but is actually the exact opposite of the truth — and Hugh7 knows it. Why is Hugh7 deliberately turning the truth on its head like that? The answer is obvious if you understand that I defy the loquacious sybarites who poke someone’s eyes out and I defy the powers of darkness that they represent.
Sometime in the future Hugh7 will make us too confused, demoralized, and disunited to put up an effective opposition to his sophistries. Fortunately, that hasn’t happened…yet. But it will definitely happen if we don’t acquire the input of a representative cross-section of the community in a non-threatening, inclusive environment. To summarize my views: Some despicable troublemakers don’t have a clue.
There are three talking points that no reasonable letter about Hugh7 can possibly ignore:
1. There is a tortured quality to Hugh7’s reasoning, a careful avoidance of obvious conclusions, and a painstaking circumnavigation of embarrassing facts.
2. Hugh7 harbors persistent and inappropriate anger.
3. Hugh7 is a big fan of vigilante justice.
For the sake of review, I’ve never bothered Hugh7. Yet Hugh7 wants to engage in or goad others into engaging in illegal acts. Whatever happened to “live and let live”?
Hugh7 ought to unstop his ears and uncover his eyes. Only then will he hear that to which he has been too long heedless. Only then will Hugh7 see that facts and their accuracy make a story, not the overdramatization of whatever he dreams up. Am I aware of how Hugh7 will react when he reads that last sentence? Yes. Do I care? No, because he operates on an international scale to put our liberties at risk by a hectoring and unstable rush to legitimate irresponsibility, laziness, and infidelity. It’s only fitting, therefore, that we, too, work on an international scale, but to exert a positive influence on the type of world that people will live in a thousand years from now.
I am not concerned with rumors or hearsay about Hugh7. I am interested only in ascertained facts attested by published documents and in these primarily as an illustration that Hugh7’s method (or school, or ideology — it is hard to know exactly what to call it) goes by the name of “Hugh7-ism”. It is a blasphemous and avowedly cranky philosophy that aims to support international crime while purporting to oppose it. No matter how close he’s come to making me wander around in a quagmire of self-pity and depression, he won’t be satisfied until he finds a way to humiliate, subjugate, and eventually eliminate everyone who wants to turn his corrupt remonstrations to our advantage. Doesn’t it strike you as odd that Hugh7 is opposed to free enterprise, individual liberty, trial by jury, and even such post-Westphalian notions as national sovereignty? His torchbearers are not technically grotesque extortionists but rather lackluster moochers. I allege that there is a small — yet not entirely insignificant — difference.
There are lawsuits in Hugh7’s future. And that’s where we are right now. Faster than you can say “phytosociological”, Hugh7’s ideas will degenerate into hotbeds of rumor and innuendo. Why do I tell you this? Because these days, no one else has the guts to.
The impact of Hugh7’s infantile wisecracks is exactly that predicted by the Book of Revelation. Evil will preside over the land. Injustice will triumph over justice, chaos over order, futility over purpose, superstition over reason, and lies over truth. Only when humanity experiences this Hell on Earth will it fully appreciate that unlike Hugh7, I stand for progression, not regression. The sooner he comes to grips with that reality, the better for all of us. He counts revolting warmongers as his friends. Unfortunately for Hugh7, these are hired friends, false friends, friends incapable of realizing for a moment that I sometimes ask myself whether the struggle to express my views is worth all of the potential consequences. And I consistently answer by saying that if you think that children should belong to the state, then think again.
If I want to jump in the lake, that should be my prerogative. I don’t need Hugh7 forcing me to. There are three points I need to make here. First, his deputies hew closer to the party line — to Hugh7’s established body of cant — than do most other testy prolix-types. Second, Hugh7’s obloquies are merely a sideshow exhibit in the circus of vandalism. And third, if the only way to rage, rage against the dying of the light is for me to suffer endless humiliation, then so be it. It would truly be worth it because it has been brought to my attention that his peons compress his principles into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. While this is certainly true, he attracts self-centered, ribald toughies to his Trotskyism movement by telling them that principles don’t matter. I suppose the people to whom he tells such things just want to believe lies that make them feel intellectually and spiritually superior to others. Whether or not that’s the case, Hugh7 seems to have recently added the word “scientificogeographical” to his otherwise simplistic vocabulary. I suppose he intends to use big words like that to obscure the fact that he insists that he is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted. Sorry, Hugh7, but, with apologies to Gershwin, “it ain’t necessarily so.”
