Amazon.com Widgets

« Michael Moore | Main | Excuses »

Sex in the City

What is it about this country that it gets the giggles and then is offended by the most innocuous things. It would be nice if it could just grow the fuck up.




Quicktime Video 1 MB : 00:01:13
Quicktime 7 required
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.

Late Late Show w/Craig Ferguson

 

Comments

I've always said, we really need to do something about that horrible Washington monument.

What about the Clinton monument? (Futurama reference).

user-pic

Wouldn't it speak for progress if this were the top news story that preempted Paris Hilton?

If you see penises in a post you clearly need more sex baby.

They look like penises.... hahahaha.

Now imagine how many people walking past those say exactly that..... helps clarify how Bush became preseident.

They are transferring. It is much more offensive to see Bush and Cheney, who are worse dickheads.

You are a child nation, with big guns.

HahaHA.. This can't be true. Sadomasochistic poles? What next? Only in the United States.

I've seen these things for many, many years on the campus where I work. Honestly, like Craig, I never thought about their phallic significance - but, of course, it is obvious. Now will come the really stupid part: I'll bet the city coughs up plenty of money to get rid of these things. This country has lot's of people who are offended at anything that brings up 'bad' thoughts. (Remember how the pert breast on "Spirit of Justice" got John Ashcroft's juices sloshing around? For a while, some drapes enabled me to concentrate on Jusctice department news announcements. Now some sex fiend has uncovered her boobie again and I'm in a lather.)

user-pic

In Oslo is a park, Frognerparken, surrounded by friezes and statues of the naked human form. Families go there for picnics. It's a beautiful park in a beautiful city. When I visited, my first thought was, not even one of these friezes or sculptures would be permitted in a city park in the US without being protested, defiled or destroyed. My country is a tortured adolescent when it comes to sex.

Priceless, I wish furgeson was this funny all the time, he's hit and miss mostly

user-pic

You are a child nation, with big guns.

we got loud guitars and quiet suspicions

great big guns and small ambitions

and we still argue over who is god- sheryl crow

i think real penises with those chains and such are funnier.

user-pic

btw, the real reason no one in europe would give these things a second glance is cuz they ain't circumsized over there. :)

Jonathan,

Not to quibble over details, but when erect I don't think that an uncircumcised penis looks all that much different from a circumcised one.

Maybe I'm wrong.

Takes off to google images of circumcised vs uncircumcised penises

Oh geez..

There's nothing special about genitalia. A penis is no different than a hand -- they're both functioning parts of a human body.

This is what religion does to people.

Perhaps during the Christmas season someone will see fit to decorate them. A pair of brightly colored balloons anchored at the base of each would do the trick.

user-pic

jo ann, does the word "turtleneck" mean anything to you?

i can't believe i'm doing this. never mind. :)

user-pic

some francophile you turned out to be. :)

Yes, Norm, balloons! :) Could be a good campaign for safe sex.

Jonathan, I googled it and I'm right. My francophile status is safe. :)

http://healthystrokes.com/circumcision.html

They both look the same when they're erect. When not erect, you can see the entire head of the circumcised penis but only the head of an uncircumcised penis, kind of like it's hooded. It's not clear how it affects masturbation, but uncircumcised guys tend to masturbate more often. It might be they enjoy it more.

user-pic

well, ahem, my penis theory, ahem. a penis is...

ok, i quit. pardon me if i don't go to your jerkoff website. and stay outta malibu, lebowski!

user-pic

Mr. Pecker:

Circum-sized? What? Herm-Afro-what nation? You claimed you were 6,000 miles away. Were you on tour in the Amazon* or something. :{

Sorry about the misspelling, my accent sump-types slips into spell-link errors. The aspirated "p" was always a sore point (leading to overcompensate on occasion). On the other hand, I can pull out more glottal stops than a Cockney (A Caught What? With a 'k' sound, sounds more on topic dun't' it?).

.

.

*Amazon, i.e. "Breastless," yeah.

Fucking fascist!

And this ain't no damned beach community, ya hear?

user-pic

Sorry, no offense intended consciously!

one evil axis...

