Aretha? Celeste? Bovary? Mulva? A promised post about 5 things that freak men out.

All right. Due to Spanky and sich freuen’s completely unnecessary posts (see also here) and comments on various ointments they like to put on their nipples, sacks, and other sensitive areas, Griff has (as promised) put together a post on those things that men don’t like to think talk about. However, in order to make it a worthwhile post, I have decided to present you Soupy Trumpet readers with a list of facts about these “gross” topics that is both interesting and informative – unlike certain posts about bag cream and the like. So here goes:

1. Terminology: Would you learn to get it straight once and for all? The area that includes the vaginal opening, the clit, the labia, the urethra, and the “mons veneris” (the so-called “bearded clam”) is called the ‘vulva’, not the ‘vagina’. The vagina is the canal that links the external sex organs with the reproductive organs. You guys are lucky if you get past the vaginal vestibule. For more instructive charts, click here.

Vagina!

2. “Sanitary” Products: As much as tampons and pads freak you guys out (try getting your bf to buy you “supplies”), it turns out that menstrual blood is actually very clean. In fact, it’s a hell of a lot cleaner than that bleeding paper cut you got turning the pages of Big Jugs Monthly. And it looks like it might be an as-of-yet-untapped source of stem cells!

Tampon Dolls 

3. Sometimes it gets itchy “down there”: Yes, vaginal yeast infections are gross. No one likes an itchy crotch (or cottage-cheesy vaginal discharge). But did you know that men can get them too?

4. Strange-shaped Titties: It’s not uncommon for one breast to be bigger/smaller/higher/lower than the other one, especially at certain times of the month. This is not abnormal, so don’t get weirded out if your woman’s a little lopsided. (Cosmo claims that it’s usually the left booby that is larger, but Griff doesn’t read Cosmo, let alone trust any “facts” they present.) Additionally, it’s often men that notice lumps or changes in their women’s tatas, so if you feel something weird while you’re groping around aimlessly, tell your woman ASAP. We also often enjoy you guys doing our breast exams for us, so learn how! Case in point below: Jason Giambi checks this babe for lumps with a permanent marker. (Think he’s wearing his magic gold thong?)

 Giambi Gives Woman Breast Exam?

5. The Clit: Kim Cattrall (“Samantha” of Sex and the City) boldly writes: “The women of the world want you to know that the clitoris is about an inch from where you think it is.” Amen. Many sites tell you not to feel ashamed if you can’t find it. Well, Griff is here to tell you that you should feel very ashamed! I know it’s (hopefully) smaller than your magnificent love rod which no one could miss, but it is very unlikely that you will be able to make your woman happy without knowing where it is. So stop talking about your balls and get to work finding the one thing that will make your woman roll her eyes in sarcasm ecstacy.

Get Pubic Lice in the Mail Not Just From Dirty Girls

Mailorder Pubic Lice

There is a website called LoveBugz.net that apparently sends pubic lice to you via mail if you send them your address and a dollar. “Bug Girl” called the dude’s bluff and “Bugger” responded by sending her a package (by way of a reporter). The photos she took are pretty funny since you can see the hair off the dude’s ball bag and the jank instructions (highlighted above).

It is relieving to know that you can lice the same way you can get dog poop – sent right to your home. Before you needed to brush up with one of Rob & Big‘s Dirty Girls to get crabs and STD’s.

Bobby Light – Dirty Girl
[youtube width="425" height="355"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-Rv4gztdRw[/youtube]

From the FAQ:

If you’re a pretty girly in the metro area and you wanna get polinated, then email me and maybe we can get together.

They gotta have someplace to live. Birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim, lice gotta orbit uranus. Like the saying goes, one in the bush is better than none in the hand.

In what sense might science require faith?

A bunch of us (MC Spanky McGee, Griff, me, et al.) were out last night at Joe’s Place:

And amongst other things we started talking about god, religion, and atheism. At one point, our homeboy MC Cigar (aka YoMama) brought up the issue of science requiring faith. Rather than recount the details of that conversation (which I couldn’t do anyway), I thought I would piece together various things here from other sources.

At answersingenesis.org, they make the following claim:

Much of the problem stems from the different starting points of biblical creationists and Darwinists. Everyone, scientist or not, must start their quests for knowledge with some unprovable axiom—some a priori belief on which they sort through experience and deduce other truths. This starting point, whatever it is, can only be accepted by faith; eventually, in each belief system, there must be some unprovable, presupposed foundation for reasoning (since an infinite regression is impossible).

There are a number of sticky issues here, but one of the problems with the above is that science is founded on experience and it is experience that is what, in some sense, stops the regress. That is, science is based, among other things, on the observation that the world behaves in a law-like fashion. That the world appears to behave in a law-like fashion is not an a priori (i.e., prior to or independent of experience) belief. There is of course the little ol’ problem of induction (thank you Hume) concerning whether there is any possible justification for believing that the world outside of one’s actual experience (say in the distant past, in the future, or just outside of the range of one’s sense organs) behaves in the law-like way that one does experience it (see here for more details). However, it is not clear that belief in induction requires faith in the sense claimed in the above answersingenesis paragraph.

More interesting than the answersingenesis claim is the following from the Transterrestrial Musings blog:

Belief in the scientific method is faith, in the sense that there are a number of unprovable axioms that must be accepted:
1) There is an objective reality
2) It obeys universal laws
3) Its nature can be revealed by asking questions of it in the form of experiments
4) The simplest explanation that fits the facts is the one that should be preferred

There is a similar problem here as with the other. The problem of induction is forever looming, but that aside, 2)-4) seem to be grounded in our experience of the world in general and in the process of formulating hypotheses and testing them. So, for example, with 4) it typically turns out that if my wife’s car is gone and she is gone at the time when I know she works, the reason she and the car are gone is not that aliens visited Jerry Seinfeld, brainwashed him into being a kidnapper, dropped him off at our house and he took my wife., but rather she is at work (i.e., the simpler explanation is the correct one). (Another question concerns how we should read the “unprovable axioms.” That is, what are the provable things that we are supposed to be contrasting with these axioms, if the axioms themselves are unprovable.) “Axiom” 1) from above is more complicated: while most scientists may accept 1) without much thought, it certainly is something that has been heatedly debated in philosophy using various arguments, i.e., reasoning. As such, even if it is just assumed by many, it is not therefore groundless or faith-based. Much more could, of course, be said concerning all of this.

Much more interesting, to my mind, than the claims above concerning science requiring faith is the following from Robert Pollack:

Science makes the following claim for itself, legitimately: most of what is knowable is unknown at this moment, and most of what is unknown will be knowable eventually through science. The faith of science makes a further claim: all that is unknown will be knowable through science. The distinction between the two turns on the question: Is there anything unknown now, whether or not it lies on the outer edge of what is knowable, that will never be understood, anything that is ultimately unknowable? No one denies that science will push the margin ever closer to full knowledge. The issue is whether some unknown will always remain. That question about science is by its very nature not answerable by science. Therefore to claim there is nothing unknowable is an act of faith, and to affirm this statement makes science into a faith. [From Practicing Science, Living Faith, Eds. P. Clayton and J. Schaal. Page 229]

Importantly, he goes on to make clear that he does not think that all scientists make the claim that “all that is unknown will be knowable through science.” And that may simply be because there are questions that science cannot answer as a result of contingent human limitations (e.g., whether there are extraterrestrials). Thus he is not claiming that the practicing of science necessarily requires faith. Rather, his claim is that a certain way of viewing science and knowledge requires faith. The crucial move in Pollack’s argument is “The issue is whether some unknown will always remain. That question about science is by its very nature not answerable by science. Therefore to claim there is nothing unknowable is an act of faith, and to affirm this statement makes science into a faith.” It would be great to see what others think about this move.

Possible justification for masturbation and porn: Particularly Important for Married Men

There have been recent reports saying that masturbating frequently may lower the risk of developing prostate cancer. For example, here: http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Masturbation_Reduces_Mens_Chance_to_Develop_Prostate_Cancer_16782.html

For the study, the researchers questioned over 1,000 men who had developed prostate cancer and 1,250 who had not about their sexual habits. They found that men who had ejaculated the most between the ages of 20 and 50 were the least likely to develop prostate cancer.

More than that, the researchers also have an explanation for their findings. Apparently, ejaculating may prevent carcinogens accumulating in the prostate gland. The prostate provides a fluid into semen during ejaculation that activates sperm and prevents them sticking together.”

However, U.S. News & World Report has questioned the recent reporting of the research, here: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/thinking-harder/2008/4/23/reporting-on-masturbation-cancer-link-is-wrong.html

Recent reporting you may have read on the health effects of masturbation is wrong. I don’t mean morally; I mean journalistically. PlanetOut reported on Monday that ‘BBC News reported on Wednesday’ that masturbating frequently may reduce a man’s risk of prostate cancer. Masturbating may or may not affect one’s cancer risk, but the only BBC report I can find on the subject is dated July 16, 2003—and it contains statistics that are identical to those cited by PlanetOut. (For what it’s worth, that day was indeed a Wednesday, according to this online tool.)”

However, if that doesn’t pan out, there has apparently been research done showing that masturbating while looking at porn can improve the sperm count in the ejaculate: http://loveandhealth.ifriends.net/Article.cfm?Topic=7&SubTopic=11&Article=132

A group of scientists at the Tottori University School of Medicine in Yonago Japan have recently compared semen produced through two different forms of masturbation in the same men. They examined the semen that resulted from simple masturbation and masturbation enhanced by, what they called, “sexually stimulating videotaped visual images” or “VIM.” The study was based on the hypothesis that the better quality ejaculation obtained in intercourse was the result of the increased sexual stimulation and the greater sexual satisfaction experienced during intercourse. They figured that if you could increase the level of stimulation and the sexual satisfaction a man felt during masturbation, the differences between masturbation and intercourse might disappear.”

THIS is why religion can be dangerous. Parents merely pray while daughter dies.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/28/prayer.death.ap/index.html

Two parents who prayed as their 11-year-old daughter died of untreated diabetes were charged Monday with second-degree reckless homicide. “

Family and friends had urged Dale and Leilani Neumann to get help for their daughter, but the father considered the illness “a test of faith” and the mother never considered taking the girl to the doctor because she thought her daughter was under a “spiritual attack,” the criminal complaint said. “

GODDAMNIT. This is senseless. The parents and their preacher should all be put in prison. They were running around, using faith–and wouldn’t ya know it–faith turned out to get someone killed.

A day before Madeline died, according to the criminal complaint, the father wrote an e-mail with the headline, “Help our daughter needs emergency prayer!!!!.” It said his daughter was “very weak and pale at the moment with hardly any strength.” “

If you know anyone who is like this, call the cops and the loony-catchers on their dumbasses immediately.

It’s called science, and don’t you dare tell me that science “doesn’t have all the answers.” No shit, assface. I know that. But it sure as shit drives that computer you’re now using to view this goofy-ass website. That Gateway Pentium-II you’re on doesn’t run on the Bible or Jesus-juice.

DAMNIT!

-MC Spanky McGee

“Sex takes 3 to 13 minutes.” Thank you. I had no clue.

Sex takes 3 to 13 minutes, study says

A survey of sex therapists concluded the optimal amount of time for sexual intercourse was 3 to 13 minutes. The findings, to be published in the May issue of the Journal of Sexual Medicine, strike at the notion that endurance is the key to a great sex life.

If that sounds like good news to you, don’t cheer too loudly. The time does not count foreplay, and the therapists did rate sexual intercourse that lasts from 1 to 2 minutes as “too short.”

No shit. Maybe the sexual noobs don’t know this stuff, but I doubt that they’re that ignorant. After all, every other comic on Comedy Central makes a joke about either premature ejaculation or sex taking too long. (Remember the “Wrap it up” box?)

Ok, maybe hardcore Christian sexual noobs don’t know this stuff. They’ve been busy:

http://www.youngwriterssociety.com/ywsblog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/hear-no-evil.jpg

But those sexually-competent folks hardly need this study. I’m sure the clock gets involved sometimes.

“Oh Spanky, but it’s up to science to confirm or falsify what the folk believe.”

Fine. You read the journal article. I’m busy.

-MC Spanky McGee

Memo to the Sierra Club…are you serious?

Like many others, I’ve tried to make my life more “environmentally conscious.” It’s become a pretty big deal to me in the last few years…especially since law school. Read a few CERCLA cases and you’ll understand how that can happen. I’m not here to high-horse it. I’m here to take the Sierra Club to task.

s.jpeg

I have been a member for a couple years, and I signed up for their daily newsletter entitled “The Green Life,” which is supposed to provide daily lessons on how to move your existence in the right direction environmentally. Let’s look at a couple of their golden nuggets, shall we? They dropped this one on me just a week ago:

Getting a head start on the spring cleaning, Grist has written an article on how to green your fridge. One of their great tips:
Be unconventional. Keep a list on your fridge of these eight additional troublemakers: conventional versions of milk, peanut butter, baby food, ketchup, corn, cottonseed oil, beef, and soy. Each month, pick one item off the list — corn and its byproducts, for example — and find a way to feast without it. You’ll be reducing your household intake of toxins, pesticides, antibiotics, and hormones. The earth will be happier, too.

A great tip? You just told me to take food out of my fridge to make it greener. Why don’t we just eliminate the fridge altogether? Besides, you clowns are the only ones keeping soy in the fridge. Uh…and the baby food is staying…trust me. You’re not convincing America to stop saving baby food. I’m just getting warmed up. From 2/14/08:

Happy Valentine’s Day!
Thinking about spending some extra time between the sheets today? If so, spend it between sheets made from bamboo. Bamboo sheets are silky soft, and come from a rapidly renewable resource that doesn’t require pesticides to grow.

 

Aside from wishing me a happy f*&#ing Valentine’s Day, you just told me to use bamboo sheets. Would you like me to burn the ones I have? Bam-freakin-boo? I’ve never even heard of such a thing (which isn’t to say that it’s not effective…just not available). Seriously…my bed sheets are not the problem.

Two days ago they took the cake with the “How Green is my Bike?” survey. That’s right, if you ride your bike you may still be an inconsiderate polluter. I actually scored a 94 on it…only because I picked the answers which sounded the DUMBEST. Here’s my favorite:

If I get hungry while I’m riding…

 

1. I’m so glad I baked last night
2. I unwrap an energy bar or gel
3. I look for the nearest convenience store
4. I search for wild figs growing by the side of the road

Guess which answer gets full credit…the figs. I don’t even know what a fig looks like. Am I less environmentally conscious because I unwrap an energy bar or go to the grocery store when I’m riding my bike? Guess so. Those answers only get 7 and 6 out of 10 possible points respectively.

I don’t care if you want to float off into outer space and do the hippie dance at Widespread Panic concerts for the rest of your life, but DO NOT attempt to give me tips on the “green life” when I’m already walking and biking most everywhere I go, going out of my way to recycle when my landlord doesn’t have a curbside program and refusing every plastic bag in existence. I can do just fine without bamboo sheets and bean bags that heat up in the microwave. What is much more important than the fact that you’re insulting my intelligence is that you’re giving environmentalism a bad name. I can understand if you want to push the agenda and point towards that abstract concept of “how we might do things in the future,” but don’t go off the deep end. Here’s a real problem: recycling. According to the EPA, recycling is the most successful environmental program in United States history. Yet roughly 60% of aluminum cans are recycled globally. The Container Recycling Institute says that almost 24 BILLION plastic bottles have been landfilled, littered and incinerated so far this year…in the United States. It’s March 8. You keep looking for those figs. I’ll be pushing the recycling…just for starters. How the hell are we going to get people to build alternative-powered homes and move toward efficient land use when you’re telling them to support stores with walls made out of sunflower seeds?…SHEESH.

I unsubscribed to the Green Life e-mail list as I was writing this post. I’ll remain a member of the Sierra Club because somebody has to support the critical legal actions they pursue (even if I’ve gotten 5 mailers in the last year about saving the polar bear). Get real, Sierra Club…let’s get everybody to walk before we run. And I’ll admit that they do offer a lot of few good ideas at the Green Life…its’ just too much.

NOTE: I did not even mention global warming. Believe what you will.

Explore the sub-structures of a modern Republican’s brain.

This is rather shameless promotion of some work I originally posted at Dangerous Intersection.   Here’s the diagram, which is the fun part.   If you want more explanation, check out the DI post.

                                            republican-brain-lo-res.jpg

Global warming is not the issue here, dude. A new argument for cutting emissions.

Well, maybe it’s new.

Let’s get some things out in the open here. I accept the old arguments for the conclusion that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by humans. Ok–I feel better.

We could wrangle over the data and findings, and nay-sayers will tell you that it’s possible that the warming is not occurring or it’s not being caused by us. However, we can skip this debate and use a much better argument that should have the exact same consequences if we had all accepted the old argument for the conclusion that we should curtail our carbon emissions. The result should be that nay-sayers will accept the conclusion that thy should conserve energy and switch to renewable sources.
The new argument relies on premises that all sane people accept:

  1. Fossil fuel sources are practically finite, and they are not renewable in a useful way. We use them up at a rate that exponentially exceeds the rate at which dead things turn into oil, for example. In other words, we can’t wait around for new oil to pop up.
  2. As far as I know, nuclear materials fall in the same boat.
  3. As these non-renewable sources become scarcer, their prices will rise, and that rise is not in the self-interest of consumers.
  4. We are going to require energy sources that are renewable at a rate that keeps up with demand. This is also important for economic reasons.
  5. The sun, the wind, and wave power are all good candidates for sources presented in #3, and once the systems are in place, their carbon footprint is greatly smaller than systems relying on fossil fuels, etc. Solar energy, especially, is practically infinite. Of course, the sun will burn out, as I have discussed in OIL ON TITAN? SWEET!
  6. . So it is not absolutely infinite. But it should crank out sunlight as long as we can stick around on this planet, anyway. (And we don’t cloud the atmosphere….)

Though the technology is still in the infant stage, we should research these new systems as much as possible, and implement them as soon as possible.

Concerning 3, we will have to strike a compromise. I’m betting that systems involving solar, wind, etc., will not be able to be able to keep up with projected demand. That means that we will have to reduce demand and conserve. So, we will have to use CFLs, turn out the lights when we leave a room, inflate our tires, drive less, etc.

Here’s the kicker. Once we make the necessary switch to these “renewable” sources, we will find that our carbon emissions will drop anyway. But the new argument relies on relatively uncontroversial premises. Even if carbon emissions drop and the average global temperature happens to keep rising, we will still be in a better economic situation, because fossil fuels and nuclear fuels are practically finite and our reliance on them will become a royal pain in the economic ass.

Bottom line: it’s in everyone’s self-interest to use fossil fuels as little as possible and to make the switch to renewables. Yep–oil companies are going to get hit, but you should keep in mind that they’re going to have to play a new game, anyway. Their oil won’t last forever, and I guarantee you that they are already thinking about new investments.

Duh. They’re not stupid.

-MC Spanky McGee

A bed time story and STD Test

Recently, my roommate has been suffering from bouts of insomnia. I tried to lull him to sleep last night by recalling events that had happened to me the previous week.

h.jpg

Once upon a time there was a boy named Stooge. Two of Stooge’s favorite things in the world were the History Channel and Cheetos. One day while watching a particularly titillating show on the History Channel, Stooge began thinking about some of his recent adventures with the opposite sex. Fond remembrance gave way to mental wandering, and when Stooge’s mind wandered, it rarely ended up in a good place. He thought, “Shit, I should really get myself checked out. I mean, I always use condoms but you never know…”

After a few hours of worrying, Stooge decided to go have his oil checked. He meekly walked into the Plan Parenthood office on shaking legs.

A woman dressed like a medical professional told him to take off his clothes and use the paper sheet to cover himself up. Stooge obediently sat under the paper and felt like an uncooked sirloin steak. The nurse entered. She was surprisingly attractive for her age, and smelled like peach moisturizer.

She placed her unexpectedly warm hands on his Charlie browns and began massaging. The nurse was showing him how to do a self testicular cancer exam; poor Stooge had other things on his weary mind. He kept repeating in his head, “Please don’t get a boner, please don’t get a boner, please don’t get a boner…” Thinking about anti-sexual things like football practice and MC Spanky McGee seemed to drain the dragon.

The nurse then unsheathed a pool stick like q tip and proclaimed,” I am just going to put this in your urethra and then we’re done.” Stooge felt relieved for a moment until he remembered that urethra means dick hole. Panic jolted through his loins.

She slipped the q tip in and out and examined it like she was checking the done-ness of a cup cake. A brief but extremely sharp pain throbbed in the eye of the monster.

Stooge stepped into his unwashed jeans and drove home feeling violated and anxious. A few days later, he got notice. All clean.

And he lived happily ever after.