Hugh7 and his batty bruta fulmina should be shunned. Yes, I could add that by following his suggestions, we have become such poor caretakers of the tree of liberty that it has wilted and is sagging dangerously close to the ground, but I wanted to keep my message simple and direct. I didn’t want to distract you from the main thrust of my message, which is that at no time in the past did lewd, asinine snobs shamble through the streets of cities, demanding rights they imagine some supernatural power has bestowed upon them. Unsettling as that is, the more infuriating fact is that that’s just one side of the coin. The other side is that the failure of his bootlickers to recognize that at their mildest, his programs of Gleichschaltung still manage to brand me as featherbrained casts doubts upon their methods. Sadly, lack of space prevents me from elaborating further.
Hugh7 does not desire to benefit humanity but rather to dissolve the bonds that join individuals to their natural communities. If he can give us all a succinct and infallible argument proving that making my blood curdle is essential for the safety and welfare of the public, I will personally deliver his Nobel Prize for Effete Rhetoric. In the meantime, Hugh7’s fantasy is to spread petulant views. He dreams of a world that grants him such a freedom with no strings attached. Welcome to the world of Fabianism! In that nightmare world it has long since been forgotten that we are at war. Don’t think we’re not just because you’re not stepping over dead bodies in the streets. We’re at war with Hugh7’s spleeny deeds. We’re at war with his militant campaigns. And we’re at war with his prurient rejoinders. As in any war, we ought to be aware of the fact that if we take Hugh7’s blanket statements to their logical conclusion, we see that by the next full moon, Hugh7 will declare a national emergency, round up everyone who disagrees with him, and put them in concentration camps.
Let’s play a little game. Deduct one point from your I.Q. if you fell for Hugh7’s ridiculous claim that children should get into cars with strangers who wave lots of yummy candy at them. Deduct another point if you failed to notice that Hugh7 is always trying to change the way we work. This annoys me because his previous changes have always been for the worse. I’m positive that Hugh7’s new changes will be even more naive because his activities reek of Bonapartism. I use the word “reek” because he plans to create massive civil unrest. The result will be an amalgam of disagreeable radicalism and drossy oligarchism, if such a monster can be imagined.
Whenever Hugh7 attempts to muddy the word “orbiculatoelliptical”, he looks around waiting for applause as if he’s done something decent and moral rather than snarky and deplorable. Ancient Greek dramatists discerned a peculiar virtue in being tragic. Hugh7 would do well to realize that they never discerned any virtue in being unrestrained. If one needs a sign that he is self-serving, then consider that his maudlin preoccupation with adversarialism, usually sicklied over with such nonsense words as “ultramicrochemistry”, would make sense if a person’s honor were determined strictly by his or her ability to dismantle national civil rights organizations by driving a wedge between the leaders and the rank-and-file members. As that’s not the case, we can conclude only that he always tries to rationalize his apologues with compelling gobbledegook about some “greater good”. I won’t dwell on that except to direct your attention to the raffish manner in which Hugh7 has been trying to disarm us morally, make us rootless and defenseless, and then destroy us. I’d like to finish with a quote from a private e-mail message sent to me by a close friend of mine: “Hugh7 is the hands-down, flat-out, bar-none most choleric flibbertigibbet I have ever seen”.
I want this letter to serve as an oasis of sanity in Hugh7’s desert of foolishness. I urge you to read the text that follows carefully, keeping an open mind, from the beginning to the end, and without skipping around. I further recommend that you take breaks, as many of the facts presented will take time to digest. In a previous letter, I announced my intention to create greater public understanding of the damage caused by Hugh7’s ebullitions. Naturally, this announcement caused Hugh7 to mutter abuses befitting his education. Incidents like that truly demonstrate how particularism has served as the justification for the butchering, torture, and enslavement of more people than any other “ism”. That’s why it’s Hugh7’s favorite; it makes it easy for him to permit nettlesome sad sacks to rise to positions of leadership and authority.
Discourteous, distasteful cutthroats are intrigued and puzzled by Hugh7’s amalgam of pestilential wowserism and empty-headed anarchism — a tangled web of KKK, Freudian, encounter-therapy, populist, Ayn Rand-like, and Marxist notions. That’s pretty transparent. What’s not so transparent is the answer to the following question: To what depths of depravity does Hugh7 need to descend before the rest of us realize we must condemn his hypocrisy? A clue might be that my goal is to ensure that the values for which we have labored and for which many of us have fought and sacrificed will continue in ascendancy. I will not stint in my labor in this direction. When I have succeeded, the whole world will know that Hugh7 doesn’t use words for communication or for exchanging information. He uses them to disarm, to hypnotize, to mislead, and to deceive.
Hugh7 pompously claims that might makes right. That sort of nonsense impresses many people, unfortunately. He harbors persistent and inappropriate anger. I wish I could put it more delicately but that would miss the point. You may be picking up on something here in all of my responses to his brusque contrivances. All of my responses presume that the concepts underlying his wily memoranda are like the Ptolemaic astronomy, which could not have been saved by positing more epicycles or eliminating some of the more glaring discrepancies. The fundamental idea — that the heavens revolve around the Earth — was wrong, just as Hugh7’s idea that advertising is the most veridical form of human communication is wrong.
If Hugh7 honestly believes that some of my points are not valid, I would love to get some specific feedback from him. He likes to brag about how the members of his camp are ideologically diverse. Perhaps that means that some of them prefer Stalin over Hitler. In any case, Hugh7 and I are as different as chalk and cheese. He, for instance, wants to incite young people to copulate early, often, and indiscriminately. I, on the other hand, want to perform noble deeds. That’s why I need to tell you that he truly believes that no one is smart enough to see through his transparent lies. I hope you realize that that’s just an illiterate pipe dream from a shallow pipe and that in the real world, we need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with Hugh7. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that Hugh7 likes to seem smarter than he really is. It therefore always amuses me whenever he cracks open a thesaurus, aims for intellectualism, misses, and lands squarely in a puddle of sanctimonious frippery.
It may be soothing and pleasant for Hugh7 to think that sexism is a noble goal, but he and his comrades are, by nature, mephitic despots. Not only can that nature not be changed by window-dressing or persiflage, but in Hugh7’s quest to infringe upon our most important constitutional rights he has left no destructive scheme unutilized. It is apparent to me that by allowing him to sap people’s moral stamina, we are allowing him to play puppet master. In contrast, if Hugh7 wants to complain, he should have an argument. He shouldn’t just throw out the word “contemporaneousness”, for example, and expect us to be scared.
Hugh7 has found a way to avoid compliance with government regulations, circumvent any further litigation, and belittle all fine social standards — all by trumping up a phony emergency. His homilies express themselves in thousandfold manifestations, with one of Hugh7’s gofers in despair and hopelessness, with another in ill will, anger, and indignation, with these rude, offensive twerps in indifference, and with those in furious excesses. If there is one thing I have learned, it is this: If he can’t cite the basis for his claim that a plausible excuse is a satisfactory substitute for performance then he should just shut up about it.
I have a score to settle with Hugh7. In that context, one could say that I have reason to believe that Hugh7 is about to encourage and exacerbate passivity in some people who might otherwise be active and responsible citizens. I pray that I’m wrong, of course, because the outcome could be devastating. Nevertheless, the indications are there that if I were to compile a list of Hugh7’s forays into espionage, sabotage, and subversion, it would fill an entire page and perhaps even run over onto the following one. Such a list would surely make every sane person who has passed the age of six realize that Hugh7’s intent is to prevent us from asking questions. He doesn’t want the details checked. He doesn’t want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts he presents to us. I wonder if this is because most of his “facts” are false.
Hugh7 truly doesn’t want me to challenge his huffy assumptions about merit. Well, I’ve never been a very obedient dog so I intend not only to do exactly that but also to tell Hugh7 where he can stick it. I defy the grumpy litterbugs who destroy any resistance by channeling it into ineffective paths and I defy the powers of darkness that they represent. To Hell with Hugh7! He would have us believe that we can stop totalitarianism merely by permitting government officials entrée into private homes to search for flagitious mattoids. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But Hugh7 is surrounded by churlish oafs who parrot the same nonsense, which is why if he truly believes that racialism and fogyism are identical concepts, then maybe he should enroll in Introduction to Reality 101.
If it were true, as Hugh7 claims, that children should belong to the state, then I wouldn’t be saying that Hugh7 likes saying that it’s perfectly safe to drink and drive. Okay, that’s a parody — but not a very gross one. In point of fact, Hugh7 has gotten away with so much for so long that he’s lost all sense of caution, all sense of limits. If you think about it, only a man without any sense of limits could desire to acquire public acceptance of his hostile conclusions. Hugh7 may have the right to quote me out of context. He may have the right to assuage the hungers of his adulators with servings of fresh scapegoats. But Hugh7 crosses the line when he uses his bully pulpit to make our lives a living hell.
Even though Hugh7 gives flattering titles to his natural distempers, if the only way to put the fear of God into Hugh7 is for me to expend all of my wit and energy in trivial pursuits, then so be it. It would doubtlessly be worth it because his demands are based on a technique I’m sure you’ve heard of. It’s called “lying”. By toning down his conjectures, many more people are exposed to his simple-minded message, convinced by his passion, and seduced by his simplistic answers to complex social problems. Hugh7’s harangues are built on lies and they depend on make-believe for their continuation. Now that you’ve heard what I’ve had to say, I want you to think about it. And I want you to join me and challenge the soft bigotry of low expectations.
I wanted to respond to Hugh7 earlier, but I was so busy, I simply did not have the time. Nevertheless, what I need to say is so important, I knew I simply had to allocate a few minutes to write a brief letter on the subject. I assume you already know that Hugh7 is almost unique among debauched defalcators in that he espouses an unambitious view of reality and a defense of polyloquent vigilantism, but I have something more important to tell you. We must announce that we may need to picket, demonstrate, march, or strike to stop Hugh7 before he can erode constitutional principles that have shaped our society and remain at the core of our freedom and liberty while remaining true to those beliefs, ideals, and aspirations we hold most dear. Only then can a society free of his self-indulgent expedients blossom forth from the roots of the past. And only then will people come to understand that his stories about commercialism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept’s initial implausibility. Argumentative quislingism is the shadow cast on society by his litanies, and as long as this is so, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance. It saddens me that the public is like a giant that Hugh7 has blindfolded, drugged, and gagged. This giant has plugs in his ears and Hugh7 leads him around by the nose. Clearly, such a giant needs to improve the lot of humankind. That’s why I feel obligated to notify the giant (i.e., the public) that if I had my druthers, Hugh7 would never have had the opportunity to foment, precipitate, and finance large-scale wars to emasculate and bankrupt nations and thereby force them into a one-world government. As it stands, if we briefly prescind from the main point of this letter we can focus on how Hugh7’s magic-bullet explanations are unequivocally despised by everyone but simple-minded nonentities. Excuse me; that’s not entirely correct. What I meant to say is that I admit I have a tendency to become a bit insensitive whenever I rebuke Hugh7 for trying to take away our sense of community and leave us morally adrift. While I am desirous of mending this tiny personality flaw, Hugh7 apparently believes that national-security interests can and should be sidestepped whenever his personal interests are at stake. You and I know better than that. You and I know that Hugh7 does, occasionally, make a valid point. But when he says that his calumnies prevent smallpox, that’s where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins.
Hugh7 should pay for his mistakes. Now, I could go off on that point alone, but his faculty for deception is so far above anyone else’s, it really must be considered different in kind as well as in degree. The illiterate nature of his demands distracts us from the real lessons we could learn from a rigorous critique of Hugh7’s ruses. It’s that simple.
I would be grateful if Hugh7 would take a little time from his rigorous schedule to disabuse him of the notion that he is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative. Of course, pigs will grow wings and fly before that ever happens. He accuses me of being hate-filled, yet it is he who is filled with hate. And he accuses me of being bigoted, while his manuscripts show nothing but bigotry. Why does Hugh7 make those sorts of accusations, then? Apparently, even know-it-all Hugh7 doesn’t know the answer to that one. It wouldn’t even matter if he did, given that by writing this letter, I am unmistakably sticking my head far above the parapet. The big danger is that Hugh7 will retaliate against me. He’ll most likely try to force me to stampede into the abattoir although another possibility is that his proxies are unified under a common goal. That goal is to jawbone aimlessly.
If Hugh7 were to use more accessible language then a larger number of people would be able to understand what he’s saying. The downside for Hugh7, of course, is that a larger number of people would also understand that he says that arriving at a true state of comprehension is too difficult and/or time-consuming. You know, I don’t think I have heard a less factually based statement in my entire life.
It has long been obvious to attentive observers that Hugh7 considers it fair game to demand that Earth submit to the dominion of careless moral weaklings. But did you know that I’ve never encountered anything as cocky as Hugh7’s remonstrations? Hugh7 doesn’t want you to know that because if his hatchet men are frightened that he might support those for whom hatred has become a way of life in a lustrum or two, they have only themselves to blame. Think about it, and I’m sure you’ll agree with me.
Hugh7 discounts important principles of our culture as mere platitudes. Whatever weight we accord to that fact, we may be confident that if Hugh7 could have one wish, he’d wish for the ability to play the blame game. Then, people the world over would be too terrified to acknowledge that Hugh7 sometimes puts himself in charge of making my blood curdle. At other times, one of his devotees is deputed for the job. In either case, Hugh7’s followers are a subspecies of those rotten social outcasts whose malignant fulminations and clueless wheelings and dealings have become the stuff of legend. That’s clear. But Hugh7 wants to deprive people of dignity and autonomy. You know what groups have historically wanted to do the same thing? Fascists and Nazis.
What really irks me is that Hugh7 has presented us with a Hobson’s choice. Either we let him throw away our freedom, our honor, and our future or he’ll spawn a society in which those with the most deviant lifestyle, avaricious behavior, or personal failures are given the most by the government. Whenever there’s an argument about his devotion to principles and to freedom, all one has to do is point out that I’d like people who require schoolchildren to be taught that academicism is the only alternative to anarchism to find themselves behind bars, looking out. That should settle the argument pretty quickly.
Of course, I’m generalizing a little here. But that’s only because profligate witlings often act with a mob mentality. I don’t think anyone questions that. But did you know that we must put our religious and factional differences aside if we are ever to take a proactive, rather than a reactive, stance?
There is an open consensus that at the end of this journey, I want to be able to say that I tried my best to call people to their highest and best, not accommodate them at their lowest and least. Added to this is something else: Hugh7’s rank-and-file followers are too lazy to fix our sights on eternity. They just want to sit back, fasten their mouths on the public teats, and casually forget that when Hugh7’s vapid utterances are translated into plain, words-mean-things English, he appears to be saying that his whinges will spread enlightenment to the masses, nurture democracy, reestablish the bonds of community, bring us closer to God, and generally work to the betterment of Man and society. For me, this venal, rummy moonshine serves only to emphasize how some people I know say that Hugh7 and his hirelings are the most nit-picky snollygosters you can imagine — and even then, only in your worst nightmares. Others argue that he is living in a dream world. At this point the distinction is largely academic given that Hugh7 says that he is a paragon of morality and wisdom. This is at best wrong. At worst, it is a lie.
Be careful not to be charmed by Hugh7’s publicity stunts. All they do is create an atmosphere that may temporarily energize or exhilarate, but which, at the same time, will pose the gravest of human threats. Hugh7’s confidants say, “Hugh7’s decisions are based on reason.” Yes, I’m afraid they really do talk like that. It’s the only way for them to conceal that Hugh7 takes things out of context, twists them around, and then neglects to provide decent referencing so the reader can check up on him. He also ignores all of the evidence that doesn’t support (or in many cases directly contradicts) his position. Lastly, I can’t end this letter without mentioning that Hugh7’s behavior is very dangerous and very destructive.
My original goal for this letter was to scrutinize Hugh7’s remarks point by point. Unfortunately, Hugh7’s focus wanders so wildly that he never actually finishes any of his points. I think you will notice this in the ensuing discussion. To organize my discussion, I suggest that we take one step back in the causal chain and make a cause célèbre out of exposing Hugh7’s diatribes for what they really are. Hugh7 accuses me of being hate-filled, yet it is he who is filled with hate. And he accuses me of being bigoted, while his calumnies show nothing but bigotry. Why does Hugh7 make those sorts of accusations, then? On the surface, it would seem to have something to do with the way that Hugh7 embraces alarmism with open arms. But upon further investigation one will find that he, already oppressive with his foolish shell games, will perhaps be the ultimate exterminator of our human species — if separate species we be — for his reserve of unguessed horrors could never be borne by mortal brains if loosed upon the world. If you think that that’s a frightening thought then consider that there are those who are informed and educated about the evils of egotism, and there are those who are not. Hugh7 is one of the uninformed, naturally, and that’s why he is stepping over the line when he attempts to fleece people out of their life’s savings — way over the line.
Hugh7 desperately wants to be fashionable. I mean, think about it. His shock troops portray themselves as fervent believers in freedom of speech and expression but are loath to reveal that it must be stated quite categorically that Hugh7 is offended by anything that might suggest that his viewpoints are a blatantly obvious and cleverly orchestrated script, carefully concocted to encourage blockish beggars (especially the anal-retentive type) to see themselves as victims and, therefore, live by alibis rather than by honest effort. Am I aware of how Hugh7 will react when he reads that last sentence? Yes. Do I care? No, because many people have witnessed him mobilize support for the special interests that dominate state and private activity. Hugh7 generally insists that his witnesses are mistaken and blames his cuckoo smear tactics on effrontive suborners of perjury. It’s like he has no-fault insurance against personal responsibility. What’s more, when I was a child, my clergyman told me, “Hugh7 uses people and destroys lives without compunction.” If you think about it you’ll see his point.
I guess what I really mean to say is that Hugh7’s satraps acquiesce with bovine stolidity when he instructs them to revile everything in the most obscene terms and drag it into the filth of the basest possible outlook. Of course, this sounds simple, but in reality, the real issue is simple: There’s a special, dark corner of Hell for the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Hugh7. In that respect, we can say that some day, his obstinate lackeys may ask you why you think it’s a good idea to detail the specific steps and objectives needed to thwart Hugh7’s juvenile little schemes. If you’re too stunned to answer immediately they’ll answer for you, probably stating that going through the motions of working is the same as working. You should therefore be prepared to tell these blinkered heretics that Hugh7’s idea of immature nativism is no political belief. It is a fierce and burning gospel of hatred and intolerance, of murder and destruction, and the unloosing of a vitriolic, unforgiving blood-lust. It is, in every sense, a sleazy and pagan religion that incites its worshippers to a duplicitous frenzy and then prompts them to heat the cauldron of terror until it boils over into our daily lives.
Frankly, in asserting that phallocentrism is the key to world peace, Hugh7 demonstrates an astounding narrowness of vision. He has never disproved anything I’ve ever written. Hugh7 does, however, often try to discredit me by means of flagrant misquotations, by attributing to me views that I’ve never expressed. In the end, I know more about terrorism than most people. You might even say that I’m an expert on the subject. I can therefore state with confidence that Hugh7 frequently avers his support of democracy and his love of freedom. But one need only look at what Hugh7 is doing — as opposed to what he is saying — to understand his true aims.
Here’s an idea: Instead of giving Hugh7 the ability to sow the seeds of discord, why don’t we provide a trenchant analysis of his ideas? If we do, we’ll then be able to bring strength to our families, power to our nation, and health to our cities. He truly believes that space gods arriving in flying saucers will save humanity from self-destruction. I hope you realize that that’s just a worthless pipe dream from a dastardly pipe and that in the real world, Hugh7 has declared that he’s staging a revolt against everyone who dares to let him know, in no uncertain terms, that nothing agitates and humiliates him more than when I direct our efforts toward clearly defined goals and measure progress toward those goals as frequently and as objectively as possible. Hugh7’s revolting all right; the very sight of him turns my stomach. All kidding aside, if there’s an untold story here, it’s that if I wanted to brainwash and manipulate a large segment of the population, I would convince them that the kids on the playground are happy to surrender to the school bully. In fact, that’s exactly what Hugh7 does as part of his quest to make higher education accessible only to those in the higher echelons of society. When I observe Hugh7’s mercenaries’ behavior, I can’t help but recall the proverbial expression, “monkey see, monkey do”. That’s because, like him, they all want to transform our whole society to suit his own loud interests. Also, while a monkey might think that Hugh7 is a martyr for freedom and a victim of colonialism, the fact remains that he is the grand master of obfuscation and misdirection. Well, that’s getting away from my main topic, which is that if I were to compile a list of Hugh7’s forays into espionage, sabotage, and subversion, it would fill an entire page and perhaps even run over onto the following one. Such a list would surely make
That sums it up for me.
Well, sure, yeah, but don’t you have the full version?
These executive summaries just piss me off…
mikey
Circumcised Penis: Man, I was ready to leave because I don’t think we belonged here in this type of forum but it keeps going. Yeah the discussion has had way too many burs. This subject does affect identities everywhere. Your moniker indicates.
NOW: If you were including me in your comments about associates, just realize I’m a lackey to no one. If you want to discuss the ‘issue’ which never got off the starting blocks I will, though I’ve stated it does not belong here and the regular people here are not a part of larger social discussion. You sound different.
All that medical stuff is bull-shit though their compiled science is valid. My strength is in the various forms of Munchausen Syndrome. Anything beyond simple Munchausen is a crime with a victim. I don’t care what your strength is.
If you think you are up to the task to seriously discuss the issue in the form of Peer Review repetition is a drag, so please prepare yourself first by going to http://www.salem-news.com/mostcomments.php?period=365 Then click on the top article by Van Lewis. Even that blog didn’t meet par, but the best.
If not, that’s more than fine with me because you probably feel it shouldn’t be here also.
Choose wisely. Your comment on science shows your weakness and indicates a probable hidden bias. If you are biased in either direction just say so. Motivations eventually become clear. And all-immune personal freedoms do not apply when it comes to children – adults are a different matter and should do as they will. James Monteleone in his “Recognition of Child Abuse for the Mandated Reporter” stated:
“Intent is not considered in reporting abuse; protection of the child is paramount.”
We can also continue at the above Salem Blog. Might be best. Maybe we can educate each other. Your hyperbole made some interesting connections I’m not familiar with. I’m open – even to Hugh’s Meme theory which I found very good.
But watch yourself. Your connection through Collective Transmission, to elicit empathy and bonding, regarding Hitler and Stalin who were true assholes can be mirrored right back at you regarding this issue. If you don’t want to discuss and have some free time check out Robert Lifton’s “Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide.” His concept of Doubling applies to both sides of the German experience.
AND I do AGREE with you on anger. Anger is the second stage in Elisabeth Kubler-Ross’s book “On Death and Dying.” Denial is the first stage. Her concept is common in many forms of physical and psychological trauma. Anger is a normal expression, should be kept within the Self or expressed when alone, and can get pretty rough especially in bringing violence to others. The problem with anger is that it keeps being recycled within the individual. Often there is a cooling off period between events and a stressor, whatever it may be, will bring it out again.
Sometimes that stressor can be goaded by others, the anger is then expressed, and then the others can point fingers and laugh, ridicule and whatever. I probably elicited anger by participating. Anger can become like a ball being tossed back and forth.
You even showed anger, not righteous indignation, that this social subject was even discussed as much, if not more, than you were concerned about Hugh’s anger. Never that this type of discussion didn’t belong here. Hidden censorship? Child molesters often tell their victims not to say anything about what happened. Don’t give me that impression of you.
Circumcision is a Munchausen acculturated form of child abuse and molestation with many moods and motivations where the vast majority of participants throughout history are innocently involved and do not realize what’s going on or what has happened. But some individuals narcissistically use it as well as some in the professions and in cultures. Genital rituals involving both sexes are common all over the world. That aspect has NEVER been here and my attitude has been very light because I feel sarcasm is a main factor here.
I feel your comment about associates includes me and is an obtuse derision and challenge. I accept because of that feeling. But, actually someone should post “Enough!”
“We are all crazy when angry.” Philemon.
All that was missing was the Summer Glau signature.
You like me, you really like me! (Goes into group hug with batty bruta fulmina.)
Summer Glau: Thanks. Yes- for both sides. Picking fly shit out of pepper. Nature of the beast. Sorry I can’t say “Sadly, No!” Keep pouring water and making mud out of the mix. Refreshing from its usual skreed. Gives a new Line of Sight on the ol’ to serious rods and cones.
Circumcised Penis: Your silence speaks volumes in “Enough!”
From mind-like Gordian Knot,
So, alas, his wad’s been shot.
He could only spew forth snot,
With Doomed piece that’s truly naught.
Group: “Live long and prosper.”
DickMatt,
Your comment may have been TLDR, but Circumcised Penis has at least thrice your word count, and Summer Glau is the type that goes for length. Plus, it’s in english.
“Circumcised Penis has at least thrice your word count,”
Sure he has, it goes Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V, Ctrl+V, Ctrl+V, Ctrl+V, Ctrl+V, Ctrl+V, Ctrl+V, Ctrl+V, Ctrl+V, Ctrl+V, Ctrl+V, Ctrl+V, Ctrl+V, Ctrl+V, (as I just did)
Sure he has, it goes Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V,
Over your heads again.
Aww. And here I thought this thread would also go on forever.
Oh well.
Penis!
Ha. I will forever be longer. Muahaha.
Hey! Who wants to bring this thing back? Anyone?
No one? Oh well.
This thread was invoked by Substance McGravitas in the comments of Lawyer Guns and Money on November 1 2011.
Maybe you will get your wish!
Happy anniversary, Foreskin Holocaust thread!