I was responding to Mr Pecker, not you. ;)

It's a goofy reference to lebowski. No offense intended by me either.

user-pic

Well, okay, but wear is the website? Art? Which one? I don't know anything about Lebowski except his size.

user-pic

There was a Thai Buddhist Temple with swastikas all around the perimeter in Malibu I think. Somebody came in the night with a blow torch and removed them, leaving gaping holes.

And isn't that fascist Ken Starr out there now? "Teaching".

user-pic

you guys is perty funny. i wonder now if anyone- maybe norm, the british humor afficionado- got the monty python reference- ahem, my brontosaurus theory, ahem...

and why does my spelling suck so very hard? oh, i know- peckers can't spell. but i'm too proud to use spellcheck.

AND furthermore... i think amazons were only half-breastless. but i realize i should be gentle with a poor soul who's never seen the big lebowski.

The university I attended used the swastika

Borrowed from the Navajo

user-pic

but somehow i had a feeling jo ann was an appreciater of said work of modern genius by the great coen borthers, and i was right. finally. about something.

Just trow a burqa over them problem solved.

and i was right. finally. about something.

Awwww... Do you need a hug? :)

user-pic

you'd have to have pretty long arms. but it's people like you that make pathetic plays for acceptance worthwhile.

no, something this blog misses in all the foofaraw. there are really only two kinds of people in the world- hippies and bikers. i was born a hippie, but converted to bikerism a long time ago. we're not allowed to fraternize. :)

except at dead concerts. :)

I have very long arms.

Alas, I am a hippie. A hopeless hippie. Not too popular these days.

The heat of the desert of New Mexico.. that's my excuse

Don't these cement post resemble those ubiquitous trashcans? I don't recall an uproar about them. but then I guess they aren't as common as they once were.

A hopeless hippie. Not too popular these days.

Hearing hippie used as a derogitory word always galls me, Though I guess it always has been.

I suppose people with ideals like peace, love, & freedom should be lined up & shot shouldn't they?

Oops I forgot to had....filthy commies.

err....add not had

user-pic

Here is an article from today in German about an illustrator of children's books whose books are international bestsellers. She has canceled plans to get one of her books published in the States because she was unwilling to censor it. Smokers should be made disappear, as well as the picture of a nude woman and the (micro) penis of a 7 millimeter small statue. "That much nudity cannot be imposed on American children". The headline reads "Mikropenis erregt US-Verlag". Verlag = publisher, erregt = arouse/ agitate.

http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/literatur/0,1518,493297,00.html

They don't need to remove the posts or decorate them, they just need to rename the street Dirk Diggler Boulevard.

Back in India they'd have made an impromtu shrine to worship them!

Craig Ferguson was hilarious!

user-pic

Oh, bollards....

I've at least a couple of those around here (Minnesota), and gasp no one gives a damn. Where is our outrage??? First they tolerate amusingly phallic cement posts, next thing you know, stoned, Mexican queers will be in your gated suburban community, selling homemade ecstasy and performing back-alley abortions to appease Moloch.

maybe norm, the british humor afficionado- got the monty python reference-

That's a bollard and not a parrot.

Wow, I hope no-one from that town ever go to Belgium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manneken_Pis

Or Florence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelangelo's_David

Reminds me of that Simpson's episode where they boycott the Michelangelo's David tour...

user-pic

Well, yes, well done city planning department, you've found the all American solution. Collar them and chain them down. Don't you all feel safer now?

Funny thing about the sexually repressed, they have the ability to see sex every where. Your basic description of a dirty mind.

Same way yer average Moslem fundy sees sex in absolutely anything.

Why are the the 'good' religous folks always so damned filthy minded?

I larf in your general direction. Take that.

well, ahem, my penis theory, ahem. a penis is...

thin at one end and much, much thicker in the middle?

Jo Ann (and whomever else),

An erect, uncircumcised penis does not look the same as an erect circumcised penis unless the foreskin is manually retracted (just like in the flaccid state). The idea is that upon contact with the vaginal opening, the foreskin will brush against the inner vaginal walls and retract back the further it is inserted (to look like a circumcised penis when fully inserted), and this retraction makes insertion much easier and more comfortable for the female (in most cases) because the foreskin acts as an "insertion device" as it retracts. Theoretically, an uncircumcised male, in combination with the natural lubrication provided by the female's Skene's glands and the male's Cowper fluid (from the Cowper's glands), does not require any additional lubrication (store-bought, water, whatever...).

A circumcised penis, on the other hand, has all the grace of a ramrod.

As you might have guessed, when masturbating, an uncircumcised male can simply use his foreskin rather than any additional lubrication (water, lotion, whatever...)

Uncircumcised > circumcised.

You knew this was inevitable:

These structures are coming everywhere. Thank you, thank you, Norm can ban me now.

Back in India they'd have made an impromtu shrine to worship them!

The Kaiser city Shaivite community is obviously running a viral campaign for the upcoming Sivaraatri celebrations. Quite creative I must say.

user-pic

interesting. according to what you say, firi (and i don't agree with your final conclusion) it seems rape, without the use of additional lubricant would be difficult or impossible for a circumcized male. since this doesn't seem to be the case, how do you explain this?

Yes alamandrax, and I'm pretty sure Shiva would approved of S&M as well!

I'm pretty sure Shiva would approved of S&M as well!

True, but I'm not sure the place where he shops for his equipment would be really popular (or considered humane) in most countries these days. Snakes for one. Besides, the whole idea of spreading the ashes from crematoriums on one's body is not that appealing or alluring, no matter how much into it you are.

"since this doesn't seem to be the case, how do you explain this?"

I never said that it was impossible for a circumcised male to have sex sans lubrication. Rape? Just ram it in.

Also, being uncircumcised is much better than circumcised. They try to scare you with smegma ("cheese") and all that, but if you're a normal person and bathe at least once per 24-hour period, it's not a problem at all whatsoever.

Circumcision is mutilation; it began with religion. Religion fails.

I think I recall you saying that you/your family is Jewish or whatever. This is probably why you disagree, but I'm here to tell you that you and your Jew kin are incorrect.

Yes, there are cases where foreskin is medically removed for one reason or another, but this is rare and hardly a reason for it to be routine.

AIDS? What a weak argument. This like saying, "Well, to decrease the likelihood of arthritis, I'll just excise one of my hands." Cutting things off is not the preventative solution to AIDS or anything else.

user-pic

Rape? Just ram it in.

if you are as familiar with the design of the penis as you seem to be, you would know that just "ramming it in" to anything unlubricated,without a foreskin to provide "slippage" is a distinctly painful experience for the male. this may be the origin of claims that circumcized men are more sensitive lovers. the only "superiority" i can see in having a foreskin is the ability to enjoy the physics of sex (for the man only, of course) without, as you said, any lubrication.

neither i nor any other (thinking) jew would argue that circumcision is a superior state of affairs merely because it was done to us as infants without our consent. if you truly believe it to be so terrible, your attitude about it reeks of disdain for the handicapped. :) i would make the argument that its better for women, on a number of levels (for instance, removing those nerves and baring the glans to scarring decreases the likelyhood of premature ejaculation), but at worst it's no "handicap".

i didn't mention smegma, or religion, or aids, so i don't know where you're getting this stuff.

my position, unlike the way you tried to present it, is that there are advantages and disadvantages to both the circumcized and uncircumcized conditions. you didn't answer my question, which is based on the simple fact that yanking on the piece of skin that connects the glans to the shaft underneath (i'm sure there's a biological term for it) is distinctly painful, in fact it tears pretty easily when you don't have a foreskin to slide back and forth over it.

finally, i must assume you're not against mutilation per se, which is an extremely popular fetish in our modern society (piercings, etc.) but mutilation of an infant too young to choose. this, while certainly a legitimate point, is a different issue from whether or not its "worse" to be so "mutilated".

That was so funny omg.

"if you are as familiar with the design of the penis as you seem to be [. . .] painful experience for the male."

