« General Expression Of Bewilderment | Main | Best. Website. Evar. »

June 06, 2007

Comments


Squamous?

"Hello, I'm Doctor Lovecraft, and I'll be your gynocologist today. Let's take a look at your rugose chthonic pore now, shall we?"

You loved "Brownie" at FEMA, but our new surgeon-general is even more qualified for his job!

What I want to know is: where are all the denunciations of trombone players? After all, a mouth is not designed to play a trombone (but to eat and talk). It is not natural to play a trombone: no animal does it or wants to do it. Why are am we allowing this blatant misuse of a body part to be taught to children?

(Don't get me started about walking on your hands).

Obviously a linkage between all that labial elephant flap reconstructions those women are doing for their own pleasure that Hilzoy mentioned in an earlier post. Thank god a real manly man is here to tell us which end is up and which is down, so to speak.

I'm afraid I'll have to reread the rules on posting before I comment on this thread. Not for anatomical reasons, I just find it difficult to express myself civilly on this one.
One thing, am I correct in assuming the 'Agnew 1986' he uses for reference is Spiro Agnew, who, I must admit, did have some relevant experience in that area?

Maybe, on the other hand, he thinks that penises are sharp and pointed. Who can say?

Purely in the interest of pedantic fairness, he did say "Large, sharp or pointed." As you know, all of us men have large penises.

Dr. James W. Holsinger is George W. Bush's nominee to be Surgeon General. He has already come under fire for anti-gay bias, founding a church…

Full stop. You had me at “founding a church” in your second sentence. The rest was entertaining and well worth your effort however. ;)

Maybe, on the other hand, he thinks that penises are sharp and pointed. Who can say?

Where's the play-doh, bacon and HR Geiger when you need 'em?

This is completely nuts. Why is it again that science and politics are unrelated?

If I thrust a sharp knife into my mouth, it could cause serious damage.
Therefore, Holsinger must oppose women giving blow jobs.

Fraser bite your tongue....

And what about penetration by cigar? ;-)

OCSteve, you should always read to the end of the sentence: founding a church that ministers to "people who no longer wish to be gay or lesbian".

I can't fit all my snark into a comment thread. Because it's simply too large, sharp, and pointed.

If he even makes it out of committee, I will make sure I never vote again. Well, probably not that drastic. Besides, I am sure he will probably be a recess appointment.

Moliere is begging God to let him come back down, just to write one play...puh-leazzzze.

Seriously, it's as if the man goes out of his way to choose the nominee with the greatest comic potential.

The man who nominated him also has some rather peculiar ideas about vaginal-insertions:

"OB-GYN's aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country." Pres. GWB, 9/7/2004

It probably took him a while to find a potential nominee for Surgeon General who agreed with his notion that all the best obstetricians are serial rapists.

Does "The Daily Show" or "The Onion" even NEED staff writers with this stuff happening?!

The real evidence that 'god' exists is that only a supreme being could pull a joke as good as this one!

So, in making this nomination, is Bush
a) planning to have a Surgeon General's Report that gay sex is a health risk, and/or
a') gay-baiting all us liberal types to rouse a counterattack by his base?

or is he just

b) rewarding a subordinate who screwed up by promoting him, as is his wont, without even having the thought of checking his qualifications or political positions begin to consider the possibility of entering his mind? (hat tip to Douglas Adams)

Inquiring minds want to know.

Purely in the interest of pedantic fairness, he did say "Large, sharp or pointed." As you know, all of us men have large penises.

If my penis is all three, does that cancel out?

The guy's almost certainly an expert on the physiology of the rectum. That's where his head is.

Can't wait till one of this guy's ex-sexbuddies sings to the tune of the Ted Haggard saga.

Hillzoy,

Was reading Sullivan, saw your post.

This is pretty embarrasing for you, not Holsinger.

Holsinger asserts, in essence: "The butt is not, physiologically, made to be penetrated."

There are two proper responses:

1. Agree
2. Disagree: The butt is in fact physiologically made to be penetrated. Here's why........

Instead, you take a ridiculous, embarrasing detour -- well, the vagina is not made to be penetrated by certain things, too!!!!!

Let's keep it simple, free of any ambiguity or bias. (As a libertarian, I have no beef with homosexuals)

Most sane men at an early age realize that the butt is made for pooping, nothing else.

Now, should the law prevent consenting males from engaging in anal sex? Of course, not -- no need for any law.

Should the law prevent consenting males from marrying? Logically, I don't see why not.

But, is it physiologically a good idea to take it up the ass? Probably not. Probably, painful. Probably, tears a buncha tissue. Probably, increases risk of infection.

Please -- being liberal and tolerant doesn't justify being illogical, irrational and downright stupid.


Back in real science and medicine, this seems promising.

[...] The advance is an easy-to-use technique for reprogramming a skin cell of a mouse back to the embryonic state. Embryonic cells can be induced in the laboratory to develop into many of the body’s major tissues.

If the technique can be adapted to human cells, researchers could use a patient’s skin cells to generate new heart, liver or kidney cells that might be transplantable and would not be rejected by the patient’s immune system.

But, is it physiologically a good idea to take it up the ass? Probably not. Probably, painful. Probably, tears a buncha tissue. Probably, increases risk of infection.

Probably, does none of those things, if the people involved have a clue what they're doing. Which, Kendall Singh, you don't -- and I urge you not to sodomize, or be sodomized, until you get a clue.

As a libertarian, I have no beef with homosexuals

Libertarianism has nothing to do re: with whom you share your beef.

Anderson,

But, is it physiologically a good idea to take it up the ass? Probably not. Probably, painful. Probably, tears a buncha tissue. Probably, increases risk of infection.

Probably, does none of those things, if the people involved have a clue what they're doing

Wow, this is a brilliant riposte, Anderson;)

BTW, here's numerous scientific papers in the literature (quick search) showing excess risk of disease by virtue of anal sex.

(Source)

You have to be in dreamland to argue that anal and vaginal sex are physiologically equivalent.

Of course, it'd be better to argue, Yes, they are different, but so what? Informed consenting adults should do as they please.

"There are two proper responses"

Actually, there's one proper response, which is that humans haven't been designed, and thus no human part is "made" for a "purpose." "Adapted" to a task, to one degree or another, is a different concept.

As for the advisability of anal intercourse, setting aside that we don't seem to have had an epidemic of sufferers of consensual anal intercourse abuse showing up in hospitals, that I've heard about, most human activity involves wear and tear, including running and using one's knees, playing football, typing all day, bending over, drinking alcohol, and so on.

But is it physiologically a good idea to play football? Probably not. Probably, painful. Probably, tears a buncha tissue. Probably, increases risk of infection.

Perhaps people shouldn't be illogical, irrational and downright stupid by playing football, but the cost-benefit seems worth it to the players.

A lot of women find vaginal intercourse painful the first time, and sometimes, in cases where the male isn't careful, and the sizes are problematic, in subsequent times as well. I'm unclear that this indicates that vaginal intercourse is per se a bad idea.

But any conversation about such matters that refers to body parts being "made to [do something]" doesn't make much sense outside a theological presumption of intent.

Most sane men at an early age realize that the butt is made for pooping, nothing else.

"is made for..."? Do you have the original design specs to verify this?

By inspecting the actual apparatus in question, you might notice that there is a bundle of pleasure-sensing nerves around the prostate that can only be stimulated through the anal wall. It seems apparent that the design was clearly made with anal intercourse in mind, or else all of those nerves serve no purpose whatsoever!

I have to say, up to the troll, this has been one of the most entertaining comment threads ever. Um, dude, the whole point of the Holsinger paper was that since there is, in fact, no credible evidence that anal sex causes physiological problems, instead he had to resort to bogus "function follows form" reasonng. By the same reasoning, since your ass was also not made for xeroxing, you should stop repeatedly xeroxing it at the office on those long, dateless weekend nights, but something tells me you won't.

I wonder if Bush's obsession with offending gay people is yet another oedipal spasm. This time he's getting back at his Dad via Cheney, his Dad's contemporary and defense secretary, who happens to have a lesbian daughter and a lesbian-obsessed wife. Of course he can't challenge Cheney on foreign policy - too much of a wimp for that - so instead he does it this way.

Oh, and your "sources" are all about STDs, not physical damage.

Mr. Singh, you appear to my non-moderator eye to be in repeated violation of the posting rules. As you do not post regularly, you may not be aware of the rules, so I suggest you acquaint yourself with them.

As for the substance of your remarks,

Holsinger asserts, in essence: "The butt is not, physiologically, made to be penetrated."

Well, no. In my profession, we have a phrase "the document speaks for itself." It is easy enough to quote what Holsinger actually did say, and Hilzoy did just that. Then she responded to what he actually said, not what you appear to think he ought to have said or would have made a stronger case for himself by saying.

You are the only person who seems to be saying, "The butt is not, physiologically, made to be penetrated." You add that doing so is "Probably, painful. Probably, tears a buncha tissue. Probably, increases risk of infection." So, I will ask you, are you a doctor? You appear to imply that you are not actively homosexual, so I presume you haven't personally tried the activity in question. Do you have some other basis for your opinion?

And even if your opinion is correct, how does it invalidate the entirely separate points Hilzoy made?

As to "Most sane men at an early age realize that the butt is made for pooping, nothing else," I really don't know what basis you could possibly have for that statement. As noted on this thread, a considerable portion of men engage in anal sex, though mostly with women. Are they all insane? And even if the majority do not engage in anal sex (I'm not sure what the figures are), not engaging in the activity does not mean one thinks it improper. I myself never ski, but I don't seriously think that feet are not "meant" for sliding down ice. Mind you, though, that argument would be a lot easier to make than yours.

Argument from design leads me to the inexorable conclusion that masturbation is the most godly form of sexual gratification. I'm going to enlist Kirk Cameron to explain just how the circumference of the penis is perfectly matched to the grasp of the thumb and fingers, and how that can't have happened by chance, any more than a strap-on would spontaneously assemble itself out of atoms.

To argue other wise would be illogical, irrational and downright stupid.

Heavens to Murgatroyd.

Res ipsa loquitur, indeed.

Alex:

By inspecting the actual apparatus in question, you might notice that there is a bundle of pleasure-sensing nerves around the prostate that can only be stimulated through the anal wall. It seems apparent that the design was clearly made with anal intercourse in mind, or else all of those nerves serve no purpose whatsoever!

This is actually a good point! You have successfully rebutted (no pun intended) that crazed Dr. Holsinger.

Trilobite:

You appear to imply that you are not actively homosexual, so I presume you haven't personally tried the activity in question

Nah, I tried it once -- hurt like hell!

Lemme ask you fellows a base line question:

Do you think the nose was made to be penetrated by some guy's schvantz?

Myself, I think not. But, if some dudes get off on that kinda stuff, I don't really have a problem with it (as long as its consensual).

But, still, you can't tell me that it won't hurt your nose!!!

Substitute "nose" for "butt" and stop with all this ridiculous bleating. Jeez, with uncritical, dogmatic leftist, idiotic thinking like this, it's no wonder a man like George Bush can get elected in this country.

But, again, Alex, you do win the gold ring for insightful point, that if true, would give pause for thought. Why are those nerves there, if not to be stimulated?

Mr. Singh, I'll try being less snarky and more literal: lots of lube, patience in expanding the sphincter muscles, and elementary cleanliness -- and anal sex is no particular problem. You are not in a position to convince me otherwise.

Anderson,

I'm reminded of that old Waylon Jennings song--Looking for love in all the wrong places!

But, in all seriousness, does the fatal AIDS virus spread more thru anal sex or vaginal sex?

Whoda thunk buttsecks and lolcats would be the topics du jour @ ObWi?

Jeez, with uncritical, dogmatic leftist, idiotic thinking like this, it's no wonder a man like George Bush can get elected in this country.

Im in ur comments, ignorin ur posting rules.

KS: Since you seem genuinely fascinated with the ins and outs of the Hershey highway, I encourage you to check out Tristan Taormino's Pucker Up (NSFW). She provides a wealth of information about anal at her site. I'm sure you could find some satisfactory answers to your earnest queries there.

Taormino's book, The Ultimate Guide to Anal Sex for Women, is also invaluable. Haven't looked at the site in a whle.

Mr. Singh, the prevalence of anal or vaginal AIDS transmission is irrelevant to the issue of whether anal sex is safe. AIDS transmission in either venue, so to speak, results from failure to use condoms properly, etc.

mattbastard,

No. I'm just amazed at how otherwise smart people can become so ridiculously blinded by simple facts, just to ensure their liberal sensibilities are not offended. It's way counterproductive.

I say Libby does hard time, end the awful war in Iraq, get rid of Bush as soon as we can, legalize gay marriages -- all that good stuff. Hell, I don't want Dr. Holzinger to be the surgeon general -- he's probably some crazed, fanatical right-wing Christian.

But, telling me that butt sex is physiologically the same as normal sex -- sorry, it just ain't true.

I'm reminded of that old Waylon Jennings song--Looking for love in all the wrong places!

I don't think it's anal sex he's lamenting, however:

I was looking for love in all the wrong places

Looking for love in too many faces

In all seriousness, yes, anal sex has higher rates of infection for some diseases, and yes, it requires perhaps a bit more finesse than some forms of sex (and yet less than some others). So what? Sexual behavior is a spectrum, and each kind of behavior has its own set of risks and rewards. For example, to paraphrase Tina Fey, your ass can't get pregnant. And, I might add, nobody ever caught an STD from his own hand, something you can't say for what you call "normal" sex. Does this make oral and manual preferable to vaginal? I'd say that's strictly a matter of circumstance and personal taste.

But, telling me that butt sex is physiologically the same as normal sex -- sorry, it just ain't true.

See, the thing is, no one has said this except for you and the straw liberals in your head.

kendall singh, were fingers "made for" typing on keyboards?

You seem to not take the point that no part of living beings is "made" so as "to do" something.

Therefore specific claims that specific parts are "made" for specific purposes are nonsense.

"But, telling me that butt sex is physiologically the same as normal sex -- sorry, it just ain't true."

a) No one said that.

b) From what source of reasoning do you determine what is "normal" sex and abnormal sex?

c) An examination of your overall style and choice of topics here suggests the overwhelmingly strong possibility that your sole point here is to troll with the line that You Are A Great Liberal, But That Gay Sex Is Icky And Abnormal, and to insult anyone who doesn't instantly agree.

I might add, nobody ever caught an STD from his own hand, something you can't say for what you call "normal" sex.

Obviously, the fingers of my right hand are naturally designed as a stimulating receptacle for my penis.

Mr. Singh, you're right: vaginal sex is *not* physiologically the same as anal sex. One involves the vagina, the other involves the anus. Leaving me unclear what the significance of that point is.

(Really, I don't know why it's not "rectal sex" -- we don't call vaginal sex "vulval sex" -- but it's not something I intend to call my Congressman about.)

(Tho since he's Chip Pickering (R-MS), that would actually be a pretty fun call. Where's Father Sarducci when you need him?)

(And I'll let that be my last word on the subject, as I can sense continuing will only lead to derailment and pointless incivility on my part.)

But That Gay Sex Is Icky And Abnormal

Well, of course *that's* self-evidently true; whereas *heterosexual* anal sex is Teh Awsm!!!

Anderson: (Tho since he's Chip Pickering (R-MS), that would actually be a pretty fun call. Where's Father Sarducci when you need him?)

Thanks dude. I just spewed my dinner all over my monitor, and then almost died choking. That was too funny.

Gary Farber: c) An examination of your overall style and choice of topics here suggests the overwhelmingly strong possibility that your sole point here is to troll with the line that You Are A Great Liberal, But That Gay Sex Is Icky And Abnormal, and to insult anyone who doesn't instantly agree.

I actually think this is kind of unfair to kendall. I think his/her argument is deeply flawed, but I don't see anything there to suggest that it stems from homophobia. It's not inconsistent with a view that homosexuality per se is perfectly acceptable, but that certain sexual practices that are commonly identified with homosexuality are particularly risky and should therefore be discouraged. I'd say the benefit of the doubt is in order, at least.

That was too funny.

Sodomy brings out the best in me!

Gary,

No. Is "overwhelmingly stong possibility" even part of the english language?

I hate group think. I hate guilty, leftist posturing. I hate political correctness. It's dishonest.

It's one thing to say that the general advancement towards more freedoms and liberties for marginalized groups (blacks, women, disabled) should definitely include gays. I'm down with that.

It's another to say, with a straight face, and furthermore, Hey everybody, anal sex is healthy, natural and normal!

It's not -- but that's okay. Heteros are pretty much screwed up in many ways too.

Bottom Line: I like freedom. I don't wanna know what people do in their bedroom. That's their privacy. But, don't tell me the schvantz fits nicely in the butt. Sorry. Ain't gonna buy it.

And that's okay.

but that certain sexual practices that are commonly identified with homosexuality are particularly risky and should therefore be discouraged

Except that would be a really dumb thing to think, because just as vaginal sex with proper precautions is quite safe, so is anal sex. If someone cites the STD rates as evidence that vaginal sex is risky and should be avoided, is that plausible?

But, don't tell me the schvantz fits nicely in the butt. Sorry. Ain't gonna buy it.

Dude, you really should click that Taormino website; you'll be amazed at what does in fact fit nicely therein.

Okay, no more hogging the sodomy thread ...

kendall: Hey everybody, anal sex is healthy, natural and normal!

It is if you're doing it right.

But if your boyfriend's schvantz is too big for your butt, well, don't force it. Use plenty of lube. Or go for dildos! Plenty of guys have told me that works: ease up to the right size with trainers.

kendall: Hey everybody, anal sex is healthy, natural and normal!

It is if you're doing it right.

But, don't tell me the schvantz fits nicely in the butt. Sorry. Ain't gonna buy it.

I guess you're not doing it right.

Dammit, I didn't mean to double-post!

I guess fingers really weren't meant for typing on keyboards...

"Is 'overwhelmingly stong possibility' even part of the english language?"

"Stong" is a typo for "strong." It's the "English" language, if you enjoy that sort of point.

"I hate group think. I hate guilty, leftist posturing. I hate political correctness. It's dishonest."

Indeed, and it's so nice of you to find all that in people here, given your long experience with the commenters here, and your considerable knowledge of how generally guilty they are, how dishonest they are, how politically correct they are, and how much they posture.

It's another to say, with a straight face, and furthermore, Hey everybody, anal sex is healthy, natural and normal!

It's not -- but that's okay.

We've established that you believe anal sex is unhealthy, unnatural, and abnormal, I take it?

"But, don't tell me the schvantz fits nicely in the butt."

I haven't taken a survey, but there seem to be millions of men and women who feel it fits so nicely in the butt that they engage in putting it there week after week, for years.

Naturally, this doesn't speak to what you should personally enjoy, and what comfortably fits well, or not, with you.

I take it we've also established that you're fine with gay people, it's just that you believe that one of the most popular forms of sex that gay men engage in is unhealthy, unnatural, and abnormal? Please do correct me if I'm misunderstanding you in any way.

You do seem to be having a bit of trouble sticking to a single point, if your point isn't that Anal Sex Is Abnormal And Icky.

After all, when you ask "[b]ut, in all seriousness, does the fatal AIDS virus spread more thru anal sex or vaginal sex?," it's difficult to see how that speaks to the question of how well the body part "fits."

Of course, you stated your premise fairly clearly in your first comment:

Hillzoy,

Was reading Sullivan, saw your post.

This is pretty embarrasing for you, not Holsinger.

Holsinger asserts, in essence: "The butt is not, physiologically, made to be penetrated."

There are two proper responses:

1. Agree
2. Disagree: The butt is in fact physiologically made to be penetrated. Here's why........

Instead, you take a ridiculous, embarrasing detour -- well, the vagina is not made to be penetrated by certain things, too!!!!!

Let's keep it simple, free of any ambiguity or bias. (As a libertarian, I have no beef with homosexuals)

Most sane men at an early age realize that the butt is made for pooping, nothing else.

[...]

Please -- being liberal and tolerant doesn't justify being illogical, irrational and downright stupid.

So you call Hilzoy a bunch of names -- or, if you prefer, you call her post a bunch of names -- all in defense of your claim that -- as you so eloquently put it -- "the butt is made for pooping."

You then consistently disregard that the "made for" argument makes no sense absent a belief in a designed human.

And presumably anyone who disagrees with you is either not "sane" or -- oh no! -- not a "man."

Okay. Can't claim you're not providing entertainment value.

Why Spiro Agnew? It's an anagram of "grow a penis"

Anderson: Except that would be a really dumb thing to think, because just as vaginal sex with proper precautions is quite safe, so is anal sex. If someone cites the STD rates as evidence that vaginal sex is risky and should be avoided, is that plausible?

Yeah, it's a silly thing to think (which I've, myself, been pointing out elsewhere in this thread), but it might not necessarily be homophobic, is all I'm saying. It could be, but I don't see enough evidence yet to say it is.

All of this reminds me: The Avenue Q song "The Internet is for Porn" cracks me up.

I would object to the statement that one can't get an STD from one's right hand. Few STDs are transmitted exclusively by intercourse but can also be transferred by bad hygienic conditions. In other words, one can catch some of them by simply using a restroom where an infected person got a wee bit unhygienic, especially if one does not wash one's hands properly (as many indeed seem to do). The risk may be significantly lower but it is there.

Oh, way to go, Hartmut, way to eliminate one of the few advantages to being a virgin. I always figured if it burnt when I peed, it must just be oversalty urine or something... dang it.

Noumenon, maybe you should switch to being a noumenal virgin and a phenomenal slut.

Maybe it's just that he has the president's ear ? Let's face it,that there ear surely needs the insertion of something large and pointed.


His article also has an obvious omission: the refusal to discuss the pathology of pregnancy. (I'm not saying pregnancy is "pathological" in the vernacular sense.) If you are going to list, relatively honestly, and in detail, the pathology and risks of anal sex, why not compare it to the alternative? Instead we are left with "Penis fits in vagina, everyone knows this is true in all human cultures. End of story there." You have to be honest, especially if you'd have reason to believe, as this doctor had, that the document would be used by the church to argue one sidedly against homosexuality.

Bottom Line

What, no-one? Jeez.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad