Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
The Way to an American's Heart

By MisterQueue in Culture
Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 03:46:35 PM EST
Tags: Humour (all tags)
Humour

Why is the US so mute about the topic of sex? If you go to many European countries as an American, you will find that they're a little harsher on the violence and much less so on sexual topics. I find it to be the reverse in this society. Why is that? If you'll give me a moment of your time, I'd like to explore the most likely scenario.


It is no secret that the topic of sex is rather more taboo in the US than it is in many other "western" societies. However, I don't think it's ever been fully explored as to why this is the case. I postulate that if you look at another great problem in America, you will see an undeniable connection. That problem is overeating. Those of you among us who are a bit above and beyond the average intelligence here, will already see the connection. Food has been used to replace the normal sexual desire of Americans. The question then remains, how did this happen?

It is a slight connection that seems to mystify or elude most people, since to my knowledge, it has not been fully explored. The elder statesmen of this fine nation who control finances and hence marketing, are prudish puritans in both intent and desire. They have, over time, become furious in what they consider to be a society of "loose morals", and hence did the only thing they could to counteract the situation. The more interesting questions are how do they do this, and where is the proof? I can answer both of those in the same set of examples.

Consider the rise of the television into the American household. During the 40's and 50's, sex was still a rather taboo subject; looked at as unspeakable in polite company. This era was also the true birth of marketing itself. The entire idea of Madison Avenue and its talking heads truly began to take shape during that period. Advertising was fine tuning itself with this new invention, and the mascots of the time were harmless cartoony images. The elder generations with more influence and finances were pleased at this, having come from an arguably more "traditional" and "moral" society. (A subjective term argument I will not get into here.) However, something happened to change their comfort level soon enough, and that something was the 60's. The 60's brought about two things: the sexual revolution and Twiggy, the first of many uberskinny models. The sexual revolution frightened these Captains of Industry, and the entire idea of Twiggy signaled death to their rapid growth. Her image, in and of itself, suggested a lack of consumption. (As in the actual act of being a consumer, not consumption as an old term for cancer.) This is an ironic feeling for them, as Twiggy's profession was to be a canvas for various consumer goods. They needed some way to battle both of these threats to their comfort and viability in an easy and convincing manner. This is when they began to tighten their grip.

Now, this isn't to say that they removed sex from their sales pitches entirely. Just as any rational human being can understand, sex is a basic human desire, and does in fact sell articles as can be noted in today's ads for everything from deodorant to shoes. Yet they shifted it's focus differently in the food industries and started to change the idea of sex itself. Soon one started to see the marketing of food as a sexual replacement. The idea being, that if you can't get sexual gratification because you can't afford the designer clothes or the personal trainer being flashed at you, then at least you can get your daily pleasure for just 2.99 down at the local burger joint. This change is evident wherever we look.

Take for example the Big Burger Boy, in his early form, and finally a much more recent image. In the original format, the burger boy appears very innocent and childlike. The burger he poses to the potential customer represents fun and a special treat. Like a bauble you'd get for your birthday or maybe the memory of your first pet. These are the psychological images brought to mind by this version of mascot. It is the wholesome image of a welcoming smile. The latter image however, is almost sinister in it's sultry sneer. The burger this time, represents temptation and lust. His over the shoulder gaze looking past some sort of need for comfort to fill the void, and what better filler than his "meat" offered up on a platter from your pallette to your very spirit. His plumpness has been transformed from simple bubbly baby fat, to a rotund personification of desire. The very image that young girls think of in their "Electrical" assumptions of a father.

Consider the kindly old fatherly image of Colonel Sanders? When this inspiring man lived, he seemed grandfatherly and inviting. Even toward the end of his life though, he rejected the way his image was being used by the very company that bought him out. He saw the winds of change coming and didn't like what was coming. Since the poor man's death, his image has been transfered to a cartoony visage which can be modified for whatever draws in and calls upon the subliminal sexual desires of the region. In the US there was a promo featuring him dancing about and rapping in order to appear more youthful and virile, a hip partner and suitable replacement for whatever may be lacking in the department of desire.

Even the Jolly Green Giant, who started as a smiling and lithe tall clay figure, has been transformed into a rippling tower of power. A lean green food stuffing machine for the swooning of your heart AND your stomach, and how dare any woman attempt to resist his delicious peas.

But what of the more feminine mascots? How are these being touted about like vixens to draw upon the poor psyche of the American public? Take for example the Swiss Miss, who started as a simple girl spouting her wares from the cold Mountains. A vision of innocent freshness she was, but now somehow transformed with the addition of the pudding cup. What dirty old man wouldn't want to pull back her covering and dip his spoon into her succulent creamy deliciousness? Relax? Not likely. I don't think that's the intended response at all.

Mrs. Butterworth? I'm not even getting into the obvious representation of a sweet-voiced little vixen full of sticky sweet syrup. I wouldn't patronize you fine people in such a manner.

It's not just mascots that have felt this change. Consider the recent DiGiorno pizza ad, where a gentleman invites a date over for dinner. She mistakes the pizza for one of delivery quality and assumes that the man is inviting her to a threesome with him and the delivery boy. He tries to explain that "it's not delivery, it's DiGiorno", but she slaps him and leaves in a huff. Now, there are several interesting things here. To begin with, the pizza is a suitable third lover? Her mind immediately jumps to an erotic encounter upon the addition of this pizza to their appointed date. Secondly, she leaves him and he is left alone with said pizza. Again, this idea of food as a sexual replacement crops up again. His statement is correct indeed in the end, she didn't deliver, but at least he got the DiGiorno.

Or what of the constant stream of Red Barron Pizza commercials? Where various damsels in distress are saved by this dashing pie wielding debonair pilot. All of their problems and loneliness wiped clean away with the addition of extra cheese and warm thick crust into their mouths, and don't imply one cannot watch at least a dozen food commercials without seeing 10 that end with closeups of steaming food sliding between the lips. If that isn't blatant suggestion, then nothing is.

This is a trend we've seen time and again since the rise of the backlash to the sexual revolution. Unless something is done soon, the American people will not only die of coronary disease, but also of abstinence and loneliness. Their desires will be so met with food that they wouldn't dare to seek anywhere more challenging, not that you'd want the fat bastards to anyway.

-Q

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Your thoughts?
o It affected me deeply. I will refrain from eating until it ends. 7%
o It did not affected me at all, I'm lucky enough to live outside the US (but am still subjected to their media from time to time) 33%
o I like shoes. 10%
o Mmmm... butter's worth! 2%
o Mmmm...jolly giants! 2%
o Whenever I'm lonely I just reach for my bucket of KFC to keep me warm. 5%
o Sex me up your lovely Mr. Clean hussy you! 5%
o Betty Rubble was always kinda hot.. you know... for a cartoon character. 34%

Votes: 140
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Madison Avenue
o Twiggy
o deodorant
o shoes
o early
o recent
o didn't like what was coming
o cartoony visage
o tower of power
o feminine
o innocent freshness
o covering
o succulent creamy deliciousness
o sticky sweet syrup
o Also by MisterQueue


Display: Sort:
The Way to an American's Heart | 286 comments (250 topical, 36 editorial, 4 hidden)
Important note. (3.30 / 10) (#3)
by Mr Hogan on Fri Feb 21, 2003 at 10:23:14 PM EST

The incidence of sex between people is a constant frequency in the history of humankind it don't matter if you live in Pakistan or backstage at the Moulin Rouge, in the year 2003 Anno Porno or during the Middle Ages when people fucked in back alleys. Sorry, no generation has ever discovered sex, ok, not yours. All that happens is the boundaries of polite discussion advance or retreat. The only way to understand people is to study their behavior, their sentences are gibberish, there is no truth, get over it you are nothing but dogs in fancy pants. A garrulous species needs to talk and believe in words because it cannot run fast or jump high but the words - well, do we do not think a dog's bark is true do we? Ok then show me the truth gene. Didn't think so.

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.

This is true (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by MisterQueue on Fri Feb 21, 2003 at 10:26:19 PM EST

but, I'm speaking of a specific society here; and in said society the 60's were a time of sexual freedom compared to what came before for the citizens within. I'm not claiming it was world revolutionary or anything of the sort, since I'm taking one specific slice of a culture. I don't know where you got the idea that I was, but there you have it.

Regardless, you make a lot of assumptions about what I'm saying, and that will only construct a mule of us both, so I shan't elaborate further than to say I'm looking at a mere slice. (be it of sexual desire or of pizza is up to the reader.)

In conclusion... mmm, pizza.

-Q

-------
"Why don't you sell MisterQueueTM Brand thongs? -j3"
Parent ]

Understood. (2.80 / 5) (#9)
by Mr Hogan on Fri Feb 21, 2003 at 10:55:15 PM EST

Understood all I'm saying is sexual freedom is asserted as a theory of permissible behavior. It doesn't matter what the theory is we the people still sniff each other's crotch (continuing with the impossible to exhaust dog metaphor) just and as often as we've always done, the only thing that changes is who we are attracted to and why, or who we are allowed to shanghai into having reproductive relations with us and why. The only important thing is we reproduce. Fucking theories are not unimportant in the sense a garrulous species must make noise to survive, but the noise is more important than its content in the truth predicate sense - look at communism and libertarianism if you don't believe me! Anyway, it is a mistake to think ideas are thunk up because we are enlightened or intellectually advanced in the humanist sense. Not so. Fucking theories, like all thoughts and sentences, are the transmutation of material facts in our environment, so called reason an instinct in the environmental or holistic sense. It helps to think of yourself as a super-being looking down upon the world from a very tall mountain, look at all the babbling people they are ants squish them if you want nothing bad will happen.

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.
[ Parent ]

Sure (4.00 / 1) (#11)
by MisterQueue on Fri Feb 21, 2003 at 10:58:06 PM EST

but there are always those wanting to poke and prod in certain specific ways, and at times they get the line of ants to move to another hill for a time.

Regardless, there are a number of societal and cultural issues that can affect things, it's not just a group of shadowy men in the background to bring about a general consensus of what is or isn't sexy, and yet, at the same time, if the conjunction is fed enough it may well succeed.

Regardless, the story's doing badly... so you may well be right.

-Q

-------
"Why don't you sell MisterQueueTM Brand thongs? -j3"
Parent ]

Wholeheartedly agree. (none / 0) (#170)
by Phillip Asheo on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 10:23:15 AM EST

Ideas, philosophies, religions etc are artifacts of the natural selction which occurs between superorganisms. For more information read The Lucifer Principle.

--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long
[ Parent ]

What is vhemt.org an artifact of? (none / 0) (#174)
by trane on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 11:08:37 AM EST

Or (even better) churchofeuthanasia.com?

[ Parent ]
Don't understand the question. (none / 0) (#175)
by Phillip Asheo on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 11:16:08 AM EST

Everything is a byproduct of competition between superorganisms.

Its not that difficult to understand.

--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long
[ Parent ]

vhemt (none / 0) (#177)
by trane on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 11:24:57 AM EST

advocates letting the human species die out by voluntarily choosing not to breed.

How can such an idea be selected for naturally?

[ Parent ]

Because the people that espouse it will not breed. (none / 0) (#178)
by Phillip Asheo on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 11:30:44 AM EST

Its pretty obvious that not everyone will choose not to breed.

--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long
[ Parent ]

How could such an idea arise in the first place (none / 0) (#187)
by trane on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 12:26:09 PM EST

if "contribution to survival" is the only criteria by which ideas are judged...

I'm just trying to say: once we recognize the mechanism of natural selection and evolution, we are free to stop following it, if we want.

[ Parent ]

Because all angles must be exploered (none / 0) (#190)
by Phillip Asheo on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 12:44:25 PM EST

By the superorganism. And having a subgroup of people kill themeselves might be a good thing (from the perspective of the superorganism) ensuring that people who are clearly deranged and stupid don't get to propagate their genes, and more importantly their dangerous memes.

--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long
[ Parent ]

Dangerous memes, heh (5.00 / 1) (#220)
by trane on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 10:16:24 PM EST

Let's see whether the vhemt memes propagate.

My bet is that they will eventually take over and wipe out our species.

And it will be a good thing!

[ Parent ]

Ya Mein Fuhrer! (none / 0) (#228)
by bigchris on Mon Feb 24, 2003 at 06:43:49 AM EST



---
I Hate Jesus: -1: Bible thumper
kpaul: YAAT. YHL. HAND. btw, YAHWEH wins ;) [mt]
[ Parent ]
no it isn't (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by khallow on Fri Feb 21, 2003 at 10:59:08 PM EST

I don't recall where the figures were, but someone (maybe a condom company) did a study (perhaps a poll) that indicated US residents had less sex per year than their European counterparts (in particular, the UK was supposedly the randiest of the bunch). Further, it's clear that some people have a lot more sex than other people. Eg, on K5 I have no doubt that you can find people with several current sexual partners, and people with zero sexual encounters.

Claiming that there is a "constant frequency" of sex is flawed in that it's both incorrect (just from a comparison at the national level) and misses the actual distribution of sexual acts in the human population.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

Yes it is. (2.33 / 3) (#23)
by Mr Hogan on Fri Feb 21, 2003 at 11:15:24 PM EST

You need to ask questions in order to compile statistics and the problem there is questions are language and therefore post-hoc rationalization a.k.a. gibberish. I do not think you asked the right set of necessarily loaded questions, simple as that. Statisticians are nature's useful idiots, mathematics just another topic of conversation. Without us being aware of it, conversation (such as this thread) is all part of nature's panglossian mechanics. What you need to do is visit the dog pound, take copious notes, and if the dogs aren't fucking each then play with the thermostat or the locks - don't listen to the dogs, they're just barking, no dog ever got pregnant barking and "no" means woof nothing more.

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.
[ Parent ]

woof! (4.00 / 1) (#31)
by cr8dle2grave on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 12:22:09 AM EST

And you may disambiguate that in either of the following fashions: 1) you're talking out of your ass, or 2) you're talking out of your ass. No matter, it's all gibberish anyhow.

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
I forgot to mention (2.80 / 5) (#25)
by Mr Hogan on Fri Feb 21, 2003 at 11:21:34 PM EST

Incidence of sex is a constant frequency in the history of humankind meant what it said, it does not mean germany vs. sweden which is just an artificial category! There is no scientific basis for germany or sweden, for example, they are just political labels on a map. Categories do not exist, everything is rape and food, then death. Sorry.

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.
[ Parent ]

No scientific basis? (4.66 / 3) (#30)
by cr8dle2grave on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 12:11:29 AM EST

Not sure what you might mean by that, but there does exist a tried and true empirical basis for the distinction; we call it culture -- or kultur if you prefer.

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
Culture is a set of beliefs. (3.00 / 4) (#32)
by Mr Hogan on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 12:42:31 AM EST

Throw them in the air gravity does not pull them down. Anyway, the fact that different places have different cultures goes to show that ideas are the transmutation of material conditions - obviously Eskimo culture is going to differ from Hutu culture, Iraqi culture from American military culture.

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.
[ Parent ]

And were I to toss... (4.50 / 2) (#36)
by cr8dle2grave on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 01:30:07 AM EST

...my copy of The First Folio of Shakespeare into the air, it's just one big-ass weighty tome that hits the ground. Of course, that doesn't preclude our discussing Cordelia's nothing, Lady Macbeth's contrition, or Hamlet's indecision.

Oh, it should also be noted that very similar environs play host to widely variant cultures, demonstrating that, where culture is concerned, there's quite a bit more afoot than mere transmutation of material conditions. And anyhow, you've yet to make the case for your claim that culture has no affect upon coital frequency.

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
I don't think you understand the argument. (3.20 / 5) (#38)
by Mr Hogan on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 01:50:56 AM EST

Language is a meaningless string of symbols hence philosophy. Every culture is favorably prejudiced towards certain strings but the prejudice is unwarranted, the only difference between a convention of philosophers discussing their anthologies of creative fiction, for instance, and five middle-aged hens exchanging gossip at the hair stylist is behavior and salary. All discussions are inventions by limited minds attempting to dissect reality - the verb to be -or EVERYTHING - into small components that can be manipulated by the mind, which only knows the "logical" part of the story, how to make plots, how to infer conclusions about the whole based on an analysis of its components. But the problem is every single object, event or entity has virtually unlimited attributes, aspects, applicability, validity - an explosion of infinitely regressive thickets of "meaning".

For example, Iraq is a country that covers many thousands of square miles, teeming with millions of people doing millions of different things every second of every minute of every day - too much meaning for anyone to understand but that's ok your material relations want oil even if you don't, so Bush as if by magic gets this... "idea." He dissects reality into "Saddam is Evil" which is obviously a stupid thing to say because he would have been worse than Saddam if were bred and raised in Iraq!

So anyway, you can argue all your life and even if you manage to "prove" something you have merely opened a myriad of new possibilities - get a grip life is short. Reality is all there is plain and simple! Eat, rape, die, become food for the critters under the rocks that will eat your remains, rape each other then die, so on and so forth.

You have to learn to roll with the punches, catch a pretty girl's eye.

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.
[ Parent ]

similar conditioning (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by cronian on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 02:00:37 AM EST

Regardless of how much you are going to critique culture, people living in various cultures do have commanlities. Mostly people in any given country have access to similar media, and have similar indoctrination in school. They have access to the same set of movies, books, and art. They have the ability to buy the same products, and work in the same jobs. Of course differences do exist even within countries especially among class, race, ethnic, religious, and gender groups many things are still shared in common.

We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
[ Parent ]
Understanding would be the crux of the matter (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by cr8dle2grave on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 02:46:06 AM EST

Language is a meaningless string of symbols

Language is by definition meaningful. Consider: It is the capacity of symbols to act as instruments of semantic conveyance that ensures my proclaiming "woof" elicits no more than a dumb stare on your part, whereas to declare, "your Skinnerian troll is getting old," no doubt registers as a little something more.

And again, I must point out, you've not yet attempted a defense of the putative coital constant. Not that I haven't enjoyed our little game of semoitic drift.

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
You are a cultural imperialst! (3.33 / 3) (#42)
by Mr Hogan on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 03:59:02 AM EST

Well I think your first sentence is either a report of your unshakeable conviction in true sentences or a clarifying distinction that is necessary to clear up possible confusions over your epistemological commitment to gibberish. In neither case is there an explicit causal connection between natural circumstances that might have caused you to write the sentence and a description of that sentence. For example, if someone heard you say the sentence outside this thread he may be unclear whether you are speaking the sense that commits you to a prior endorsement of the truth of the claim, or whether you are simply trying to win a debate here on the kuro5hin, an agnostic position at best, by making a nonsensical statement.

Suppose you were the first human ever to conceive the sentence. Let us say you are about to utter it for the first time. As you think of each word in the sentence (for the first time ever), you utter them immediately. You begin "it is the capacity of" and immediately I stop you to ask, "What is this it you are talking about?" You have to admit you have no sentence immediately in mind, and it refers to nothing that can be reconstituted from elementary particles. You cannot possibly argue it refers to something I said because not a single human being, including yourself, had conceived of it when I stopped you.

Therefore, I win.

The coital constant is latent in the definition of Man. People fuck. There is no reason to think 13th Century Persians got wood less often than 20th Century Americans, or that Persian women were less horny than mid-riff MTV girls. Then if your cultural imperialism were a determining factor in supposed difference between the respective coital constants, we would expect porno man to be busier, which fails miserably to account for kur0shin.

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.
[ Parent ]

I have decided, (none / 0) (#66)
by Subtillus on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 01:35:03 PM EST

That either this is a flame, in which case kudos, or you're an idiot, in which case shut up.

Shut up not because I disagree with you (and I do) but because you're so stupid it makes me cry.

Bark BArk BARK!!!

[ Parent ]

Well you're just establishing all my points. (3.00 / 2) (#68)
by Mr Hogan on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 01:54:16 PM EST

The fact is natural language is ineluctably riddled with ambiguity and contradiction which is the point - the common people do not need to construct ivory tower sentences to conduct themselves effectively in public life (ie survive), never did and never will, you for example or other dogs wearing bell bottom pants. This "cradle to grave" (ironic since that's all life is) fellow doesn't seem to understand the distinction between true sentences which do not exist and the use of language - but I am talking over your head, I can see that. Hey, how `bout that Linux.

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.
[ Parent ]

"you're an idiot" (3.66 / 3) (#75)
by Mr Hogan on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 02:37:13 PM EST

See, you spoke the "are" as if it were this knowledge thing kuro5hin organisms like to arrogate for their selfish purposes but there is no such thing as knowledge, everything in your head is a belief, some beliefs have become objectified by consensus which in turn is the contingent history of certain behaviors.

For example, the sentence "we should intervene to save the Jews" meant sacrificing three times as many people to rescue the category "Jew", a scientifically dubious notion at best - people are people, meat and potatoes! If the fathers of our constitution were Hitler, if we spoke German, etc - we wouldn't know any of that were "wrong" (i.e.: woof), we'd still be out there eating & raping, then death, life goes on, life always goes on it doesn't matter what you believe so long as you believe.

When will you learn? You are about to rape the category Iraq in a shower of cog-dissordnance and still you do not get it.

The thing about biology is we really are animals in every way imaginable. I feel there is still resistance to this notion, some people think biology is a discipline separate from literature, economics or whatever other categories they have invented to further the plot in their head, not realizing it's just a story it is not life which is EVERYTHING all at once. Perhaps we are still under the influence of the southern United States, who knows, no one can.

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.
[ Parent ]

Irony of mentioning Science (1.50 / 2) (#192)
by Subtillus on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 01:44:27 PM EST

There is an incredible irony in your "a scientifically dubious notion at "
and "The thing about biology is we really are animals in every way imaginable"

The irony lies in the fact that you clearly don't have any notion what science is or what role it plays. I'm skeptical if you have any idea what yo're talking about at all. The Irony of the Biology reference lies in the definition of animal. An animal is a motile multicellular organism; no shit we're animals dick head, so's a sea cucumber. So that ends up being rather a vacuous statement, just like the rest of your arguments.

I happen to be in a biology related field, meaning not only do I not speak philosopho-crap but that I posess knowledge, the real, non flim-flammy kind.

To break your argument on the ground, we are distinct from dogs in an important way. We have the capacity for abstract reasoning, and moreover, opposable thumbs. you brought up Biology? Well I ask you whether the field of Bio-physical chemistry would be quite so successful if founded by dogs. I wonder if we would have phylogenetics or rational drug design. We separate ourselves from the rest of the animal kingdom, including dogs, starfish and inchworms, by virtue of the capacity to do all of these things and do them for humans and humans only.

This isn't neccesarily a bad thing, so don't panic. Science is your friend, without it we wouldn't be here right now. Most of us would have died at a young age of miscellaneous infections. Science lets us be more with less.

It makes me wonder why we have incompetent philosophers running around like yourself wasting away what was once an integral part of science. Philosophers needn't be stupid you know. Just tone down you aggressive idiocy, start worrying about some real problems and take a few biology classes before you start throwing terms around. The science hasn't gotten any harder to understand so you must have gotten stupider.

[ Parent ]

You wouldnt know irony if it flattened your shirt. (1.00 / 1) (#198)
by Mr Hogan on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 03:25:34 PM EST

Well I do not expect someone who tinkers with test tubes to understand what they are talking about when they are talking about knowledge but that's ok you have the bold tag which is as good a way as any to objectify hubris, ask any nutter they love to use it too. So anyway it appears that your argument is not biological it is philosophical and here I must strongly warn you to stop trying to rape me with your absurd metaphors of rationality and so-called abstract reasoning, "Kunt and Pop Her" is a porno flic nothing more! Look your place is to measure things same as the Mayan and Ancient Chinese were measuring things way back when before science was a word, back when your ancestors the western natural philosophers were burning shit to keep warm in their mud hovels. The only reason your cultural notions of causality and "thingness" blossomed into the imposing Tower of Scientific Babel you pray to is simpler than you think: every notion of causality and "thingness" can blossom into a (different but no less useful) imposing Tower of Scientific Babel - ever think of that? Of course not you are a scientist you are too busy celebrating the rape of Chinese and Mayan civilizations, metaphorically speaking.

Anyway, as I was saying your place is to measure things not to try and convince me your ersatz of infallible certainty about objects outside their reference is not beholden to a privileged ontological category you call HTGHG or F=ma - save the foam and spittle for your cardinals and cabal they're the ones who fund your behavior. Me I don't care, you have a story same as everyone else no better no worse. For all it matters you could be a hairless Polynesian warrior who has filled page after page of recycled paper with accurate measurements of coconuts as if (fasten your seat belt here comes a theory every bit as good as the ones in your secular bible the Book of Darwin) the giant invisible monkey god pushes them together according to the inverse square of the distance between them. Or what the heck as if Hugh Everett III (scientist! [be still my beating heart]) got lost in the garden of forking paths. Ha-ha you guys kill me - literally I mean, you are killers. Your bombs your cars your chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction your electromagnetic radiation and then there's the mystery of the disappearing frogs... thanks for all the "knowledge" (/smirk) but jesus wake up human progress is not possible, ok, anymore than dog progress is possible.

Your faith in your lessons entails the pride and presumption that pretends human beings are equipped to uncover the mysteries of the verb "to be - or EVERYTHING - ALL AT ONCE - as if a vast intellectual gulf separated you and (thanks to a freak accident of almost imperceptible mutation) a beagle that scientifically learns to avoid the porcupine under the shed. Lookit your behavior (there is no such thing as knowledge!) is useful to you because you cannot fly in the dark like a bat, or hold your breath under water like a seal that's all! It has no privileged philosophical position or claim to truth, knowledge etc. Get over yourself, you are a mongrel in a labcoat, do I look like a bitch to you? Then stop trying to rape me.

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.
[ Parent ]

utterly vacuous (1.00 / 1) (#212)
by Subtillus on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 07:39:24 PM EST

The problem is you can do nothing but play word games. Your sentences have no substance at all.

[ Parent ]
Who's your daddy? (1.00 / 1) (#215)
by Mr Hogan on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 08:10:11 PM EST

Just kidding. Listen you didn't actually address anything in #192 you just hollered "people == smart" then pretended the field of biology were life itself rather than a few half-digested insights into some aspect of life that serves the power. That's ok someone has to read the textbooks. But the reason I'm your daddy is because I haven't been formally indoctrinated - I'm just a landscape Winsor & Newton man, everything I know I learnt keeping my ears open eyes peeled nose clean mouth shut and finger on the button. Do like Ivan in The Master and Margarita, he never met a button he didn't press... that's what they're for. I take frequent strolls in the vegetable market telling everyone I meet "I do not know." You should try it.

Anyway, you didn't actually address any of the points you presumed to reply to, or maybe I didn't make myself entirely clear. On the other hand imagine I wrote in Egyptian then nothing I said would have made sense - its almost as if you need to learn how to behave before you can become a seeing eye dog.

Say it.

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.
[ Parent ]

I still don't feel (none / 0) (#249)
by Subtillus on Tue Feb 25, 2003 at 01:19:01 AM EST

I'm still pretty sure that you jumped into a conversation about some sort of psychological phenomenon spouting garbage about how the nature of language is at the root of our incompetence. This, combined with your verbosity made me instantly presume (incorrectly I gather) that you were a second year philosophy student, or a dumb philosophy grad student as that is their calling card.

My "point" if indeed I had one, as often I don't, was that people are not more or less dogs in pants. We are distinctly different in a few important aspects, this is a difference of degree, but a degree so great that we may think of ourselves as not being dogs.

I'll try your vegetable market trick but there's a lot of french people in my neighbourhood and they don't have senses of humour.

P.S.: Learned is spelled with a d and not a t.

[ Parent ]

Well I don't think you have been paying attention. (none / 0) (#252)
by Mr Hogan on Tue Feb 25, 2003 at 02:04:58 AM EST

I have nothing but contempt for philosophy! Life is a shiny coat, wet nose, monosyllabic commands.

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.
[ Parent ]

Woof Woof Woof!!!!!! (none / 0) (#255)
by Subtillus on Tue Feb 25, 2003 at 12:34:27 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Pot, ring up Kettle! (none / 0) (#217)
by Josh A on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 09:07:41 PM EST

A few posts up you used 'are' to call someone a cultural imperialist.

I see you also don't mind throwing an absolute like "everything" into your post.

And reading your posts, I might come away with the impression that Rusty plans to filter forms of "to be" soon. Use it while we still can!

---
Thank God for Canada, if only because they annoy the Republicans so much. – Blarney


[ Parent ]
Rape (none / 0) (#229)
by bigchris on Mon Feb 24, 2003 at 06:58:38 AM EST

I am interested to see how you define the term "rape".

---
I Hate Jesus: -1: Bible thumper
kpaul: YAAT. YHL. HAND. btw, YAHWEH wins ;) [mt]
[ Parent ]
Rape: a word. (none / 0) (#231)
by Mr Hogan on Mon Feb 24, 2003 at 09:51:56 AM EST


--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.
[ Parent ]

Rape: woof. (none / 0) (#232)
by Mr Hogan on Mon Feb 24, 2003 at 10:16:46 AM EST


--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.
[ Parent ]

Oh, come on... (5.00 / 1) (#161)
by needless on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 05:35:42 AM EST

This is quite possibly one of the more hilarious threads I've seen in a while.  If you look at it abstractly, it roughly sums up what K5 is all about.

I'm not saying that's a good thing necessarily, but...

[ Parent ]

Truth... (none / 0) (#76)
by cr8dle2grave on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 02:45:19 PM EST

...good sir has got nothing to with it; meaning is the issue here. Do try to stay on task.

Suppose you were the first human ever to conceive the sentence. Let us say you are about to utter it for the first time.

Oh dear lord. First speakers? I must insist that avail yourself of what Herr Wittgenstein had to say on the matter before we proceed any further.

There is no reason to think 13th Century Persians got wood less often than 20th Century Americans, or that Persian women were less horny than mid-riff MTV girls.

It's not the wanting, but the getting that is being discussed here. We are authorized in thinking that coital frequency might vary between two distinct cultures for the very same reason we might distinguish between residents of the monastery -- who aren't getting much -- and residents of the brothel -- who can't get enough.

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
The first or second W? (5.00 / 1) (#79)
by Mr Hogan on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 03:09:30 PM EST

Ha-ha, just goes to show, it don't matter how inconsistently one barks, which is the point - examine his behavior, anyone who threatens to gore popper with a poker is all you need to know about human behavior. Sigh, I'm sure dogs "mean" something when they bark too or else they wouldn't engage in the behavior known as barking. Please do not throw German names around as if they were an argument, or as if their owners' ability to bark is nothing more than a cultural prejudice for high pitched squeals. Look it, W. was a smart poodle, he learned many tricks... then he died. Bush is a bull terrier then Iraqis died.

Yes, the Persians were getting it! Are you being intransigent on purpose? You think the greater circle of amusements in your sexmopolitain culture of twenty-something kuro5hin virgins can possibly compete with a people who were legally permitted to rape each other before puberty and in whose veins runs the blood of Shahrazad (sp?), slave of 1001 nights of desire. Listen even the Victorians got it more often than the people who read salon.com for an education ok?

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.
[ Parent ]

Ha Ha (none / 0) (#81)
by cr8dle2grave on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 03:19:54 PM EST

anyone who threatens to gore popper with a poker is all you need to know about human behavior

Well, I must thank you for that is one of the funnier quips I've read in days...

But on to the substantive content of your comment. Oh sorry, there is none. Get back to me after reading Philosophical Investigations.

[aside: this wouldn't be you Noam, would it?]

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
That was a weak reply. (5.00 / 1) (#83)
by Mr Hogan on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 03:25:51 PM EST

Trying to second guess my identity (no) or library (yes) is the kind of behavior I am learning to expect here on kuro5hin.

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.
[ Parent ]

One weak turn... (none / 0) (#85)
by cr8dle2grave on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 03:33:51 PM EST

...deserves another. As for the question of your identity, you began posting here under the Nom de Digit of Mr. Hogan immediately after good brother Noam declared his departure and you share with him some intriguing characteristics. But no matter.

And do we venture forth into the private language argument, or no?

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
No, look, i am not this noam guy. (5.00 / 1) (#89)
by Mr Hogan on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 04:06:07 PM EST

So anyway, you probably do not want to introduce the private language argument because W's position is behaviorism. Between W., Quine and the unfairly maligned Skinner, we can understand W's self-loathing, why he was disgusted with his earlier work, why he gave up his wealth, why he refused the attention of women. But I digress. You can argue all your life and even if you manage to "prove" something you have merely opened a myriad of new possibilities - get a grip life is short. Reality is all there is plain and simple! Eat, rape, die, become food for the critters under the rocks that will consume your remains, rape each other, die, so on and so forth. But I repeat myself.

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.
[ Parent ]

It's a mighty strange behaviorism... (none / 0) (#94)
by cr8dle2grave on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 04:23:41 PM EST

...that's propped up by an unrepentant mentalist, no? And anyhow, the point was the absurdity of your first speaker scenario; a private language is no language at all. No langue, no parole. Just grunts. Fortunately we, self evidently, got ourselves a perfectly fine parole to work with: English.

And I must stress again, I've not been talking about proving anything at all.

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
Well I don't think you fully understand W. (none / 0) (#96)
by Mr Hogan on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 04:33:26 PM EST

He is hard to understand. The "first speaker" scenario as you call it - I tried to make you understand no sentence can be true unless the object it refers to can be constructed. Poof, philosophy vanishes.

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.
[ Parent ]

Call him Caruso... (none / 0) (#97)
by cr8dle2grave on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 04:48:40 PM EST

...if you wish.

And for the umpteenth time, I've not been speaking of truth nor have I been making an epistemological argument. Meaning or sense is what is in question here. Such that, "ahy gehthupt falyrn urnd vrgitynp," means nothing (your string of symbols as gibberish)," whereas, "this troll now reeks like two week old fish," communicates something of some specificity to you and other English speakers (who are now likely to applaud).

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
Again, you miss the point. (5.00 / 1) (#98)
by Mr Hogan on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 04:55:00 PM EST

English IS grunts. The sound of people arguing who to invade next is as "meaningful" as dogs barking, birds singing, crickets rubbing their wings together.

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.
[ Parent ]

Darling (none / 0) (#100)
by cr8dle2grave on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 05:00:36 PM EST

When arguing about sense it helps to engage with one who has better facility at making some than you evince. I've about had enough of banging my head against the particular wall.

You can go on denying the existence of semantics all you wish, but it can plainly be inferred from our conversing that there is meaning in your grunts. Firstly, that you continue talking out of your ass. Woof!

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
Articles of self-love. (none / 0) (#103)
by Mr Hogan on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 05:23:56 PM EST

They too are typical kuro5hin behavior.

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.
[ Parent ]

it's prima facie retarded (5.00 / 1) (#114)
by adequate nathan on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 07:17:22 PM EST

To argue that there are no arguments.

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

Or barks. (5.00 / 1) (#124)
by Mr Hogan on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 07:59:29 PM EST

Argument does not exist as an independent entity - a room full of people doing semantics exists and their behavior ("arguments") is as meaningful as a room full of gossip columnists discussing Michael Jackson, literature professors discussing Raymond Chandler, or dogs barking. Spoken sentences are not true or false claims they are actions, their "meaning" (e.g., "this sentence is a claim") is resolved by the intentions of the speaker and listener same as if they were dogs. In fact "rationality" - the philosophers' a priori theologies of discourse - is a ridiculous myth pure exploded fiction, rational man is an amazon tribe of pederast cannibals every one of them a genius.

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.
[ Parent ]

You've the wrong understanding... (none / 0) (#126)
by cr8dle2grave on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 08:18:37 PM EST

...of meaning on the brain (which is an irony in itself). To wit, when you say:
Argument does not exist as an independent entity - a room full of people doing semantics exists and their behavior ("arguments") is as meaningful as a room full of gossip columnists discussing Michael Jackson

you seem to be using "meaningful" in the sense of comparative judgement, when I've been plainly been using "meaning" in the sense of semantic content -- and it is neither here nor there whether or not it refers to anything at all.

Oddly enough, you claim:

Spoken sentences are not true or false claims they are actions, their "meaning" (e.g., "this sentence is a claim") is resolved by the intentions of the speaker and listener same as if they were dogs.

and I basically agree, although I don't currently have the patience to pick my nit with your casting of intentionality.

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
semantic ATTRIBUTIONS not content (none / 0) (#129)
by Mr Hogan on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 08:30:26 PM EST

The attributions establish an isomorphism between our behavior - the right causal stuff for "intelligence" - and the noises we make called speech.

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.
[ Parent ]

Are you trying to say... (none / 0) (#131)
by cr8dle2grave on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 09:10:18 PM EST

...that meaning is inferred from signs (graphic, phonemic, or otherwise) and is not contained within them? Could all your bluster have really amounted to nothing more than asserting the arbitrary relationship of the signifier to the signified?

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
In the all sentences are equal sense perhaps!? (none / 0) (#141)
by Mr Hogan on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 10:13:15 PM EST

You realize everything you say and passionately defend here on kuro5hin is refuted by your admission words are a circle of meaninglessness, that everything you say is arbitrary (information is random?!) && not true in any sense except "I want it to be true." Anyway "content" does not communicate the verb "to attribute" && many people reading your uncorrected reply might think signs meant something or that semantic theories were the same as measurement procedures. Anyway, what I wrote is not what you wrote I wrote. For one thing I mention an isomorphism between behavior and syntax glyphs or vocal noises, something that is not obvious.

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.
[ Parent ]

Uh no (none / 0) (#142)
by cr8dle2grave on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 10:32:05 PM EST

I said that the relationship between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary, which is not at all the same thing as claiming that everything I say is arbitrary.

And can you just drop the truth issue? It has nothing to do with the process of signification (or semiosis as I prefer). Verification and determining the rules of valid inference can and should be dealt with separately from the phenomenon of meaning.

Anyway "content" does not communicate the verb "to attribute" && many people reading your uncorrected reply might think signs meant something or that semantic theories were the same as measurement procedures.

Well, we finally agree on something. I should have been more careful than to describe signs as "instruments of semantic conveyance" or to give the impression that signs contain any meaning in themselves.

I mention an isomorphism between behavior and syntax glyphs or vocal noises, something that is not obvious.

What behavior has an isomorphic relationship with signs?

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
Excuse me. (none / 0) (#143)
by Mr Hogan on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 10:43:45 PM EST

"The relation between signifier and signified is NOTHING." On Grammatology, p. somewhere-in-the-back.

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.
[ Parent ]

But Derrida... (none / 0) (#144)
by cr8dle2grave on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 10:51:03 PM EST

...was (at the time of Grammatology) caught up with that whole chain-of-signifiers to do, which, as Eco points out, would relegate the Freudian slip to the status of a mere typo.

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
ok (5.00 / 1) (#145)
by Mr Hogan on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 10:54:43 PM EST

You've run out of things to say, you're just trying to rape me now.

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.
[ Parent ]

De Do Do Do (5.00 / 1) (#146)
by cr8dle2grave on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 11:00:45 PM EST

Don't think me unkind
Words are hard to find
They're only cheques I've left unsigned
From the banks of chaos in my mind
And when their eloquence escapes me
Their logic ties me up and rapes me

De do do do de da da da
Is all I want to say to you
De do do do de da da da
Their innocence will pull me through
De do do do de da da da
Is all I want to say to you
De do do do de da da da
They're meaningless and all that's true

Poets priests and politicians
Have words to thank for their positions
Words that scream for your submission
And no-one's jamming their transmission
'Cos when their eloquence escapes you
Their logic ties you up and rapes you

De do do do de da da da
Is all I want to say to you
De do do do de da da da
Their innocence will pull me through
De do do do de da da da
Is all I want to say to you
De do do do de da da da
They're meaningless and all that's true

-The Police

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
correction (none / 0) (#110)
by cr8dle2grave on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 06:09:08 PM EST

Oops, faux pas. Where I said:
Fortunately we, self evidently, got ourselves a perfectly fine parole to work with: English.

change that to:
Fortunately we, self evidently, got ourselves a perfectly fine langue to work with: English.

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
Gettin' a bit repetitive (none / 0) (#210)
by Crono on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 07:19:32 PM EST

Your last few lines I think I've seen a few times already...

[ Parent ]
Persians (none / 0) (#82)
by cr8dle2grave on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 03:23:31 PM EST

Why did you assume that it would be the Persian who corresponds to the Monk in my little analogy? I'd imagine that the tales of the sexual misadventures of your average Safavid aristocrat would cause the pages Penthouse Forum to curl.

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
It doesn't matter. (5.00 / 1) (#84)
by Mr Hogan on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 03:32:30 PM EST

We're talking about life in the aggregate - humanity - not job descriptions. The statistical penis yeterday today and tomorrow is immune to theory, thank god.

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.
[ Parent ]

Indeed, it does (none / 0) (#91)
by cr8dle2grave on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 04:08:44 PM EST

You see, when I dubbed your hypothesis the coital constant I meant something like: the mean nookie measure is constant. You've claimed that throughout human time we've been gettin' some at roughly the same rate, but you've also tacitly acknowledged culture has some affect upon coital frequency (cf. the Safavid aristocrat). If indeed the mean nookie measure has remained constant throughout history, then God is one sick son-of-a-bitch. For you see, the libidinal excess of the Persians would have to be counterbalanced by some corresponding frustration in another population. Equal before God my arse!

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
Eh? (5.00 / 1) (#93)
by Mr Hogan on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 04:20:04 PM EST

If indeed the mean nookie measure has remained constant throughout history, then God is one sick son-of-a-bitch. For you see, the libidinal excess of the Persians would have to be counterbalanced by some corresponding frustration in another population.

Please defend this hypothesis. My Persian example was merely trying to dramatize a point occluded by the liberal's cultural chauvinism. There is no sex karma. People get horny they have sex. People become hungry they eat. Tired, they sleep.

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.
[ Parent ]

The point being (1.00 / 1) (#95)
by cr8dle2grave on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 04:25:23 PM EST

They do so at a variable rate and culture is a factor in determining this rate.

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
That has not been established! (5.00 / 1) (#105)
by Mr Hogan on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 05:30:23 PM EST

Culture does not hinder to the lovers - Casanova is as active today here as he was 1000 years ago there, the geek is as lonely today here as he was 1000 years ago there, Mankind's behavior is constant, it is a description of the species.

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.
[ Parent ]

How many wives do you have? (none / 0) (#80)
by Mr Hogan on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 03:11:05 PM EST

Yer honor, the fundamentalist sex-is-dirty Osama bin Muslimist rests his case.

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.
[ Parent ]

Holy mother of god! (none / 0) (#196)
by Souhait on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 03:03:10 PM EST

How can such an obvious troll have spawned such an immense debate?

[ Parent ]
for that remark, I adore you! [n/t] (none / 0) (#135)
by livus on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 09:43:06 PM EST



---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]
Betty Rubble? (3.75 / 4) (#12)
by it certainly is on Fri Feb 21, 2003 at 10:58:26 PM EST

Don't be silly. She's just a cartoon character, there's nothing sexual in that. Bugs Bunny dressed up as a woman, though...

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.

Hrm... (1.00 / 1) (#15)
by MisterQueue on Fri Feb 21, 2003 at 10:59:29 PM EST

I'm suspecting you have a thing for Dame Edna and the Crying Game... am I right?

-Q

-------
"Why don't you sell MisterQueueTM Brand thongs? -j3"
Parent ]

Unlikely. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by it certainly is on Fri Feb 21, 2003 at 11:07:47 PM EST

Barry Humphries is a dirty old man. Eddie Izzard, on the other hand, is quite dashing.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Don't be so nieve (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by evilpenguin on Fri Feb 21, 2003 at 11:35:25 PM EST

Never underestimate the power of perverted minds.

N.B.: That was one of the first results for the Google search "betty rubble hentai".
--
# nohup cat /dev/dsp > /dev/hda & killall -9 getty
[ Parent ]
I just have this hunch (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by it certainly is on Fri Feb 21, 2003 at 11:51:43 PM EST

that they'd sell more subscriptions if they called themselves toonpoon.com instead.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Obligatory Red Dwarf.. (5.00 / 6) (#33)
by Kwil on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 01:18:59 AM EST

.."I'd go with Betty.. but I'd be thinking of Wilma."

That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze


[ Parent ]
This is crazy (5.00 / 2) (#46)
by Cloaked User on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 06:39:16 AM EST

She'll never leave Fred and we know it!
--
"What the fuck do you mean 'Are you inspired to come to work'? Of course I'm not 'inspired'. It's a job for God's sake! The money's enough and the work's not so crap that I leave."
[ Parent ]
There are still advertising standards (4.00 / 1) (#34)
by suick on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 01:26:56 AM EST

If I recall, the company behind go-gurt never actually shows anyone consuming their product--they simply smile and wave it about.

order in to with the will I around my effort sentences an i of more be fuck annoying.
much like the queen. (none / 0) (#56)
by MisterQueue on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 09:52:54 AM EST


-Q

-------
"Why don't you sell MisterQueueTM Brand thongs? -j3"
Parent ]

Actually... (none / 0) (#106)
by Bah Humbug on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 05:31:01 PM EST

In a recent ad they show someone licking it off a window.  Hmmm.....
---Turn that frown upside down!---
[ Parent ]
i want some of what you're smoking (or ingesting) (2.00 / 1) (#43)
by criquet on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 04:29:05 AM EST

to see a conspiracy, by people afraid to acknowledge sex, to replace sex with food is complete and wonderful insanity.

but come on. have you ever given a dog bacon? have you seen the reaction? animals love tasty treats. we are animals. therefore, we love tasty treats. since we did not create us, it simply doesn't make sense that we have full control over our desires. we created rich and delicious food because it tastes wonderful, not because it will take our minds off of sex. in fact, thinking about a scrumptious side of pork makes me want to pork. it makes me want to be nasty and dirty with my girl. i want to drill her soft and hard, long and deep. i want to lick her and eat her and taste her entire body. well, if i had a girl, that's what i'd like to do. anyway, i'm not fat, any more, and i've regained my sex drive as a result of losing pounds. come to thing of it, you might be on to something.

i've changed my diet and am not watching as much tv and have a raging sex drive as a result. damn you mrs. butterworth.

funny +1. useful -1. fuck it. +1

You think KFC is rich and delicious? (4.00 / 1) (#54)
by MisterQueue on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 09:48:40 AM EST

I'll agree with the rich part, but I don't see what money has to do with our foodular desirification. I mean, granted, money itself is a desire, but beyond that you don't eat it. (Unless it's those chocolate gold coins, those you can eat.) You shouldn't eat it anyway, some of those dollar bills have been in the thongs of male strippers or the hands of unscrupulous delivery boys.

And that's just not right.

-Q

-------
"Why don't you sell MisterQueueTM Brand thongs? -j3"
Parent ]

See other definition of rich not meaning $$$ [n/t] (none / 0) (#77)
by Mysidia on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 02:47:03 PM EST



-Mysidia the insane @k5
[ Parent ]
Maple Syrup (none / 0) (#62)
by Relayer on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 10:42:38 AM EST

Mrs. Butterworth is one hot bitch. She makes Aunt Jemiama look like a fat Mayflower ho. Betty Crocker, though, beats them all.

She's a fucking spoon, damnit.

Maybe we do substitute food for sex. That's why you always hear about mom and the milkman, or the pizza delivery boy. Have you ever heard mom and the exterminator?

Insects are just not sexy.


It tastes sweet.


[ Parent ]

Sex is good exercise (3.00 / 3) (#49)
by hex11a on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 08:37:07 AM EST

Apparently having a long sex session can burn up as many calories as a 7 mile run (imagine the lines, "yeah, baby, I'm in marathon training"). So more sex would be good for the country. So what you need to do is get the government to encourage people to have more sex. Imagine getting that one past the republicans...

Being in UKia, however, apparently we have it quite good, although I have a USian gf, so how should I make up the disparity?

Hex

The simplest thing to do, (none / 0) (#53)
by MisterQueue on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 09:46:08 AM EST

is to get a UKian gf as well to balance things out. This works for you on two levels. If your USian gf does not agree to this situation there is no hope for her, she has already been infected by marketing prudes and there's nothing you or I can do.

Best of luck!

-Q

-------
"Why don't you sell MisterQueueTM Brand thongs? -j3"
Parent ]

I don't believe this one itty little bit. (5.00 / 1) (#148)
by Romeo is Bleeding on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 01:04:49 AM EST

Yeah, its supposed to burn calories, but does it lose weight?

One of the groovy things about an 11 km run, (and you claim to be a pommy? WHAT THE FCUK IS A MILE?? [excuse my french, but given the topic I'm using it as a technical term]) ... is that it lifts the metabolism, and as you nosy about your desk job for the rest of the morning, you are burning twice the kilojoules that you would if you didn't. (And you fall asleep at the desk less, which is good for you're career).

Sex, on the other hand, (or however you do it) has the opposite effect, and makes you all sleepy, so lowers your metabolism.

Furthermore, notice that not having sex for as long as you can stand (or however you do it), rapidly increases the metabolic rate if you chance to go within 500 metres (depending on you're eyesight) of a remotely sexually attractive individual (or whatever suits your bent (or not so bent as the case may be)).

Consequentially, it can be concluded that after minimal research by unqualified individuals, that US's obesity problems are due, in fact, to their overcopulatory culture.



[ Parent ]
Surprisingly (none / 0) (#169)
by hex11a on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 10:21:51 AM EST

In Britain, all road distances etc are measured in miles. Beer is sold in pints (our pints are 20 fl oz), as is milk. We haven't totally metricised you know...

As for the rest... ah well I won't rise to a troll ;-)

Hex

[ Parent ]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz (3.33 / 3) (#51)
by Hide The Hamster on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 09:30:07 AM EST

Beaten to death, bunk topic.


Free spirits are a liability.

August 8, 2004: "it certainly is" and I had engaged in a homosexual tryst.

For those of us for which this correlation is new, (none / 0) (#163)
by L Satyl on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 07:27:28 AM EST

could you at least provide the links to the dead horse?

[ Parent ]
B, B, Boring (none / 0) (#193)
by tetsuwan on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 01:54:17 PM EST

I have no clue why anyone would think that this belongs to the humo(u)r topic. B B Brittish humour, now that's something.

[ Parent ]
Create a clique (4.00 / 3) (#57)
by dmt on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 09:53:29 AM EST

of fat people.  Make fat people cool. Microsoft's marketing department could be drafted in. Picture the TV advert presented by Sally Struthers:

Sally> 'Hey you're fat!'
Fat person> 'So are you'
Sally> 'Cool'

They could then back off to Sally and said fat person walking hand in hand on a sandy beach, waddling albeit, and words appear on the screen: "Hey Kids it's cool to be fat".  "Speak to the federal fat advisory board".

They could do adverts like the Apple ones with that Quaalude girl.  'Hey, eh,  I used to be slim, eh and now I'm like fat'.

When lots of people are fat you'll destroy the clique because it'll be a majority thing.  So I suggest shifting market and appealing to the Discovery Channel set:

American eating history in reverse!  The Discovery Channel: Go from the Sally Struthers/John Candy look to the waif girls of The Civil War.  The next episodes could go from The Civil to Thomas Jefferson's antics and favorite food.  Skip the issue of slavery or simplify it so that even the most backward hick can understand it.  The slaves didn't eat much anyway.

Have you seen... (4.00 / 2) (#61)
by Relayer on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 10:38:04 AM EST

The SNL "GAP Fat" commercials?

They're kind of funny, the first two or three times you see them.


It tastes sweet.


[ Parent ]

I have, they're gonna be for real one day [n/t] (none / 0) (#63)
by dmt on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 11:12:49 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Since you mentioned sex and marketing... (4.75 / 8) (#64)
by dissonant on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 12:06:59 PM EST

Samsung means to come. (flash)

You realize... (4.00 / 2) (#65)
by Skywise on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 01:22:37 PM EST

That at one time in world society, fat people were considered the epitome of sexiness and health.

Not obese people... but... I believe the term is rubinesque?

Which means that sexiness would be based upon the appearance of "implied" health, and not the actual healthiness of the person.

Back in the day... (5.00 / 3) (#86)
by Hatamoto on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 03:47:59 PM EST

... food was a bit harder to come by, so people that were 'rubenesque' were by definition more rich, more healthy (too much food being better than too little, in most people's minds), more powerful and influential. In short, a little padding represented "The Good Life."

Nowadays, it's less expensive to buy supersized crap food (McDs, Jack in the Box, et al) than it is to buy healthy, wholesome food... and as it turns out, that, in combination with an extremely unhealthy fascination with twig women w. heroin chic, has made it easier to be fat while poor than thin.

While money doesn't influence ones health as much as it did back in the bad ol' days, it still has a signifigant influence. When you're working 9 or 10 hours a day at some joe-job, you're probably not going to be much in the mood to go home and cook a good meal (why bother, when you can get a 2000+ calorie greasefest in a single meal from McD?) or go to the gym (who wants to go exercise after a hard days' work behind a desk/counter/whatever? Kick back and watch CSI!). Far more likely that people with higher levels of disposable income, and by extension disposable TIME, are the ones better able to maintain their health these days.

--
"Innocence is no defense." - Federal District Judge William H. Yohn (People v. Mumia Abu-Jamal)
[ Parent ]

Flu, etc. (none / 0) (#281)
by A Trickster Imp on Sun Mar 02, 2003 at 08:48:44 AM EST

In the olden days, if you were skinny like a supermodel, and got the flu or some other disease where you couldn't eat for a few days, you died.

Obese was never really popular, but the Kate Winslett (not most recently) and JLo (Selena days, again not recently) were the hot bodies.

In fact, those are the hot bodies today.  A few years back, two different polls about the sexiest woman in Hollywood according to men:  One poll, Jennifer, the other Kate.

And in another poll where they asked women which woman, if they had to have sex with another woman, would they want?  Wait for it...Angelina Jolie The Scrawney.

So ladies, we want big butts.  It's you who want the skinny women.  Bzzt!  Thanks for playing.  Buh bye!

[ Parent ]

It still is in some areas of the world. (nt) (none / 0) (#99)
by Calledor on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 04:58:38 PM EST



-Calledor
"I've never been able to argue with anyone who believes the Nazis didn't invade Russia, or anyone who associates the Holocaust with the meat industry. It's like talking to someone from another planet. A planet of fuckwits."- Jos
[ Parent ]
It's a viable theory (4.25 / 4) (#70)
by jd on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 02:00:58 PM EST

However, it turns out that it's a lot more general. Eating disorders are classed as an "addictive disorder", along with alchoholism, drug abuse, rage addiction, codependency, and a whole bunch of others.

Addictive disorders are INVARIABLY associated with suppressed behaviours and emotions. There are very very few exceptions, and mostly where the substance/activity abused is addictive in its own right, rather than just being used as a substitute.

The correct treatment, as you observe, for America's weight problem is to be more open. New diets and new pills won't solve anything, any more than wallpaper can substitute for the World Trade Centre. Sure, it'll fill in the "gaps", but the problem is still there. The only difference is that now you don't see it. Making it far MORE deadly.

America's got to be much more open, though. One topic here, one topic there, won't cut it. You've gotta break down a LOT of walls of silence. But once you do, you'll be a damn sight freer than you've ever been in your life.

Hrmm (4.33 / 3) (#92)
by coillte on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 04:14:37 PM EST

"Suppressed behviours" - I'd run with repressed behaviour, becominfg manifest in other ways.

Re diet pills. Nonsense. Just what America, and indeed the Western world needs right now. I can think of notjing better than getting the nation cranked up to the obese and juddering tits on over the counter speed, and then ramming a bunch of terror alerts down their throats.

What the developed worlds needs is a population hideously jangled into pharmeceutical paranoia and psychosis, and stocking up on the finest guns available to man in fear of the oncoming armageddon. I for one have grown to love "The Fear". Its made a man of me. Its made me what I am today. And god fuck any bastard who tries to take it away from me. I'll carve their gills out with a crocodile knife I tell you. Just like the good Lord told me to after that benzedrine binge Mabel and I went after weightwatchers anonymous last month.

Somehow fitting that the whole gig comes down because of a terminal inability to get laid comfortably.

Or uncomfortably, if thats your thing.
_______________
"XVI The Blasted Tower. Here is purification through fire,lightning, flames, war...the eye is the eye of Shiva... the serpent on the right is the symbol of the active will to live,the dove on the left is passive resignation to death"
[ Parent ]

Actually (none / 0) (#280)
by A Trickster Imp on Sun Mar 02, 2003 at 08:41:33 AM EST

Actually, I'm a bit of a nervous fellow, and worry a lot.  Food calms my mind down so I can feel content and relaxed.

That's why diet pills always fail, they never address this type of issue.

At least the legal diet pills in the US.  It's my understanding Europe has some speed-like weight loss drugs that work and are safe and are illegal in the US because, get this, addicts might illegally get ahold of them.  Let's kill half a million obese a year so a tiny fraction of that of addicts don't...stay addicted not dying for the most part.

Has anybody ever "run the numbers" to see if the FDA kills more than it saves?  I know that to a politician, a death in front of the cameras is worth a million deaths cumulative over 20 years because of delayed or forbidden drugs, but might the FDA be the biggest mass murderer last century?

How many people would die because of drugs that got to market too quickly (and would be pulled anyway by the creator) vs. how many die because a drug that saves 1% of heart disease patients took 10 years to prove "safe and effective"?  0.01 x 400,000 x 10 years is a hell of a lot of people. folks.

[ Parent ]

The vast majority (none / 0) (#282)
by coillte on Mon Mar 03, 2003 at 12:32:35 PM EST

of our diet pills are either placebos, or some form of upper - generally amphetamine, occasionally ginseng.

Amphetamines do tend to have some effect. They operate as an appetite suppresant, and promote increased levels of activity. And anxiety. And irrational mood swings. And addiction. And eventually, amphetamine psychosis. With liver and kidney damage.

Before the side effects of them was widely known, most people would have known at least one person, n their extended circl, who took them on a reguilar basis, The amphetamine based ones, that is. Stories of insane and dangerous behavious, irrational mood swings, and terrifying rages are familiar territory for anyone who has lived with or near habitual diet pill users.

Withdrawl from the addiction is frightening, and extremely difficult nd dangerous.

_____________
"XVI The Blasted Tower. Here is purification through fire,lightning, flames, war...the eye is the eye of Shiva... the serpent on the right is the symbol of the active will to live,the dove on the left is passive resignation to death"
[ Parent ]

Food mascots related to sexuality? (2.50 / 2) (#78)
by LilDebbie on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 03:06:23 PM EST

/me runs and hides.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

Aunt Jemima turns me on (4.33 / 3) (#87)
by wiredog on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 03:48:57 PM EST

Dark and Sweet. What more could a guy want?

Except, maybe, for Betty Crocker. She's a hottie.

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

Wrong (none / 0) (#107)
by miah on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 05:35:33 PM EST

Nobody does it like Sara Lee!

Religion is not the opiate of the masses. It is the biker grade crystal meth of the masses.
SLAVEWAGE
[ Parent ]
We're Beatrice (none / 0) (#157)
by michaelp on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 04:13:02 AM EST

Resistance is futile


"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

[ Parent ]
Obligatory Frank Zappa quote (none / 0) (#162)
by epepke on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 06:39:32 AM EST

Electric Aunt Jemima
Goddess of Love
Khaki maple buckwheats
Frizzled on the stove
Queen of my heart
Come hear my plea
Electric Aunt Jemima
Cook a bunch for me!
Tried to find a reason
Not to quit my job
Beat me 'til I'm hungry
Found a punk to rob
Love me, Aunt Jemima
Love me now and ever more.
Tried to find a raisin
Brownies in the basin
Monza by the street light
Aunt Jemima all night
Holidays and salad days
And days of moldy mayonnaise
Caress me--caress me, Aunt Jemima
Caress me--caress me, Aunt Jemima
Caress me--caress me, Aunt Jemima
Caress me--caress me, Aunt Jemima


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
I assume (none / 0) (#247)
by hstink on Mon Feb 24, 2003 at 07:49:37 PM EST

That inspired Mr. Bungle's Squeeze Me Macaroni, which I must say is one of my favourite songs concerning food-addled sex.

-h

[ Parent ]

This has nothing to do with weight (3.28 / 7) (#88)
by eSolutions on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 03:57:58 PM EST

It's a remaining cultural trait from Puritanism. Are you saying The Scarlet Letter is really about eating disorders? No. American chastity is one of the remaining Calvinist cultural meat cubes in the oily stew of the melting pot. From the Irish we got drinking; from the Italians, crime; from the Germans, racism and Techno. From the northerly, morbid Europeans who followed the now-discredited teachings of John Calvin, we get the loathing of sex.

----
Making periods more convenient -- one box at a time.
--Tampax Commercial

You have it backwards. (3.25 / 4) (#90)
by thom2 on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 04:07:04 PM EST

It is sex that is a substitute for food in today's society. Take a look at the models in your average Victoria's Secret catalog, or in the pages of fashion magazines. Most of those poor girls look like they're starving! Page after slick, glossy, full-color page of deeply etched ribs, jutting hipbones, hollow cheeks, and sharply defined collarbones that look like you could pluck them right off.

And why do these women starve themselves into this cadaverous state? Why to look "sexy". We have an epidemic of eating disorders in America, all because the diet and clothing industries have somehow managed to equate skinny with sexy. So you see women skipping breakfast, eating a single broccoli spear for lunch, and drinking one of those disgusting meal supplement shakes for dinner, all so they can fit into an LBD and go out in search of a mate.

If these commercials are any indication that society is warming to the attitiude that eating enough to maintain a healthy weight is as satisfying as night after night of cheap sex with the sort of shallow jerks who get their standards of beauty from "Maxim" and the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, I for one am all for it.

Apples and Oranges. (none / 0) (#116)
by Rock Joe on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 07:40:08 PM EST

It is sex that is a substitute for food in today's society.

...

And why do these women starve themselves into this cadaverous state? Why to look "sexy". We have an epidemic of eating disorders in America, all because the diet and clothing industries have somehow managed to equate skinny with sexy. So you see women skipping breakfast, eating a single broccoli spear for lunch, and drinking one of those disgusting meal supplement shakes for dinner, all so they can fit into an LBD and go out in search of a mate.

...

If these commercials are any indication that society is warming to the attitiude that eating enough to maintain a healthy weight is as satisfying as night after night of cheap sex with the sort of shallow jerks who get their standards of beauty from "Maxim" and the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, I for one am all for it.

I have a big problem with the point you're trying to make. I'll agree that there's a definite link between the image of slimness and sexiness, but slimness alone is only gonna get you so far. You're acting as if skipping breakfast every day will automatically get you a nice screw in the evening. You can't say that sex is a replacement for food unless you can prove that skinny people have more sex than fat people, and I seriously doubt you'll be able to substantiate that kinda correlation. Total knockout bombshells that complain about how men are intimidated by them probably have less sex than the women who pose for BBW porn sites. Probably. :o)

And there are plenty of deep guys who like to look at Maxim and the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue every now and then. Look at ME! :o)

Signatures are for losers!
--Rock Joe
[ Parent ]

slim fast is good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (none / 0) (#166)
by auraslip on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 09:30:07 AM EST

just not the vanilla. That IS disgusting
124
[ Parent ]
focus... (3.00 / 1) (#101)
by perlchild on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 05:05:19 PM EST

funny how an article went from "Europeans talk about sex more than Americans" to "Americans equate consuming sex with consuming food" As most of the article speaks about how taboo it is to SHOW sex or TALK about sex... and not about how much one has to the other, I'd say something got muddled along the way...

Actually (none / 0) (#137)
by MisterQueue on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 09:50:19 PM EST

I wrote the intro later... so in reality even the European fact is introduced to begin the exposition of a few things.. it doesn't really go on about the difference between the Euro and US culture.. in fact it says "but what are the reasons" hence the setup. Thanks for playing though.

-Q

-------
"Why don't you sell MisterQueueTM Brand thongs? -j3"
Parent ]

I think you're missing something.... (4.00 / 4) (#102)
by PolyEsther on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 05:14:07 PM EST

A quick look at American TV or movies or a listen to Hip Hop music seems to contradict your premise... The American airwaves are sex saturated. And of course they're using more and more explicitly sexual means for selling products too (advertising - of course it's always been the case, but now it's quite explicit). So, no, I don't think that America is somehow sexually repressed and puritanical - I don't buy it, there's too much evidence to the contrary.

I think he's right overall (none / 0) (#109)
by ZeuS572 on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 05:54:29 PM EST

I don't quite agree with this. It's true that sex is in the movies and hip hop, and many other avenues of media. But if you notice, all of these outlets are "choice" and/or "rebellious" outlets. If you consider 'polite' company, what do they usually talk about? They don't talk about these "dirty" movies or about Eminem (unless they're referring to his scandals). Sex is not seen on billboards or on commercials. Subliminal sexual innuendo as described in the article is rampant, but it is never explicit... It is presented as a naughty undertone thing, but is never called out. Perhaps this in itself may not be enough evidence that America is sexually repressed, but that's the general feeling I get. Sex is banned from the workplace and other polite things. Of course, I'm not advocating getting extremely explicit or watching porn or anything; I just think the subject as a whole shouldn't be as taboo as it is. To reiterate my point in one sentence-- It shouldn't be considered morally deviant behavior.

[ Parent ]
No sex on billboards? (none / 0) (#209)
by Crono on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 07:00:22 PM EST

I remember, recently, in New York, some shockjock dj had a ad commisioned where it was just her topless, covering her breasts with her hands with various witty lines along with it. On the other hand, various people complained and had 'em taken down, saying it objectified women and promoted lude subjects. Funny, 'cause the shockjock herself did em independantly and promoting lude behaviour? Feh, Europeans have been goin' topless forever.

[ Parent ]
obesity and the Americans (5.00 / 1) (#111)
by kalculy on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 06:49:15 PM EST

While obesity is on the rise in most of the Western world, it is only in North America and the US particularly that it has become an epidemic and it is also in the US that the fast food chains have become a home away from home. On visits to France, for example, my usual conversations with Americans have been about where the nearest McDo (French Slang for McD) is!
cogito, ergo sum
[ Parent ]
Poor little, I mean big, poor (none / 0) (#279)
by A Trickster Imp on Sun Mar 02, 2003 at 08:33:31 AM EST

And the fattest group of people over here are the poor.  See, they get that way sitting around in their houses watching TV and their VCR.  For the most part, they drive to the store too.  You can't make this stuff up!

[ Parent ]
Explicit?!? (none / 0) (#121)
by Rock Joe on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 07:55:25 PM EST

A quick look at American TV or movies or a listen to Hip Hop music seems to contradict your premise... The American airwaves are sex saturated.

Yeah... everyone knows that Hip Hop is the only type of music that ever talks about sex... (I'm just buggin' ya. I know you know better.)

But I gotta say I totally disagree when you say that the american airwaves are sex saturated. Sex starts making its way into the airwaves around primetime, but by then, parents should be home from work to monitor what their children are watching, if they aren't in bed already, that is...

And of course they're using more and more explicitly sexual means for selling products too (advertising - of course it's always been the case, but now it's quite explicit).

WHAT?!? I'd say they're getting more and more subtle. It's easier to use sex to sell something without the picture of a huge, erect penis filling the screen. That way your commercial will get aired more often. Am I the only guy who thinks that people who whined about that Bud commercial where the two hot chicks are fighting and ripping each other's clothes off are bitter old prudes? That's the most sexualy explicit commercial in recent memory, and anyone who watched that commercial with the sound on their telivisions turned on knows that the whole idea is about guys talking about what they'd wanna see in a beer commercial. I know *I* enjoyed seeing that in a beer commercial, so I guess they were right. :o)

Signatures are for losers!
--Rock Joe
[ Parent ]

explicit?!@#*! (none / 0) (#136)
by livus on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 09:46:45 PM EST

No, they are not. They never got over the Hayes Code.

Hell, even the music video for "the Thong song" was devoid of ass!

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]

eh? (5.00 / 2) (#201)
by Danse on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 04:48:11 PM EST

I think you're mistaken. You can show a few dozen people getting blown away on prime time, but can you show someone getting blown? Hell no. Well, you can do something mildly suggestive, such as a girl coming out from under a guy's desk or something, but in the end, it's better to show someone get stabbed to death than to show a female nipple. I think that's the point. Fucked up priorities and sensibilities.






An honest debate between Bush and Kerry
[ Parent ]
So Flawed (3.50 / 2) (#104)
by joecool12321 on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 05:27:55 PM EST

Your account, my friend, is flawed on multiple levels.

The most glaring error is is the assumption that anyone could substitute McDonalds for sex. I suppose it's possible if it's really bad sex. But you're going to be hard pressed to find anyone anywhere that would prefer McD's to Ms. O's.

The second error is to assume that food is a problem unique to the United States. "Western" societies, to steal your term, are all finding their national waistline expanding. In fact, the longer a McDonalds has been in a place (and the corralary increase in other fast-food organizations), the wider the waist becomes. So it's simply an alternate cause: not repressed sex, but bad food.

That's all I found in the first paragraph, but that's when I stopped reading, too.

--Joey

Well then (none / 0) (#117)
by MisterQueue on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 07:40:19 PM EST

your opinion isn't worth much is it? How can I expect a proper rebuttal unless you're going to read my entire argument.

-Q

-------
"Why don't you sell MisterQueueTM Brand thongs? -j3"
Parent ]

Axioms (none / 0) (#132)
by joecool12321 on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 09:13:03 PM EST

When the axioms are flawed, there's no reason to read any furthur.

[ Parent ]
Oh I completely agree (5.00 / 1) (#133)
by MisterQueue on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 09:17:57 PM EST

hence I still stand by my first statement.

-Q

-------
"Why don't you sell MisterQueueTM Brand thongs? -j3"
Parent ]

I saw "multiple" (none / 0) (#159)
by michaelp on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 04:29:49 AM EST

in your first sentence. But it wasn't followed by "orgasm", so I stopped reading.

Cum on, if you are going to try and sell anyone one your argument, you have to put some SEX in it!


"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

[ Parent ]
Well, with that special sauce ... (none / 0) (#180)
by joegee on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 11:53:35 AM EST

... on a Big Mac, if you let it sit til it cools down, it gets all slippery, then you open the bun, and remove the burgers, because they'll crumble ...

<sig>I always learn something on K5, sometimes in spite of myself.</sig>
[ Parent ]
How 'bout Wendy's Hot and Juicy? [n/t] (none / 0) (#251)
by epepke on Tue Feb 25, 2003 at 01:30:05 AM EST


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Pigtails or Handlebars? (none / 0) (#254)
by MisterQueue on Tue Feb 25, 2003 at 11:02:31 AM EST


-Q

-------
"Why don't you sell MisterQueueTM Brand thongs? -j3"
Parent ]

Sooo wrong... (3.60 / 5) (#108)
by AWhiteStar on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 05:53:38 PM EST

This has to be one of the worst articles ever which went to the kuro5hin front page. If you take a look here, it is obvious that the Americans actually have more sex than most peoples, including Europeans.
The question is not why American don't have sex, but why they don't talk about it!

yeah (none / 0) (#113)
by clem on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 07:08:26 PM EST

I totally agree. Not the best article ever.

--
All states are abstractions.
-Frank Herbert
[ Parent ]

Yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#115)
by MisterQueue on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 07:32:52 PM EST

I agree too.

-Q

-------
"Why don't you sell MisterQueueTM Brand thongs? -j3"
Parent ]

Who cares? (none / 0) (#118)
by Rock Joe on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 07:41:51 PM EST

K5 isn't about the articles. It's about the conversations that come from the articles. That's the way *I* see it anyway...

Signatures are for losers!
--Rock Joe
[ Parent ]
Sure, (5.00 / 2) (#119)
by MisterQueue on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 07:45:35 PM EST

but what kind of crap conversation is going to come from such a weak article? I don't know this author very well, but I can definitely say that he's done nothing but raised the bar for crapflooding.

-Q

-------
"Why don't you sell MisterQueueTM Brand thongs? -j3"
Parent ]

And I hear he has a BO problem too. :o) n/t (none / 0) (#122)
by Rock Joe on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 07:57:44 PM EST



Signatures are for losers!
--Rock Joe
[ Parent ]
What's wrong with BlueOregon? (none / 0) (#123)
by MisterQueue on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 07:58:40 PM EST


-Q

-------
"Why don't you sell MisterQueueTM Brand thongs? -j3"
Parent ]

Satire alert ! (5.00 / 1) (#138)
by Maserati on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 09:59:46 PM EST

none of the "editors" noticed this was satire ? "Electrical complex" ? Cmon, this guy is trolling, and you lot bought it hook line and sinker.

--

For the wise a hint, for the fool a stick.
[ Parent ]

Sigh (5.00 / 2) (#139)
by MisterQueue on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 10:03:10 PM EST

is it really trolling when you clearly mark it as humor?

Well.. if you get serious biters I guess it is. :P

-Q

-------
"Why don't you sell MisterQueueTM Brand thongs? -j3"
Parent ]

USA not "No 1" according to Durex (4.00 / 1) (#155)
by Bassdust on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 02:26:42 AM EST

It all depends on which survey you look at. Durex, the worlds largest condom manufacturer ends up with quite different results.
http://www.durex.com/2002%20sex%20survey.pdf

[ Parent ]
Look at the dates (it's (also) Bush's faut!). (5.00 / 2) (#158)
by michaelp on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 04:17:18 AM EST

It's quite obvious that American sex is like the American economy: it went into a tailspin when George Bush "won" the election!


"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

[ Parent ]
Statistics... (5.00 / 3) (#160)
by DominantParadigm on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 04:46:15 AM EST

Does anyone know much about statistics? There seems to be a major swing from year to year that sort of implies that that survey is only good for a "very rough ballpark" -

for example, for the "top" two countries,

the US went from 11.8 partners in a year to 14.3 partners in a year ( a 20% increase in one year, over a wide range of responders - busy year?),

and France, which went down from 16.7 partners in a year to 13.2 partners in a year (did everyone with a lot of partners just up and die?)



Caller:So you're advocating bombing innocent children? Howard Stern:Yes, of course!


[ Parent ]
Partners? (none / 0) (#278)
by A Trickster Imp on Sun Mar 02, 2003 at 08:26:53 AM EST

By "partners", do they mean distinct couplings, or literally 14 or so different people each year, per year?

If the latter, that can't be right.  The sluttiest woman I ever met was a gorgeous, dumb, big lipped spinner blonde divorcee of 32 years who had had sex with "around 60" men.  That 14/year would triple her 4.5 / year average of her adult life.

[ Parent ]

Isn't it obvious why? (2.66 / 6) (#120)
by dh003i on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 07:54:35 PM EST

The paranoid christian fucks who run this country think that losing your virginity -- or "modesty" -- before marriage is a worse crime than going out and murdering someone.

Social Security is a pyramid scam.

Yeah but their daughters PUT OUT. (5.00 / 1) (#130)
by Mr Hogan on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 09:07:25 PM EST

This is what i've trying to say all along, thanks for helping.

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.
[ Parent ]

No, they don't. (3.00 / 2) (#206)
by HollyHopDrive on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 06:06:29 PM EST

You fool.


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

There may be evidence that japan is trying this (4.33 / 3) (#125)
by sawilson on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 08:14:03 PM EST

http://yoga.tripod.co.jp/flash/kikkomaso.swf

Japanese Kikkoman Commercial


Sig:(This is your diatribe full of your titles
and lame beliefs and causes so men are impressed
with you and women want to bear your childr

uhhhhhhhh (none / 0) (#150)
by modmans2ndcoming on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 01:13:42 AM EST

that is the dumbest comercial ever


[ Parent ]
Ya think? (none / 0) (#253)
by sawilson on Tue Feb 25, 2003 at 03:01:52 AM EST

:)


Sig:(This is your diatribe full of your titles
and lame beliefs and causes so men are impressed
with you and women want to bear your childr
[ Parent ]
Panda (none / 0) (#277)
by A Trickster Imp on Sun Mar 02, 2003 at 08:22:11 AM EST

Where's that Japanese commercial where the panda stands up and has gigantic balls?

[ Parent ]
Show me, show you, be singing that all day now! nt (none / 0) (#156)
by michaelp on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 04:06:14 AM EST



"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

[ Parent ]
Sex and food joke (4.36 / 11) (#127)
by smallstepforman on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 08:23:34 PM EST

Now that I've replaced sex with food, I can't even get into my own pants any more :-)

Perhaps we already realize this (4.33 / 3) (#128)
by Pu55y Di5apline on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 08:26:35 PM EST

For instance, I want porn starletts to sell me cheeseburgers, cars, pizza, and vibrating rubber pussies. I enjoy it. So if I want it like that, why not?

Consenting (none / 0) (#275)
by A Trickster Imp on Sun Mar 02, 2003 at 08:20:09 AM EST

Vox Populi, Vox Dei

Live by the populist sword, die by the populist sword.

You have a right to your own body: therefore you may abort a child.

Oh, but wait!  We don't want you being a prostitude, therefore you don't have a right to your own body.

I won by a landslide?  Awesome!

[ Parent ]

Prostitute (none / 0) (#276)
by A Trickster Imp on Sun Mar 02, 2003 at 08:21:01 AM EST

A prostitude, is, of course, a male prostitute.

[ Parent ]
American Sexuality (4.87 / 8) (#134)
by nomoreh1b on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 09:34:39 PM EST

To understand how the US developed in this area I would suggest the book "Albion's Seed" by professor Fischer of Brandeis University. The early American settlers varied quite a bit in their mores. The quakers were the most strict in terms of their sexual moral code. The Puritans were far from Puritan in many respects-letters of some famous founding fathers could only be published recently. The cavalier plantations in the South were a sexual predator's paradise. The Scotch Irish according to one Puritan writer "swap their wives like cattle"(referring to the relative ease by which a woman could terminate a relationship)-the Quakers financed western settlements of the Scotch Irish in part because the Quakers were so scandalized by the loose morals of that alien element in their midst.

Anyhow, the idea that sexual culture in the US today has much to with the founders is kind of silly. Before 1900, prostitution was legal in most states(the WCTU-the folks that brought you prohibition got that done too). The only token WASP I know of that has any influence in the mass media is Mr. Jane Fonda(aka Ted Turner)--after that it is probably Pat Robertson who is a bit of a fringe figure.

The real influence of US sexual culture the last 50 years has been "show biz" out of Hollywood and New York. Christians may not like that-but just look. I don't think the situation is particularly stable.

Unstable Situation (none / 0) (#224)
by 500miles on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 11:21:52 PM EST

nomoreh1b, thank you for your comment, but can you elaborate on your conclusion that the present situation, by which I presume you mean the lack of healthful sexual outlets in the U.S., is unstable?

[ Parent ]
Show Biz and US Morality (5.00 / 1) (#262)
by nomoreh1b on Wed Feb 26, 2003 at 12:04:42 AM EST

The way I see it, stuff like Vaudeville went from being entertainment of urban adults to the "third parent" of American youth in the 50's with the introduction of TV-some of this stuff started earlier with radio and films-but with the introduction of TV, it went into high gear.

The various social mores that were common among "show biz" folks hadn't really been tried by nation until then. I tend to think that part of the reason that it happened at all was that much of conventional Christian morality had been demolished by Darwin and there was a power vacuum-and the show biz folks were just the entity that was in the right place at the right time.

Edison understood the power of his mass media inventions-and tried rather hard to retain control of those technologies--and his plan just didn't work very well.

The problem now though, the "show biz" culture finds itself in large part in the drivers seat. One story tells of Alexander the Great, conquering a city in Persia. His soldiers were out, looting, raping and pillaging. Alexander called up the city fathers-who had a reputation for being quite wise. He asked the wises of them all, rather sneeringly, if they had any advice for him. The old man, must have figured he didn't have much to loose and asked: "Sire, don't you think it would be a good idea if your soldiers quit burning down your city?"

The point of this story, the same tactics that work well, when you are on the outside looking in aren't really appopriate if you find yourself running the show. The show biz culture has had 50 years to learn how to responsibly use the power they have-and I don't think they really have--which means that sooner or later they'll stumble and someone else will take their place.

I'm hard pressed to say that I think the moral developments of the last 100 years have really made people any happier or made a society that is closer to accomplishing the sorts of things that I want to see.

What I tend to see is that the moral influence of show biz the last 50 years has created an enormous emphasis on superficialities that has left the bulk of the US population on the outside looking in as far as the culture they find themselves in. That is the situation that I see as unstable.



[ Parent ]

Playing devil's advocate (4.33 / 3) (#140)
by BeefyT on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 10:06:23 PM EST

You could also argue that sex sells anything, so sex is used to sell food. Cars get sexy, stereo systems get sexy...why not food? In this context, your photo evidence becomes an example of this trend that started with the 60s revolution. Although I think it's perfectly valid that food can be used as a solace, I can't agree with its context as a consciously-placed replacement for actual sexuality. That would require something of conspiratorial proportions, IMHO. I think our relative silence on sex is a product of being such a high-profile nation.

i'd just like to say (3.60 / 5) (#147)
by somasonic on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 11:41:51 PM EST

if your article had a little more oregano i'd probably be having an orgasm right now.

Americans are so prudish becasue (4.00 / 1) (#149)
by modmans2ndcoming on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 01:06:01 AM EST

We are, as a whole, more conservitive than Europeans..remember our cultural roots...at least of the government were from the puritans.

Not really... (none / 0) (#165)
by skyknight on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 09:17:49 AM EST

There weren't as many Puritans overall as you think, though Massachusetts certainly had more than its fair share, I state in which I unfortunately live. :(

It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
Massassassassachussettess (none / 0) (#274)
by A Trickster Imp on Sun Mar 02, 2003 at 08:16:25 AM EST

The last time I checked, the, umm, political patriarchy of MA wasn't exactly known, for, umm, sexual purity.  Of course, historically politics has been loaded with "do as I say, not as I do."

Be it sex or inheritence tax, do as I say, not as I do, that's their motto.

Taking turns with Marilyn Monroe, waking up on a porch without any pants on, give me a break!

[ Parent ]

thanks for that oversimplification (1.00 / 1) (#204)
by czb0150 on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 05:34:28 PM EST

Yes, everyone on K5 is from Massachusetts, but that doesn't mean everyone in the US is.

Robert


[ Parent ]

you don't need to be desended from a puritin (none / 0) (#216)
by modmans2ndcoming on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 08:30:10 PM EST

or a quaker to have their cultural roots.

[ Parent ]
No (none / 0) (#218)
by MisterQueue on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 09:25:11 PM EST

but you do need wheaty roots to make a delicious Quaker product such as oatmeal. Wait.. are we talking about the food part of the sex part? I get them so confused these days.

-Q

-------
"Why don't you sell MisterQueueTM Brand thongs? -j3"
Parent ]

I worry about you (none / 0) (#219)
by it certainly is on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 10:04:29 PM EST

and that banana topic icon.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

where worry = "further use of"? (none / 0) (#221)
by MisterQueue on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 10:25:50 PM EST


-Q

-------
"Why don't you sell MisterQueueTM Brand thongs? -j3"
Parent ]

No, (none / 0) (#222)
by it certainly is on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 10:51:38 PM EST

where worry = fantasize.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

I love Mr Q..... (4.20 / 5) (#151)
by TubeShoot on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 01:23:49 AM EST

...but two things to consider first.

1)Bill Hicks said it better (can't find a link...too lazy)

B) I'm high and forgot the other one.


"Quote thyself..........I do."--TubeShoot '03

I love you too Milkman Dan! (5.00 / 1) (#164)
by MisterQueue on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 08:27:06 AM EST

Two things to consider in response:

1. Bill Hicks is a better man than I could hope to be, and he had a serious message behind the joke.

2. I just ate a muffin.

-Q

-------
"Why don't you sell MisterQueueTM Brand thongs? -j3"
Parent ]

Bill Hicks (none / 0) (#273)
by A Trickster Imp on Sun Mar 02, 2003 at 08:09:42 AM EST

The next time people get bent out of shape over voting, consider this:

The year Bill Hicks died, Carrot Top won the People's Choice award for best comedian of the year.  His face was rather red as he went up to accept it, Bill having died earlier and still not winning.

The reason politicians hold inconsistent philosophies based on the various positions they pick out is because people are stupid.  Ess Tee Zero Zero Pee Eye Dee.

[ Parent ]

Wooooh (none / 0) (#208)
by Crono on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 06:44:28 PM EST

I like your arguement, dude.

[ Parent ]
Consumption was not cancer (3.00 / 1) (#152)
by blach on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 01:29:32 AM EST

Consumption was an old term for TB - Tuberculosis.

This has been a public de-stupidity announcement.


already covered (none / 0) (#154)
by sine nomen on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 02:21:48 AM EST

check the editorial comments.

[ Parent ]
Is this a joke? (3.83 / 6) (#153)
by vbpdjoe on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 01:54:12 AM EST

Seriously...English is a sencond language to me...so, is it?

is it a joke? (none / 0) (#267)
by texchanchan on Thu Feb 27, 2003 at 08:15:03 PM EST

yes. And a pretty funny one if you've grown up seeing the food brand icons like Betty Crocker and the rest all the time on TV.

[ Parent ]
A new k5 posting rule (4.25 / 4) (#167)
by auraslip on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 09:36:16 AM EST

Any article dealing with sex or anything remotely related to sex will immeditley be voted front page.
I wonder what this says about our demography?
124
I seem to recall (none / 0) (#171)
by twistedfirestarter on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 10:29:25 AM EST

certain "erotic" fiction dropping like a stone in the queue.

[ Parent ]
Americans think and talk of nothing but sex. (4.16 / 6) (#168)
by Phillip Asheo on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 10:10:07 AM EST

rather more taboo in the US

I have not noticed this at all. Indeed, 90% of all internet traffic is porn, served from the USA to the rest of the world.

--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long

You ever tried looking at it (5.00 / 1) (#172)
by MisterQueue on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 10:48:06 AM EST

in an internet cafe? Or a library?

-Q

-------
"Why don't you sell MisterQueueTM Brand thongs? -j3"
Parent ]

Have you? (none / 0) (#173)
by twistedfirestarter on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 10:56:34 AM EST

Do they come and take you away? Is it illegal?

[ Parent ]
I have never looked at it at all. (3.50 / 2) (#176)
by Phillip Asheo on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 11:19:45 AM EST

I have no interest in colluding in the exploitation of my fellow human beings. I was just making the observation that America leads the world in the export of exploitative erotica and pornography.

--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long
[ Parent ]

Leads possibly (none / 0) (#179)
by MisterQueue on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 11:35:31 AM EST

but have you ever been to Japan?

-Q

-------
"Why don't you sell MisterQueueTM Brand thongs? -j3"
Parent ]

No, and I have no intention of doing so, either. (none / 0) (#181)
by Phillip Asheo on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 11:58:00 AM EST

I knew this Linux advocate guy who was always talking about "anime". Turns out that "anime" is some sort of Japanese cartoon pornography involving octopusses raping girls, and giant exoskeltons. When he desrcibe it, it all seemed so bizarre to me. I couldn't understand how anyone could get off on it.

But then again, I never could understand how people could bear to use Linux either. Perhaps its just me.

--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long
[ Parent ]

Boo... (5.00 / 2) (#183)
by MisterQueue on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 12:07:26 PM EST

and you were doing so well.. skill and flare and whatnot, but now it's just degenerated into tired old geekschtick...

My amusement wanes. Onward says I.

-Q

-------
"Why don't you sell MisterQueueTM Brand thongs? -j3"
Parent ]

I'll bite. (5.00 / 1) (#185)
by Rock Joe on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 12:10:06 PM EST

I knew this Linux advocate guy who was always talking about "anime". Turns out that "anime" is some sort of Japanese cartoon pornography involving octopusses raping girls, and giant exoskeltons. When he desrcibe it, it all seemed so bizarre to me. I couldn't understand how anyone could get off on it.

I hope this is a really subtle attempt at trolling, but I doubt it is, so I'll clarify this: What yo speak of is called "hentai", not "anime". Hentai is a sub-group of anime, and they are not to be confused. And not all hentai involves girls being raped by aliens with tentacles, but a disturbing proportion of it is. And I don't know how they get off on that either.

Signatures are for losers!
--Rock Joe
[ Parent ]

Really subtle? (none / 0) (#203)
by it certainly is on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 05:23:20 PM EST

Darling, the "0MG!!!1! ANIEM == TEH PR0N LOLOLOLOLOL!!!1!" is the most fucking obvious troll in the history of trolling. If you ask the man on the street to write a troll on anime, the first (and only) thing that pops into his head is "I'll pretend all anime is hentai!". The only thing more saddening than seeing this dead horse flogged is to see people falling for it.

We know there are some really sick Japanese people out there. That's what happens when you expose an insular nation to American debauchery.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

! ANIEM == TEH PR0N (none / 0) (#233)
by Phillip Asheo on Mon Feb 24, 2003 at 03:02:21 PM EST

I'd like to think I was a just a little bit more subtle than that. But whatever.

The question I would like answered is "what is the functional difference between trollspotting and biting ?"

--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long
[ Parent ]

Simple. (none / 0) (#240)
by it certainly is on Mon Feb 24, 2003 at 05:21:13 PM EST

Trollspotters are bites from compulsive biters, disguised as meta-commentary.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Exactly, so there is no difference at all. (none / 0) (#244)
by Phillip Asheo on Mon Feb 24, 2003 at 06:54:01 PM EST

The phenomenon of 'biting' deserves much further study.

If I was rich, I would give up work and study for a PHd in the 'psychology of textual argument' or something equally nebulous.

My 'research' would consist of posting controversial comments to public fora (forii?) in order to measure 'biters' in a scientific fashion. I would then publish my results in some obscure journal. It would be great!

--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long
[ Parent ]

Hasn't it been done already? (none / 0) (#246)
by it certainly is on Mon Feb 24, 2003 at 07:08:55 PM EST

If I was rich

Another illusion shattered.

But what of Amy Dhala's well known thesis?

public fora (forii?)

You were right the first time. I imagine forii would be the plural of forus, which is shorthand for "fosforus" (American variant of phosphorus, like "sulfer" is the American variant of sulpher), which means "match" in English. Therefore, forii would be a box of matches.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Why do prudes always forget this? (none / 0) (#182)
by Rock Joe on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 12:04:41 PM EST

I have no interest in colluding in the exploitation of my fellow human beings.

It's only exploitation if the people involved are minors, or in any other way, non-consenting.

Signatures are for losers!
--Rock Joe
[ Parent ]

Porn exploits everyone (5.00 / 1) (#184)
by Phillip Asheo on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 12:08:34 PM EST

The consumers, and the producers. It has nothing to do with prudery, and everything to do with a hatred of coercion (be it physical, economic, or social).

--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long
[ Parent ]

Coercion?!? (none / 0) (#186)
by Rock Joe on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 12:24:22 PM EST

I actually had to look the word up to make sure there wasn't some bizarre meaning I wasn't aware of. Here's what I got: 1 : to restrain or dominate by force 2 : to compel to an act or choice 3 : to bring about by force or threat Where's the coercion in porn? The fact that you'd try and associate porn to coercion suggests to me that you may be even pruder than you'd be willing to admit, especially considering that you've never watched porn. The bottom line is that consuming porn is a victimless crime, and if a crime doesn't have any victims, it isn't a crime. It's something else. PRODUCING porn may be a crime with victims, depending on a whole bunch of circumstances, but you can't put all your eggs in one basket.

Signatures are for losers!
--Rock Joe
[ Parent ]
Do the porn stars work for free ? (none / 0) (#188)
by Phillip Asheo on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 12:31:26 PM EST

Of course they do not.

--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long
[ Parent ]

Do tax dollars go into the porn industry? (none / 0) (#189)
by Rock Joe on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 12:43:25 PM EST

OK. A politician who consumes porn is a special case, but you don't have to vote for him if you don't want to.

Signatures are for losers!
--Rock Joe
[ Parent ]
Erm (none / 0) (#191)
by JatTDB on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 01:12:20 PM EST

How, exactly, does getting paid to make porn differ from getting paid to be in any other form of non-sexual media?  How does it differ from any other form of work for compensation?  Or are all jobs the result of hated coercion?

[ Parent ]
Not all. (5.00 / 1) (#199)
by Mr Hogan on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 04:18:18 PM EST

Oh yes certainly there are a very few brazen but otherwise sober public sluts in the thrall of their privates same as some people talk to the pigeons in the park and there's nothing woof with that, mostly because their number does not exceed the number of gardeners in Nunavut. Not a threat. But for the most part porn is the wages of cocaine and the exploitation of a decent Hungarian girl who would be just mortified if the cute boy in her literature class learned why her mother's arthritis was improving, it is the water treatments, they are expensive && she cannot design dresses to pay for them, thanks to the Gap there is no market. So I think you'll find if you reflect that's as good as coercion - unless you think letting her mother die is a valid un coerced alternative?! Who will leave milk in the saucers then? The stray cats will die.

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.
[ Parent ]

Pornography exploits society. (4.75 / 4) (#226)
by eSolutions on Mon Feb 24, 2003 at 02:00:01 AM EST

The problem isn't that people are paid to have sex -- prostitution is a necessary part of modern economics, and the cornerstone of modern feminist sex-positive self-esteem theory.

The problem with pornography, itself, is that the sex act is "otherized." Thus something that ought to be intensely personal is brought outward, from the corporeal to the abstract. So instead of indulging healthy sexual feelings in the real world, I'm essentially making love to a machine (my VCR or web browser.)

This creates a morbid culture of erstwhile virginity -- castrated men and frigid women. It reminds me of the Huner Thompson quote: "What do you do with an entire generation that has been taught sex is death and rain is poison?"

Pornography robs you of yourself. Reject it, and become a man again.

----
Making periods more convenient -- one box at a time.
--Tampax Commercial
[ Parent ]

Baudrillard agrees with you and so do I... n/t (5.00 / 1) (#234)
by Phillip Asheo on Mon Feb 24, 2003 at 03:17:29 PM EST


--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long
[ Parent ]

Entertainment vs. Education. (none / 0) (#236)
by Rock Joe on Mon Feb 24, 2003 at 04:28:52 PM EST

Are you the kinda guy who thinks that the Road Runner dropping an anvil on Coyote's head teaches children that violence solves problems? Because you seem to think that what people choose to do to entertain themselves will always have an educational effect on their moral system. If I wanna broaden my horizons and become a better person, I'm not gonna sit in front of a TV anyway. But if I'm bored, what's wrong with watching an episode of Elimidate?

Signatures are for losers!
--Rock Joe
[ Parent ]
subjective observation? (none / 0) (#266)
by hndrcks on Wed Feb 26, 2003 at 11:51:35 PM EST

"ought to be intensely personal " is surely a subjective observation on sexual relations, based on culture, environment and upbringing. Whether sex ought to be intensely personal, somewhat personal, or completely impersonal is best (IMO) left up to the individual.

Of course, the 'value' (economic) of any item is usually tied to its perceived value by individuals and relative scarcity... it could be inferred that sexually repressive cultures will by their very nature drive up the 'value' of impersonal sex (porn).

The question that could be asked - at least when one looks at, say, US vs. Europe - is whether a culture that represses sexual expression makes the undesirable 'side effects' of porn better or worse than a less repressive society. Are those 'hooked' on porn marginalized? Is it easier or harder (comparatively speaking) to get 'hooked'? Are those addicted to porn robbing banks to get it, (or worse) rape / kiddie / etc.?

[ Parent ]
Good points, all. (5.00 / 1) (#269)
by eSolutions on Fri Feb 28, 2003 at 10:28:35 PM EST

But your deconstructionism breaks down. The notion of sexual intercourse as inherently personal isn't a social construction, it's a matter of definition. How can the act that creates people not be personal? So this has less to do with laws economic than natural.

Furthermore, the repression of pornography, and the socioeconomic ramifications of banning it, are beside the point. Pornography is an inherent ill in society -- it turns those who watch it into machine-fuckers. It is fundamental dehumanization, like slavery or unforgivable debt. By dulling the souls of those who watch it, we as a people are robbed of humanity's brotherhood. This is our own punishment! We must abandon this evil, lest it enslave us as all robot overlords must.

Abandon the blue! Strike down the films of strumpetry! Turn your gaze from the sirens of self-murder! Have little and gain much!

----
Making periods more convenient -- one box at a time.
--Tampax Commercial
[ Parent ]

Troll! (2.00 / 3) (#213)
by Matadon on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 07:43:20 PM EST

Don't feed the troll, everyone, just move along...

--
"There's this thing called being so open-minded your brains drop out." — Richard Dawkins.
[ Parent ]
Come come now (5.00 / 1) (#214)
by MisterQueue on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 07:48:48 PM EST

where else can I ask one innocent question, never get it answered, and get a lame tired linux geekspeak troll in response? Seriously, you can't pay for that kind of entertainment these days.

-Q

-------
"Why don't you sell MisterQueueTM Brand thongs? -j3"
Parent ]

It's obvious. (none / 0) (#268)
by Matadon on Fri Feb 28, 2003 at 02:57:31 PM EST

The Other Site, of course. ;)

--
"There's this thing called being so open-minded your brains drop out." — Richard Dawkins.
[ Parent ]
Ever been to Europe. . ? (4.50 / 2) (#202)
by Fantastic Lad on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 04:48:13 PM EST

I have not noticed this at all. Indeed, 90% of all internet traffic is porn, served from the USA to the rest of the world.

It's not so much the proliferation of porn, (though that does provide a certain type of indication), but rather the attitude behind it.

Put very simply, Americans giggle more.

The more repressed sex is, the more convoluted the psychology behind everything sex.

Oooh! I just thought of another metaphor! "The pot of hormones is going to boil wherever there are people, Europe, America, wherever. But the more tightly the lid is secured, the more the steam will whistle!"

Though, it seems to me that given the new 'golden' age of sexual knowledge which has come about thanks to the Internet, the repressed American attitudes will probably change over the next couple of generations, (speaking entirely hypothetically, seeing as how we probably aren't going to have too many more generations.).

-Fantastic Lad

[ Parent ]

Taboo promotes Selling (5.00 / 2) (#227)
by Kuranes on Mon Feb 24, 2003 at 06:00:13 AM EST

My view would be that tabooized Sexuality leads often to a suppressed urge which leads to consumation of porn.

In a nutshell, people who fuck enough are not very eager to stay up late to watch porn. They have the real thing.

Thus, preventing people from having free sexuality promotes consumation and helps the industry. That's it.


Gentlemen, Chicolini here may talk like an idiot, and look like an idiot, but don't let that fool you: he really is an idiot.
[ Parent ]
Did you check his references? (4.66 / 3) (#194)
by darkonc on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 02:09:34 PM EST

Did you actually bother to check things like his before and after pictures of the big burger boy? The people who took this article seriously may be a little to knee-jerk for my liking.

Either this article was intended to be a joke, or it is a joke. While I agree with the general idea of the article, I definitely disagree with many of the specifics of what it says. The guy who claimed english as a second language had a pretty accurate read on this thing.
Killing a person is hard. Killing a dream is murder. : : : ($3.75 hosting)

I know watcha mean. (3.00 / 1) (#197)
by Rock Joe on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 03:06:18 PM EST

When he's commenting about the before and after Big Boy, he sounds EXACTLY like an art critic trying to convince me that I see the same thing he sees when looking at a painting. Good point, horrible examples.

Signatures are for losers!
--Rock Joe
[ Parent ]
Yes and no. . . (3.00 / 2) (#200)
by Fantastic Lad on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 04:36:36 PM EST

Yeah, his style is all over the place. If he were writing a university paper, then I'd have to point out that his thesis and following arguments don't really seem to have much in common.

But he IS tickling the tiger. There IS a big goopy monster out there. He just doesn't understand its shape properly, and he's making some pretty unsubstantiated claims.

Though, I must say, the Before & After Big-Boy statues ARE without question different. I've worked with sculpture to some degree and illustration to a large degree, and I can say without question that lighting aside, the new design was definitely and intentionally made to look slightly sinister. I suspect this has something to do with the company wanting to suggest that their burgers are something forbidden and addictive. (Linking products to addiction has been a very popular method of advertising this last decade. Effective too, from many accounts.)

But, yes, there was a definite bit of over-indulgent 'connection' making on the part of the poster. And yeah, it DID sound like an art/literature critic trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

Only problem. . , there IS a mountain out there. He just missed it by a few degrees.

-Fantastic Lad

[ Parent ]

AIDS (1.00 / 3) (#195)
by Baldrson on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 02:13:36 PM EST

The US has a worse AIDS problem than Europe.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


Yep (none / 0) (#211)
by TheOnlyCoolTim on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 07:32:51 PM EST

It correlates with the Jews, right?

Tim
"We are trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."
[ Parent ]

That is an expected affect. (none / 0) (#237)
by IPFreely on Mon Feb 24, 2003 at 04:58:17 PM EST

Since Aids was first diagnosed as a sexually spread desease, and primarily one in the Gay community, the powers that be had double reason to resist properly addressing it. They called it a "Homosexual" problem or made other excuses for not taking proper action. The result is that it spread unchecked before enough people knew and understood it. Big delay in response equals more spreading.

It took big names like Rock Hudson and Magic Johnson to raise public awareness enough to force proper public action and education. Once it became obviously not something exclusively realted to the Gay community, then real publicly funded research could begin and accurate public education on the topic became available.

[ Parent ]

Yummy, Yummy, Yummy (2.00 / 1) (#207)
by Xophmeister on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 06:07:57 PM EST

I got love in my tummy... and so on!

Says it all really ;)



Doesn't that (none / 0) (#230)
by organism on Mon Feb 24, 2003 at 09:23:09 AM EST

violate one of the rules?

[ Parent ]
50s? Try earlier. (4.50 / 4) (#223)
by hndrcks on Sun Feb 23, 2003 at 11:10:25 PM EST

De Tocqueville wrote about the uncommon morality and strict sexual mores of Americans in 1830:

"Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness..."

TV isn't the culprit - it just made the whole thing more interesting to observe.

mmmmm, burgers... (2.00 / 1) (#235)
by Jaritsu on Mon Feb 24, 2003 at 03:50:29 PM EST

"Food has been used to replace the normal sexual desire of Americans. The question then remains, how did this happen?"

I can't remember where I read it, but somewhere I read that when a man is hungry and horney, his psych leans much further towards wanting to fulfill his hunger for food.

Besides, food is easier to get, and we have drive throughs for it :)

"Jaritsu, have you stopped beating your wife yet?" - Kintanon

you have seriously got to be kidding right? (1.00 / 1) (#250)
by m a r c on Tue Feb 25, 2003 at 01:25:42 AM EST

look the order is this sex shelter sleep food
I got a dog and named him "Stay". Now, I go "Come here, Stay!". After a while, the dog went insane and wouldn't move at all.
[ Parent ]
Maybe this has something to do with it (3.20 / 5) (#241)
by spakka on Mon Feb 24, 2003 at 05:56:33 PM EST

The US has the world's gayest flag.



rise of porn? (3.00 / 1) (#245)
by Rhodes on Mon Feb 24, 2003 at 07:07:41 PM EST

Obesity has increased at the same time porn has become more available. That seems to be strong evidence discounting your thesis.

TV in general is the best and most controlling habit. Better than drugs.

Obesity and a rise in porn (none / 0) (#271)
by A Trickster Imp on Sun Mar 02, 2003 at 07:56:00 AM EST

Obesity and a rise in porn:  Cause or effect?

Or maybe they're unrelated except in that they are both the effect of a free, capitalist society providing more and more at ever cheaper prices.

[ Parent ]

Result do not imply intent (1.00 / 1) (#260)
by krek on Tue Feb 25, 2003 at 04:20:31 PM EST



Culture? (3.00 / 1) (#263)
by k24anson on Wed Feb 26, 2003 at 11:10:08 AM EST

It only took a couple hundred people to give the US the prosperity of the Industrial Age. And very few of these afore said couple hundred let their mind become so engrossed in tits, and butts, pondering whether their anus is really a vagina because they have a women trapped inside there body for forty, fifty years of their adult life.

European males are so fascinated with the chemicals girls at puberty have trickling in their bloodstreams. So fascinated are they that they start acting sexually themselves like females, wondering their entire life, "Why do I have thoughts like these? I must be a . . . ?
a . . ., a homosexual! Let me spend my entire life now investigating what that means . . ."

Another "wasted" mind blathering endless claptrap about some platonic impractical utopic way of the world that should exist because they're in touch with their unrepressed sexual "nature". Mind you that this "nature", brought to them courtesy of the same chemicals prepubescent girls use to develop a mature sexual identity with as they become adults, is now bringing the same identity to their minds. Their minds that have a penis in their pants. Show me a European with critical faculties of mind today and I'll be surprised. They're all into feelings and emotions, like girls . . .

Americans don't need to spend a lifetime wondering what they can think about, and start acting like, because of "little girl chemicals". Let the Europeans splash, and stuff sexual activity into every form of their daily walk through life they can conceive of, but their best and brightest don't put men on the moon. Or build fusion engines. Or teach their young men what little girl chemicals do, can do to the male brain for an entire lifetime. Or do they?

Let them stay "enlightened" I say!
KLH
NYC

Stay focused. Go slow. Keep it simple.

Ugh... (none / 0) (#264)
by MisterQueue on Wed Feb 26, 2003 at 11:35:24 AM EST

that was quite possibly the most horrendous thing I've ever read... (and I've read the bible, so that's saying a LOT) I want those 2 minutes of my life back.

-Q

-------
"Why don't you sell MisterQueueTM Brand thongs? -j3"
Parent ]

I dunno (none / 0) (#270)
by epepke on Sat Mar 01, 2003 at 07:26:42 AM EST

Benjamin Franklin certainly had a mind that was engrossed in tits and butts.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Joke? (1.00 / 2) (#265)
by MuteWinter on Wed Feb 26, 2003 at 08:36:30 PM EST

Perhaps this guy wrote for the late Adequacy.org?

American Prudery??? (4.00 / 1) (#283)
by DulyDiligent on Tue Mar 04, 2003 at 11:41:12 AM EST

I don't know what part of America Qeue is visiting, but i assure you the west coast is all about getting laid, and so is the east coast. Its constantly the topic of conversation in adult places such as bars, taverns, parties, and singles gatherings. It seems to be always on TV, and certainly there a thousands of American movies devoted to unprudish, sexually explicit (if not downright enthusiastic) approaches to sex and sexuality. Is the Jolly Green Giant really a "tower of rippling power?" Gimme a friggin' break! Sex sells, be it food, or computers, or motorcycles. As for a link between prudishness and overeating, I don't see a connection at all. Albeit, I can see how someone who's getting regular nookie, would begin to work less hard on their physique and gradually let themselves go, as they say. Did you know that chocolate stimulates the same nerve synapses as sex does? Ciao.
no mames buey!
So does money (none / 0) (#284)
by bheerssen on Fri Mar 07, 2003 at 05:31:03 PM EST

Really, I heard it on NPR yesterday (so it MUST be true, right?). In fact, the story suggested that all pleasure stimulus are essentially the same to the brain - they vary only in intensity.


[ Parent ]
The impact of Freud and Christianity (none / 0) (#286)
by Nice2Cats on Mon Mar 10, 2003 at 04:56:01 AM EST

There are two main factors that acount for the fact that Americans go into hysterics about things like public nudity or nudity in ads that Europeans don't mind:

1. Freud's ideas, as completely wrong as we know them to be today, had far more time to gain a hold in the U.S.. The Freudians in Europe fled there when then Nazis invaded their countries, and after the Second World War, Europe was too busy rebuilding (or suffering through Communism) to have time for Freudian speculation about how pictures of naked women will affect children. Germany, Great Britian, and France were never told that everybody should have therapy for an hour every day for years.

2. Once they had discovered North America, the Europeans threw out all of the radical Christian groups that they could find. In doing so, they got rid of a lot of people with very, uh, restrictive views on sex, who then massively influenced the views in the U.S.. Europeans, until this day, think that getting rid of spoil-sports, wet blankets, and party-poopers such as the Puritans was one of the best things they ever did.

Making fun of America's sexual phobias is a growth industry in Europe. Everytime Hollywood cuts scenes for the U.S. market (like Bruce W.' penis in Color of Night), everybody has a good time making fun of those repressed Yanks...

The Way to an American's Heart | 286 comments (250 topical, 36 editorial, 4 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!