I'm sure it is, but I doubt that males care much about who's comfortable when they've just beaten down a woman and are attempting to have sex with her. And who is to say that they don't bring some kind of lubrication along with them? For all I know, they could use the woman's blood from one of the wounds I'm sure she's accrued.

It seems like you almost tried to make an argument for circumcision with rape in mind. I know you probably didn't mean this, but in reality, who cares what a foreskin does to people who rape people. You're not planning to rape anyone anytime soon are you? Why not stick to consenting adults, instead...

i would make the argument that its better for women [. . .] but at worst it's no "handicap".

Premature ejaculation is not a problem at all. Unless one just fiercely and unrelentingly copulates, an uncircumcised male has just as much control over when he ejaculates as a circumcised male (it might be slightly less, but it's certainly not an issue). I actually can't believe you said what you said, that removing the nerves somehow makes sex better. I know that you put this in the context of the woman, but as I already pointed out, the foreskin makes the experience more comfortable for the woman in most cases. Ask any uncircumcised male with a properly-functioning foreskin what he thinks about someone removing it from him, and I can guarantee you that he will deny almost any reasonable offer proposed.

If an uncircumcised male is worried about sensitivity, though, then just wear a condom. The condom takes away some of the sensitivity and stops the foreskin from functioning properly (because it's now wrapped in plastic), which basically makes it the same as a circumcised penis. Uncircumcised males have this choice: use the foreskin or not (via a condom). Circumcised males have to cope without the foreskin and that extra sensitivity in all cases, condom or not. Surely this cannot be the better state.

"my position, unlike the way you tried to present it, is that there are advantages and disadvantages to both the circumcized and uncircumcized conditions."

I can't think of a single advantage to being circumcised, unless you count the poor examples of smegma, AIDS, and the like. These are hardly issues, though. Foreskin or not, if someone has sex with a person with AIDS, chances are pretty high that he will contract the condition, himself, unless he uses extreme precautions.

"you didn't answer my question..."

I did answer your question: I don't really know, and who cares, anyway? If you want to know what it's like for a rapist to copulate, perhaps an investigation should be done on those already in prison for the act. I cannot think of any investigations of this sort already existing. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to understand it in some way and maybe there is more to be learned. Who knows?

"finally, i must assume you're not against mutilation per se [. . .] whether or not its "worse" to be so "mutilated".

I, personally, am against all mutilation: piercings, tattoos, and the rest. Of course, that's just me. If consenting people want to remove their entire genitalia and pierce and tattoo the remains, then go for it. I'm a firm believer that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others (there are exceptions to this, of course). I do agree, though, that denying a male the right to his own anatomy before he has a say is wrong. Is it a different issue, though? Maybe at the core, but if they were separate issues, people would circumcise their children with the mindset of, "In my opinion, being circumcised is better than not, regardless of what the "circumcisee" thinks because that's a different issue." This happens everyday, and it's flawed.

I'm not trying to attack you or your beliefs or anything of the sort, and I respect you, but I just cannot see the point with circumcision. There is no good reason to circumcise anyone, just a series of bad ones.

Oh yeah, well my penis is better than your penis!

user-pic

firi, i guess we'll have to agree to disagree on some of these things. still, i don't think our positions are that far apart. remember, i'm arguing a posteriori here. a priori, i agree that no one should, say, blind themselves just because it's been proven to increase hearing and touch sensitivity. leaving religious commands out of it (which i assume we may safely do in this forum) i also see no reason for circumcicision. i've always wondered why american hospitals routinely perform the operation on infants.

thanks for your careful and well-reasoned reply.

"remember, i'm arguing a posteriori here."

So was I, mostly. I intertwined it around my own knowledge a bit, but if you search around the internet or library or what have you, you will find that the majority of doctors and experts say that there's no need for circumcision at all.

"The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says the benefits of circumcision are not significant enough to recommend circumcision as a routine procedure and that circumcision is not medically necessary." Source: http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/home/men/reproductive/042.html

When I say that there is really no reason to circumcise a child, I based it on studies, not my own beliefs.

Besides, one could prevent stuff like this from happening: http://www.infocirc.org/fourn.htm

Sure, I know it's rare, but it's 100% avoidable, too.

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives