|
|
 |
Agent 007 |
+ |
Wednesday, June 9, 2004 at 4:14 PM ...please note that this did NOT happen in FL, even though the link is to a Florida newspaper. The dateline is in Utah. It's not "Germany or Florida?" eligible.
—Agent 007 |
|
|
|
|
superhew |
+ |
Wednesday, June 9, 2004 at 4:16 PM so how does it become "Loveline Companion" eligible? —superhew |
|
|
|
|
NJC |
+ |
Wednesday, June 9, 2004 at 4:22 PM How many loveline callers think you mean 1-877-889-DATE when you say "the dateline"?
—NJC |
|
|
|
|
Agent 007 |
+ |
Wednesday, June 9, 2004 at 4:25 PM I think of this site as a repository for all things show-related, even if they wouldn't be on the show themselves. This is tangentially related, being that it has to do with molestation, abuse, etc. "Perfectly normal, perfectly healthy." —Agent 007 |
|
|
|
|
Logo Lou |
+ |
Wednesday, June 9, 2004 at 4:25 PM Hmm... has to be said: "Are you a Mormon?" Now excuse me while I go vomit... —Logo Lou |
|
|
|
|
NJC |
+ |
Wednesday, June 9, 2004 at 4:27 PM Thank you Anderson Logo Lou! Let me know when you're done in there :) —NJC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
superhew |
+ |
Wednesday, June 9, 2004 at 6:25 PM worthy of a good blowjob. i mean, some women cant get off with intercourse, so oral is perfectly healthy, perfectly normal! good times! —superhew |
|
|
|
|
dr ipod |
+ |
Wednesday, June 9, 2004 at 11:43 PM Hm. In Japanese culture its not uncommon for mothers or grandmothers to give oral to their young songs (usually before they hit puberty) as a way of congratulating them for good grades, and sometimes to put them to sleep. Maybe she was just trying to expose the kids to some culture!!! —dr ipod |
|
|
|
|
superhew |
+ |
Thursday, June 10, 2004 at 7:37 AM
Edited Thursday, June 10, 2004 at 7:44 AM ok i hope that is some kind of sick joke, because thas really fucking disgusting. —superhew |
|
|
|
|
Magnificent Bastard |
+ |
Thursday, June 10, 2004 at 8:35 AM  She has it all, yes she doesShe knows how to please in every detail And do it with style, she does it with me, oh yes she does
more jello please!—Magnificent Bastard |
|
|
|
|
Saffeau |
+ |
Thursday, June 10, 2004 at 10:01 AM Do you have any evidence to back up your claim about Japanese culture, ipod, or are you just spewing racist garbage again? —Saffeau |
|
|
|
|
ZT |
+ |
Thursday, June 10, 2004 at 1:11 PM I had the misfortune, many years ago, of taking a sociology of deviance class. And, yes, in some cultures (I think the book referenced some African cultures, and North American eskimo cultures ) its not uncommon for adults to jerk off their kids to help put them to sleep. I hadn't heard that it happened in Japan, or that it was also used as a way to congratulate their kids for good grades. God bless the japs for making some fun video games, but it really wouldn't suprise me if it happened over there. Most people take information like this out of context, though. Theres this mentaility some people have that if parents and children are blowing eachother in some primative culture, or maybe some culture that American's consider to be more educated -- like Japan, then any evidence people discover that implies parents and children blowing eachother is bad, becomes nullified. But, if you consider the reverse logic -- say some japanese business men (or some bush men from Africa) visited the United States and saw a bunch of American's sniffing glue. Then they figured since america is the richest country in the world that they should buy some glue and take it back to their country and sniff it, so that they might become wealthier... And, well, that pretty much explains the errors you find in all post-modern thought. Let's do what Adam suggests and go ahead and judge cultures. If those God damn japs are blowing their kids, lets be smart enough to realize that just makes them more fucked up. —ZT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sprewell |
+ |
Thursday, June 10, 2004 at 1:48 PM ZT, you lost me at the third paragraph; time to edit your post. I think you're saying that postmodernists do not allow you to judge actions like blowing your children or sniffing glue as bad, as other cultures do it. I'm not sure what the postmodernist position is exactly so let me argue a position of my own that may be similar to theirs. I would first separate the two acts you list because the results are so different. Sniffing glue has long-term physical consequences, such as brain damage, whereas being blown by someone only has POTENTIALLY long-term psychological consequences. Those psychological consequences are completely determined by the culture you live in, which is why the Utah woman's actions are considered heinous while the Japanese woman's may not be in her culture(I don't know that they actually perform oral in Japan, just assuming for the sake of argument). If your culture doesn't care that you received oral, you won't; hence, no psychological damage. For example, your dad might give you back massages every day. In a repressive culture, it might be condemned; in a touchy-feely culture, welcomed. But what was the real difference, either way? That's not to ignore the real danger of psychological damage based on culturally deviant actions. I find what the Utah woman did appalling. But to label the sexual act itself as universally bad for ALL cultures only shows your cultural bias. Finally, I don't advocate not judging other cultures. If a culture all took to gas-huffing, I would deride them- especially since the morons would soon die out (I'm judging based on the fact that all cultures value survival.). But when you're talking about actions that don't cause physical damage, such as shaking hands, oral sex, or giving massages, it is tough to assign much value either way to them. It depends on the context. —sprewell |
|
|
|
|
Kevin U. |
+ |
Thursday, June 10, 2004 at 4:32 PM I think Drew would argue that getting blown by your parents would cause psychological damage no matter what culture you belong to... —Kevin U. |
|
|
|
|
superhew |
+ |
Thursday, June 10, 2004 at 4:40 PM unless you were raised up thinking it was normal. if your sex organs arent treated as if they were "private", then the psychological issues would probably not be a problem as it would be some kind of everyday thing. —superhew |
|
|
|
|
illyB |
+ |
Thursday, June 10, 2004 at 10:20 PM
Edited Thursday, June 10, 2004 at 10:24 PM I agree with you superhew. Last year I learned about a tribe who’s culture believes that semen is what makes a male virile and strong, that they only have a certain amount and that ingesting semen is the only way to remain strong and heathly. As the young boys in the tribe begin to mature, they are sent to all the older men of the village to ingest semen through oral sex. The boys are not allowed to masturbate, or orgasm at all, for fear they will waste the semen, and grow to up to be weak men. They only sleep with their wives a few times a year, and only for procreation. Its thought of as taboo to "waste" semen on a woman. I asked around, and most of my professors agreed that since the kids are brought up in a culture where this is normal, and has been going on for generations, it doesnt have the same psychological consequences as it does for others. Maybe these boys think of american boys as screwed-up for not drinking semen every chance they can.... Now, this was a year ago, so im sure im wrong on some of the details, so if anyone else out there as heard of this, please correct me. Strange world we live in —illyB |
|
|
|
|
ZT |
+ |
Friday, June 11, 2004 at 2:03 AM
Edited Friday, June 11, 2004 at 2:06 AM I agree with Noam Chomsky, and Dr. Drew on this one. The science overwhelmingly supports that there is inherent human nature. It strikes me a strange that people _don't_ believe this, as it really is very obvious. People, except maybe if they have APD, can almost always readily distinguish right from wrong. Religion, Government, and society at large, have worked very hard to try and get people to quell their innate capacity for moral judgement -- to encourage people to deny certain feelings. If you introspect, you'll see that what I'm saying is true.
But, if you're not willing to do that, then lets take the human nature pepsi challange -- and talk about fucking dead people. Theres no real logical reason why our society shouldn't allow the living to fuck the dead. Women may find it difficult to do, but with some popsicle sticks and some duct tape, they should be able to work something out. After a body is all good an embalmed, you just put a condom on, and hope that rigor mortis lives up to its reputation. Given that 99.9999% of all mammals haven genital warts, any chance you might have of getting some disease is probably smaller than if you fuck the girl next door.
So, why are there laws against it? Because to healthy people it just feels wrong. For whatever reason, just about everyone seems to agree that sleeping with dead people is disgusting, and that if you don't theres something very wrong with you. So wrong, that there should be a law against it, and punishment if you do it. You can try to call this a social construction, but you really know its not. No one had to beat this idea in to your head. You just know its true. Something in your nature tells you that its wrong. And, really, any attempt you make to disagree with it, will be so obtuse that you'll just look stupid. Theres my evidence. This whole point isn't even worth "debating." I've seen it hashed out so many times over, and over, and over again, that I know I'm right. You can read 689 examples of what I'm talking about in this thread. Or you can just read this one post, and get everything you need to know. Getting blown by your parents at age eight will cause very real physical damage to the development of your brain. It doesn't matter if you're an anal-eel-fetish asian, a white trash mechanic, or a black Usher look-alike trying to get rid of coke bottle -- it fucks everyone up. —ZT |
|
|
|
|
Saffeau |
+ |
Friday, June 11, 2004 at 8:24 AM I'm still waiting for that source info about Japanese mothers blowing their kids, ipod. And would illyB please name the African tribe that's supposed be sucking off little kids? Sounds like some kind of urban myth, it's so vague and outlandish. —Saffeau |
|
|
|
|
dr ipod |
+ |
Friday, June 11, 2004 at 11:20 AM Actually my source is my Japanese history teacher who said he keenly remembers it up until he was 8 or 9 and they moved to the USA and he asked people about it and they thought it was crazy. I don't think it happens as much anymore, but he said a lot of older Grandmothers who are still deep in Japanese culture still do it. It's widely documented, feel free to look around, but if you Google "Japanese oral sex" you can imagine the results you get arent exactly learning tools.. As for Billy's African tribe, I don't know the tribe but there are plenty porn stars who have gone on the all Semen diet based on that. They said they read about it too and do it for the protein. —dr ipod |
|
|
|
|
sprewell |
+ |
Friday, June 11, 2004 at 7:41 PM Answers to ZT:
> I agree with Noam Chomsky, and Dr. Drew on this one. The science
> overwhelmingly supports that there is inherent human nature. It strikes me
> a strange that people _don't_ believe this, as it really is very obvious.
That's all fine and good but you refrain from defining exactly what "human nature" is. For example, I mentioned before that most cultures universally value survival. But, what else meets the stringent criterion of universality? That's the hard part. Citing two pseudo-experts without explaining exactly what they believe human nature consists of doesn't help elucidate your point. What science are you talking about? I've never seen a paper headlined "Human Nature Discovered." > Religion, Government, and society at large, have worked very hard to try
> and get people to quell their innate capacity for moral judgement -- to
> encourage people to deny certain feelings. If you introspect, you'll see
> that what I'm saying is true.
The "innate capacity for moral judgement" you refer to is largely socially constructed by those institutions to begin with. Obviously, they also work hard to make you deny certain feelings because society is not logically consistent. Which is not to say that individual moral choices don't play a role, only that it's not innate (meaning from their soul?) and definitely not universal. > But, if you're not willing to do that, then lets take the human nature
> pepsi challange -- and talk about fucking dead people. Theres no real
> logical reason why our society shouldn't allow the living to fuck the dead.
Why even go that far? Why is masturbation a taboo subject in a large portion of American society? I'll tell you why: because masturbation and necrophilia do not lead to procreation. I claim that these two acts are perfect examples of socially constructed taboos, as they don't further procreation -> reproduction -> survival of the species. Hence, your example has been used against you. > So, why are there laws against it? Because to healthy people it just feels
> wrong. For whatever reason, just about everyone seems to agree that
> sleeping with dead people is disgusting, and that if you don't theres
> something very wrong with you. So wrong, that there should be a law against
> it, and punishment if you do it.
Everyone in YOUR culture agrees with you, not every human being EVER. Again, socially constructed. > You can try to call this a social construction, but you really know its
> not.
I just did. > Something in your nature tells you that its wrong. And, really, any attempt
> you make to disagree with it, will be so obtuse that you'll just look
> stupid.
Let me know. > Theres my evidence.
Not much of it. > This whole point isn't even worth "debating." I've seen it hashed out so
> many times over, and over, and over again, that I know I'm right.
Sounds like you're trying to convince yourself. If that's all the evidence you can bring to bear after honing your argument in tons of debates, why should I care, since it appears you argued with a whole bunch of morons before? > You can read 689 examples of what I'm talking about in this thread. Or you
> can just read this one post, and get everything you need to know.
Chomsky refers to an innate moral capacity but doesn't define what it consists of. He even says that we do not "understand anything about it." Great evidence. > Getting blown by your parents at age eight will cause very real physical
> damage to the development of your brain.
Let me know when scientists come out with the paper titled "Oral sex by parents blows swiss cheese holes through kid's brain." —sprewell |
|
|
|
|
ZT |
+ |
Friday, June 11, 2004 at 8:47 PM Everyone in YOUR culture agrees with you, not every human being EVER. Again, socially constructed. You're missing the point of what I'm saying. It was about making a challange to people who read the thread. I honestly challange you to believe that fucking dead bodies is anything less than disgusting. Its not a social construction, because theres not people in society advocating reasons why its bad. My parents, or teachers, or local policemen, never sat me down and gave me the "why fucking dead bodies is bad" speech. Thats the point -- I can't think of a rational reason why someone shouldn't do it. I don't know why it should be upsetting to people, including me, I just know that it is. Why even go that far? Why is masturbation a taboo subject in a large portion of American society? I'll tell you why: because masturbation and necrophilia do not lead to procreation. I claim that these two acts are perfect examples of socially constructed taboos, as they don't further procreation -> reproduction -> survival of the species. Hence, your example has been used against you. The functionalist arguments never win here. This is what people always fall back on -- these very speculative evolutnary arguments. Really, this is kind of the creation of a social construction. This might be way a certain culture considers it masturbation, or necrophilia to be bad. Its not why it _is_ or _isn't_ bad. So, really, you're just making my point. Like I said, I can't tell you a logical explaination for why it feels wrong, or why I feel people shouldn't do it. But, I can definately tell you its not because I think the guy breaking in to morgues and banging chilled dead folks would make a great father and should really be reproducing. Chomsky refers to an innate moral capacity but doesn't define what it consists of. He even says that we do not "understand anything about it." Great evidence. Right, just like we know that humans have an innate ability understand, and speak language. We don't understand the exact mechanisms about why we do, or how we learn it. But we know that its theres. When you know that something exists, even if you don't know why it does, or how it works, that _is_ great evidence. If your logic was applied to say, maliginant tumors, and surgeons decided that they couldn't really acknowledge a tumors existence until they knew why it was there and how it grows, there would be a lot more dead people to fuck. Let me know when scientists come out with the paper titled "Oral sex by parents blows swiss cheese holes through kid's brain." I understand your skepticism, sort of. The science is out there, you just have to do the leg work. Drew touches on it, a little bit, in Chapter 5 of his book. —ZT |
|
|
|
|
superhew |
+ |
Friday, June 11, 2004 at 8:56 PM omg, what is all this? some people just need to pick up some more hours at work or something. i hope you people dont spend too much time researching this crap. —superhew |
|
|
|
|
ZT |
+ |
Friday, June 11, 2004 at 9:20 PM
Edited Friday, June 11, 2004 at 9:22 PM Thats a good point. I think one of the reasons why post-modernism is so popular is that post-modernists are able to crank out thousands of pages of intellectualized BS, just by disagreeing with things that are very obvious -- and use a lot of confusing language to do it. The problem is that to counter someone who is very obviously wrong, gets harder the more the post-modernist "establishment" grows. Noam Chomsky also makes the point, very frequently: Take, say, talk radio. I'm on a fair amount, and it's usually pretty easy to guess from accents, etc., what kind of audience it is. I've repeatedly found that when the audience is mostly poor and less educated, I can skip lots of the background and "frame of reference" issues because it's already obvious and taken for granted by everyone, and can proceed to matters that occupy all of us. With more educated audiences, that's much harder; it's necessary to disentangle lots of ideological constructions. Thats from http://www.mrbauld.com/chomsky1.html Thats why Adam Carolla is such a genius, because hes smart and was never educated. The good news is that the academic culture in the United States is so backward, you could easily get a Ph. D in sociology at any U.S. University, just be following the outline described by Chip Morningstar —ZT |
|
|
|
|
joe bloggs |
+ |
Saturday, June 12, 2004 at 10:54 PM All people from South/East Asia must be Chinese, and all "tribes" must be African.
The tribe is actually some peoples in Melanesia (the Western group of islands in the Pacific). http://www.nathanielwandering.net/Wandering%20Melanesia.htm http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/1812.html As for the Japanese, I'm afraid there may be truth to that story:
Western observers even today often notice that Japanese mothers still masturbate their young children during the day in public and at night in the family bed - in order, they say, "to put them to sleep." And to make matters worse, it has been reported in other cultures as well For more on alot of this stuff, check out
http://www.geocities.com/kidhistory/childhod/chch72dm.htm It so happened, by the way, that when some of the young Melanesian men met Westerners (anthropologists etc.), they realized that what they were doing was not neccesary (forget about normal - they realized that the Western males they saw not only didn't do it, but where healthy and virile). And there were cases of revolts by young males who no longer wanted to partake in this activity. Even though it was the norm in their tribe, they never wanted to do it in the first place. Just think about what Drew says about "normative abuse" . . .
And by the way, there were also "tribes" that practiced cannibalism. Of course we now know that cannibalism is a bad idea as it can cause Creutzfeld Jacob (sort of the "mad cow disease" or Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy of humans). But it turns out, the tribes may have known that it was bad too. New Guineas knew about what they called kuru. In any case, Westerners had to come in and tell them it's not a good idea and not normal. Is there anyone who can argue that it is a good idea, or normal, just because some groups of people did it? And not only did those tribes do it, but quite possibly eary humans might have done it. Does that make it okay?
"Genetic markers commonly found in modern humans all over the world could be evidence that our earliest ancestors were cannibals, according to new research. Scientists suggest that even today many of us carry a gene that evolved as protection against brain diseases that can be spread by eating human flesh.
The brain diseases, called prion diseases, are characterized by loss of coordination, dementia, paralysis, and eventually death. Modern examples include Creutzfeld Jacob disease and kuru in humans, and mad cow disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy, in animals." National Geographic News April 10, 2003
Bottom line:
Can't Judge.
—joe bloggs |
|
|
|
|
Jeremy |
+ |
Saturday, June 12, 2004 at 11:01 PM How can we possibly judge when every culture is exactly the same? There's nothing different about them! —Jeremy |
|
|
|
|
NJC |
+ |
Sunday, June 13, 2004 at 8:14 PM men and women are exactly the same too. No difference. Should be treated exactly the same in all respects, always. —NJC |
|
|
|
|
illyB |
+ |
Sunday, June 13, 2004 at 8:19 PM
Edited Sunday, June 13, 2004 at 8:20 PM Hey Joe, thanks for that info! I sold my text book back at the end of the semester, so I had no way to varify all the details to the rest of the board. Now, this sounds bad, but hear me out. I think we Japan is getting close to a good thing, they just need to replace 'mother' with 'Hot Nanny'. Do you have any idea have well I would sleep if a beautiful woman gave me a handie everytime I needed a nap ?!?!?!.... of course, I never would have learned to read... —illyB |
|
|
|
|
Jeremy |
+ |
Sunday, June 13, 2004 at 9:12 PM You mean a beautiful woman doesn't jack you off before you go to sleep? —Jeremy |
|
|
|
|
MajandraFan |
+ |
Monday, June 14, 2004 at 11:58 PM I'm not sure what post-modernism is. The guy who feels that it is bad to have sex with dead things but can't think of a reason why, he just feels it: have you ever encountered a corpse? If you see some death close up you might be able to think of some good reasons, like the rotting flesh and all that. If you already have encountered dead stuff and still only have a vague feeling, then you're creepy.
I think I could read all that stuff back and tell whoever that they're wrong or not, but I don't think it matters. —MajandraFan |
|
|
|
|
ZT |
+ |
Wednesday, June 16, 2004 at 8:42 AM Yeah, well... At least I'm not a Majandra Fan. —ZT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Azzgunther |
+ |
Monday, July 12, 2004 at 1:11 AM
Edited Monday, July 12, 2004 at 1:12 AM I thought your name was Dr. R.U. Jakinov? —Azzgunther |
|