In preparing for an upcoming "Star Party" in Atlanta I went to read more about the man on who's behalf it is being held. The late astronomer Jeff Medkeff had some interesting posts in his "Blue Collar Scientist" blog. I culled this list - which he says he found circulating on the web - from his site. Wish I'd met him. I support Gay Marriage and if you read this list you'll get a good idea why:
Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
The siltstone phallus is highly polished. It is 19.2cm tall and has a width of 2.8cm. It was reassembled from 14 fragments found in the Hohle Fels Cave. The close-ups of opposite sides show etched rings around the head, and markings that may have come from knapping flint. (Image: J. Liptak)
This 28,000 year old stone tool was, according to the accompanying BBC article, possibly used as an actual sex-toy. Keep in mind that in Cobb County Georgia you still have to sell such items as "novelties." Seems the novelty would have worn off sometime in the past 28K years...
While this kind of thing may shock some readers, it just goes to show that humans propensity for using technology to improve sex goes way back beyond the VCR. (There is a common theme of porn driving technology. It has been said that the development and spread of the VCR was driven by porn dollars. Likewise the CD-ROM's wide use in PCs has been attributed to the porn industry. And of course DVDs... And now evidence that this tie goes back so far makes me suspect that even back in the stone age the techies were nerds and that they wanted to use their nerd powers for sexual gratification.)
Were ancient techies nerds? Did these stone "tools" get the job done? Did the crafters of this tool also sell pipes, rolling paper and patchouli incense? Finds like these remind us that our ancient ancestors were as interested in sex as we are today.
"But what about porn," you may ask. "Did ancient humans enjoy porn?"
Dr. Dale Guthrie of the University of Alaska Fairbanks says that the majority of known cave art depicting humans shows the female form. According to Dr. Guthrie, "...these weren't just any women, they were Pleistocene Pamela Andersons adorned with ludicrously huge breasts and hips. The walls were also decorated with graphic depictions of genitalia."
And what about sculpture? Who can forget the 30,000 year old Venus of Willendorf? This beauty shows that even "back in the day" folks unashamedly appreciated a BBW. Her hair's a bit different than today's stylings, but you can find images to match the rest of her all over the Internet.
Some sociologist might argue that these are merely symbolic - but the fact is that we have an evolved response to become sexually aroused by visual stimulation. (Or at least males do...)
Call me old fashioned but I am glad to see that I'm not the only one spending hours a day crafting dildos out of stone. ;)
Making the rounds this week was this amusing and entertaining video from Mary Roach, author of several books - of which I've only read Spook - but Stiff is in my "to read" pile, as is "Bonk" - from which much of this material comes. (pardon)
The video is entertaining and informative - but the part that really struck me (besides the non-prurient pig masturbation) was the section that starts at the 5:30 mark. It highlights some of the work of researcher and writer Theodoor Hendrik van de Velde. In van de Velde's writing (per Roach) he mentions the smell of a mature man's semen as being similar to the scent of a Spanish Chestnut's flowers.
This brought to mind some research I'd done a long time ago on this matter. My wife said that a tree in the back yard of my mother's house smelled like semen when it flowers. I agreed with her and found it similar - yet slightly stronger like what I imagines a sperm bank with a faulty freezer unit might end up smelling like after a day or two.
Not content to just note the similarity, I looked around for any literature on the matter and came across a lengthy discourse on the "Straight Dope" board. Here's the link - but the page has a lot of additional material non-topical to this matter, so I'll include the salient quote. Always give "Cecil" a read if you have time, though. This is a link to that article (down the page below the piercing question).
REPORTS FROM THE FRINGE, PART ONE
Dear Cecil:
Abhorrent as it is to speak of such matters, I must corroborate your reader's recent observation about certain trees in Los Angeles that smell like semen in the fall. I have two of these funky-smelling (in the original sense of the word meaning "bitch dog in heat") trees in my backyard in Laurel Canyon. They are ugly, have grotesque hairy blossoms, and smell so bad that bees and flies both share the nectar. It is disconcerting for me and I'm glad I'm not the only one to notice it. --R.H., Los Angeles
PS: I have no idea what they're called.
Dear R.H.:
I can see it's going to be one of those weeks. Due to the press of business, I haven't had had a chance to go hunt down the sperm trees of Los Angeles myself. However, David Lofgren, a botanical information consultant at the Los Angeles State and County Arboretum, speculates that the plant in question is the carob tree, Ceratonia siliqua, source of the well-known chocolate substitute. The tree, which grows only in Mediterranean climates like LA's, typically is around 30 feet tall and has bluish green leaves that are rounded on the end. At blossom time it has many little flowers, which may give the appearance of hairiness. In the fall and winter it produces sweet, juicy pods that conceivably could produce the smell of semen when they rot. However, if one of Cecil's devoted readers will be so kind as to send him a sample of the offending tree's leaves, blossoms, pods, or whatever, we will get to the bottom of this matter once and for all. The discussion goes on from there... go to the SD page for the full discourse.
In "Cecil's" research he's referred to the Carob tree by botanist David Lofgren. Also Ginko trees. (We have these at my office, and the smell shows up there sometimes.) Florida "Punk Trees" are implicated. California Privet. A Chesnut. (Cecil postulates "Chinese" - but perhaps it was Spanish as in TvdV's example?)
"Cecil" comes to the conclusion that the correct tree hasn't been identified. Yet it seems more likely that a variety of trees produce a comparable odor. I wonder why? And is the chemical involved in the odor the same as that in Semen? Or is this a result of convergent evolution?
There may not be any benefit to having heavily scented semen. Especially if one is trying to convince a lover to swallow it. But based on my research (still preliminary) evolution doesn't favor oral sex for the benefit of the male. (Now female directed oral sex - that's all over the place in the animal kingdom.)
So if humans don't use scent for selection (though there is a lot of evidence that they DO in fact) then why have such a scent. And more importantly why have such a similar scent in multiple plants? Do we really want bees and flies attracted to semen? (I don't! - and I certainly don't want any honey produced by such a misguided hive.)
It's a mystery - but one worth investigating. I'll put this one on the list of "things to keep looking into" and get back to it in the future.
In the April 1st (no joke) episode of the Skeptics Guide to the Universe, the crew - including the neurologist Dr. Steve Novella, discussed what possible applications could need mind control where manual control or voice control wasn't just as good.
And the immediate - and obvious - use to my mind, is enhanced teledildonics.
In case you've never heard of teledildonics, it is the field of science(?) that handles remote-controlled sex toys. Now recent inventions like the "Real Touch" synthetic sex orifice have worked on the idea that a visual component (a video) is needed with the synthetic orifice. (They say "orifice" because it is penis-centric technology and could be used to simulate straight/gay vaginal/anal sex. In other words, it could either be an electric anus or vagina. (I bet my mom is so proud of helping me go to college as an English major.)
Anyway, the technology discussed on the SGU allows some simple manipulation of robotic mechanisms via a hat. What kinds of activity might you be engaged in where your hands were actively doing something and your mouth was busy so that it couldn't speak out a command, but you wanted to be able to control a robotic device? Looks like "in bed" isn't just for appending to fortune-cookies anymore!
I foresee a time when a pair of consenting adults can be engaged in the most remarkable activities wherein many orifices are stimulated by friend and faux. I won't spell out what I'm thinking - but I can almost guarantee it'll be illegal in The South.
Okay - it's not every day that I see something that surprises me. Yet this video does for some reason. I think it is because the folks in it seem so earnestly "into" their inanimate partners. Now many, many women "enjoy" inanimate objects - and men too, don't leave them out. But these women seem to have developed one-way emotional ties that are inordinately strong and sexual in nature.
Is this a fetish? Or something different?
I plan to expand on this article but for now, just want to expose you to the concept.
I will say that one woman is seriously into her gear - but there is no nudity. Still, I'd say this one's not work-safe. For that matter neither is this blog in general - so you've been warned.
But - my only exposure to this (so far) is through this documentary. And as a rule, I like to check out the studies and get to the science behind these kinds of behaviours. Still, with a little research I did come up with some interesting information.
The condition is called "Objectum-Sexuality" or "Objectophillia" and the video is from a documentary called "Married to the Eiffel Tower." (I'm trying to track down a link to the "real" video - it isn't on Netflix yet.) The documentary talks with several people who are in love with various objects - such as the Golden Gate Bridge, the Eiffel Tower, and -as you may have surmised from the snippet above - a large mechanical side-show. This is no new condition, with a famous case being that of a woman who married the Berlin Wall. Not sure how they worked that out.
The video does appear to be available in chunks on YouTube - not my favorite way to watch a movie, but here's the link to part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag3pFIDapIw
So - is it a real condition? That's the big question on the Internet. That and "why would anyone love a bridge?" I have to admit with my naturalist world view (that's the science one, not the naked volley-ball one) I can see no reason why it wouldn't be feasible for someone to fall in love with an inanimate object. I'm of the personal opinion that much of what the world thinks of as "love" is far more brain chemistry and confirmation bias - (still I loves Mrs. Doctor Atlantis with all my chemical heart.)
The condition seems real enough, but I'll do some more journal searches and see what I can dig up. Dig up with my big shiny Internet shovel. Mmmmm. Shovels... Where was I?
Oh, I remember. There is a website for folks with the condition (if that's the right word) and you can find that here: http://www.objectum-sexuality.org/
We'll get back to this with some more details on the specifics of the condition (besides the obvious) and perhaps discuss what role animism has in the whole matter.
In my research on matters prurient, one item which has always aroused my interest is female orgasm. There are so many myths rumors and legends about this - and taboos, and cultural and religious strictures on discussing it, that just narrowing down one specific aspect of it to research was difficult for me. But while researching what to research (how's that for meta?) I came across multiple medical journal articles which talked about different kinds of orgasms in women.
Sexuality researchers categorize orgasm into two major types. The clitoral orgasm is the kind most people are familiar with. Most women can achieve one of these through clitoral stimulation (with a vibrator, finger, partner's body part, etc...). For many women this is what they think of when they contemplate orgasms.
However, according to multiple researchers there is a second kind of female orgasm. It is called a vaginal orgasm and is generated by stimulating the g-spot (named after sex researcher Ernst Gräfenberg) which lies on the anterior wall of the vagina, behind the clitoris. This type of orgasm, which can be generated by vaginal-only stimulation, is described as being stronger and more powerful than the more well known clitoral type.
But controversy has surrounded g-spot related claims. Some doubt the existence of such a place because many women don't seem to be capable of vaginal orgasms, and cadaver research hasn't uncovered any corresponding increase in nerve distribution in the corresponding physiological regions. (I doubt they'd have had any luck making those cadavers climax even if they could find a corresponding high-nerve spot to stimulate.)
Yet for women who have vaginal orgasms, and those who experience other g-spot phenomena such as female ejaculation (a subject due its own article), there is little doubt that they have a place that will take them places.
Two recent articles in New Scientist magazine discuss the work of sexologist Emmanuele Jannini, MD. His team has been working on trying to identify the g-spot and they found that in a group of women who experience vaginal orgasm, they have a corresponding increase in thickness on the anterior wall of the vagina. Or as they put it in the summary:
The measurement of the space within the anterior vaginal wall by ultrasonography is a simple tool to explore anatomical variability of the human clitoris-urethrovaginal complex, also known as the G-spot, which can be correlated to the ability to experience the vaginally activated orgasm.
Many of these sex studies have very small sample groups. I'm not sure why that is, but rather than lament the frailty of studies based on small groups I choose to lament the lack of massive interest in research which could lead to well documented methodologies to make women happier in bed. Why is this not being researched more thoroughly?
Still, back in 2002 Dr. Terrence Hines published a paper called, "The G-Spot: A Modern Gynocological Myth," that is critical of the research methodologies on g-spot studies up to that point. Whether Dr. Jannini's research will hold up to scrutiny, or whether Dr. Hine's point of view is still valid remains to be seen.
Jannini's work did lead to this observation by Indiana University professor Elisabeth Lloyd in a Guardian UK article:
Elisabeth Lloyd, a professor at Indiana University and author of The Case of the Female Orgasm, said scans should now be conducted on a larger group. "There's been controversy over which parts of the female anatomy might be the G spot, and what the role of it might be," she said.
Lloyd said only 20% to 25% of women had vaginal orgasms during sex. "It has never been explained why that is the case; it's a mystery. This paper doesn't totally explain it, but it might do partially, and that could help us understand what those numbers are about."
On the bright side, recent follow-up work by Dr. Jannini seems to point to the possiblity that currently non-vaginally orgasmic women can be trained to become vaginally orgasmic. This, however, being contingent on whether or not you've secretly got a g-spot or not. Jannini's research involved taking women and scanning them with his g-spot finder technique, then asking those women who seemed to have g-spots if they had vaginal orgasms. Then, that subset that reported they didn't were instructed on how to try - and some of them were able to do so after the training. None of the women who didn't seem to have a g-spot were able to achieve this vaginal orgasm. (Read that whole article at New Scientist.)
So - is there really a g-spot? For some, it appears that the answer is "yes." The easiest way to find out is probably through experimenting. But if you don't happen to have that thickened anterior wall, there's always the clitoris. Nothing wrong with the clitoris.
We've all heard the story before. A man (perhaps a famous actor?) goes to Emergency Room with an embarrassing problem. He's got this rodent stuck in his butt. Apparently, this is the result of a strange fetish called "Hamster Stuffing" - but also known as "Rodent Ramming," "Gerbil Jabbing," a "Fuzzy McButtstuffin," or a "PETA Enema." Admittedly I made up all those names - but that's because the whole "Hamster Stuffing" idea is also fictional.
The "famous actor" in the FICTIONAL story is most often Richard Gere. But the story predates Mr. Gere's "involvement" and is probably at heart an anti-homosexual urban legend, frequently tinged with AIDS and meant to cater to those who suspect that "whatever the gays are up to" is probably worse than they'd even imagined. Of course there are some amusing variations on the tale (well, mildly amusing) that involve the hamster being blown out explosively by a methane explosion - but aside from the slapstick nature of that particular variant the story is more salacious than humorous. Once again Snopes.com provides an informative analysis of the tale.
In "The Encyclopedia of Urban Legends," Jan Harold Brunvand traces this tale back to 1984 when it was attributed to a Philly news anchor as well as the unfortunate Mr. Gere. Poor Mr. Gere's name got involved when some jerk faxed fake news stories all over Southern California claiming he'd been involved in "the incident."
But there was no incident. And how can we know? Well the first way is that if there were any pleasure to be milked out of having a rodent crawl around in one's lower bowels, we'd have pictures of it all over the Internet. If you're brave enough to turn off your Google search filters and actually try and find pictures or video of "gerbil stuffing" you'll be either relieved or disappointed (or perhaps a little of both) to find there aren't any.
But could it even be done? The story usually involves a tube being inserted to allow the gerbil/hamster/mouse past the sphincter. Stranger things have made their way into the lower GI. Per everyone's favorite skeptical investigator - The Straight Dope Things retrieved (per medical journals) from folks rectal regions include:
A bottle of Mrs. Butterworth's syrup, an ax handle, a nine-inch zucchini, countless dildoes and vibrators including one 14-inch model complete with two D-cell batteries, a plastic spatula, a 9-1/2-inch water bottle, a deodorant bottle, a Coke bottle, a large bottle cap, numerous other bottles, a 3-1/2-inch Japanese glass float ball, an 11-inch carrot, an antenna rod, a 150-watt light bulb, a 100-watt frosted bulb, a cucumber, a screwdriver, four rubber balls, 72-1/2 jeweler's saws (all from one patient, but not all at the same time, although 29 were discovered on one occasion), a paperweight, an apple, an onion, a plastic toothbrush package, two bananas, a frozen pig's tail (it got stuck when it thawed), a ten-inch length of broomstick, an 18-inch umbrella handle and central rod, a plantain encased in a condom, two Vaseline jars, a whiskey bottle with a cord attached, a teacup, an oil can, a six-by-five-inch tool box weighing 22 ounces, a six-inch stone weighing two pounds (in the latter two cases the patients died due to intestinal obstruction), a baby powder can, a test tube, a ball-point pen, a peanut butter jar, candles, baseballs, a sand-filled bicycle inner tube, sewing needles, a flashlight, a half-filled tobacco pouch, a turnip, a pair of eyeglasses, a hard-boiled egg, a carborundum grindstone (with handle), a suitcase key, a syringe, a file, tumblers and glasses, a polyethylene waste trap from the U-bend of a sink, and much, much more.
Wow. And if that list isn't convincing enough - what about this fabulous photo from the medical website "The Radiological Pic of the Day" (sadly on hiatus for lack of submissions - stupid HIPPA laws...) :
But none of these incidents directly addresses the real question - could you put a hamster or a gerbil up your butt? Probably. But it would be unwise to do so. And not just because the animal would interact poorly with the other wildlife already present in most people's colons!
No, it turns out that rodents have sharp and powerful teeth and could rip their way out of your bowels and into your abdomen where they would doubtless give you a nasty case of peritonitis in addition to the internal bleeding.
So even though you might be able to get a cardboard gerbil launcher put together and inserted into your butt - and even if you could construct a small plunger to force the gerbil out of the tube and into the bowels - it is a VERY BAD IDEA TO DO SO.
And even putting other household objects in the bung hole is dangerous and should be avoided. Although medical journals and other sources indicate that the majority of these cases are performed by the mentally ill or the intoxicated, though some were clearly things being stuffed away prior to a jail visit. In one small study (probably not a big enough study to draw good conclusions from) around 20% of the patients who had to go to the ER ended up with either a temporary or permanent colostomy.
On the other hand, if you have to have something up your butt (for whatever reason) there are a variety of reasonably safe latex products which should suit the bill. If you find yourself having these kinds of anal urges it is probably best to get one of these products prior to your next drinking binge or bout with mental illness. I'm no doctor, but if I absolutely had to recommend something to stuff in your butt I'd recommend a rubber or latex butt-plug. (But find out if you have a latex allergy first!!! That's a terrible place to discover your allergy.)
And remember this too: Extended use of even the safest inserted anal-devices can lead to permanent rectal incontinence - per the doctors. (That means your poop door won't stay closed on its own, folks. That's no good.)
