Please tell me the lesbians got rid of circumcision.
Richard Harrissays
Is there any evidence that women ever were involved in the construction of any religions? I think that the female sex is just about entirely blameless in this regard.
Kevinsays
what’s this I hear!?
“certain evilutionary superscientist a happy fifty-first birthday”
Oh my mthical diety! you are surely on the downhill side of life now!
natural cynicsays
“Now lets get back to our portal the desert where no one will notice the fireworks from that rip we made in the time-space continuum. Who knows what kind of stories they will make up if someone notices it.”
genesgaloresays
well!!! i never!!!. guess i’ll just have to wait on that email from god about this one.
#2, Unfortunately Women have often played a dominant role in Japanese native religion. Religiously active Queens who were responsible for spreading and protecting the religion. Not so much these days though.
jfatzsays
Well, if I HAD to join a religion, I’m pretty sure I’d like the lesbian-themed one best!
Services would be awesome.
Sastrasays
Richard Harris #2 wrote:
Is there any evidence that women ever were involved in the construction of any religions?
Oh my yes. Wicca. The neo-pagan “Goddess” Religions. Madame Blavatsky and Theosophy. Mary Baker Eddy and “Christian Science.” JZ Knight and “Ramtha.” And of course, the sweet and sappy religion which fell out of The Course in Miracles. I suppose one could even add Oprah’s favorite The Secret.
On the plus side, most of these religions (or quasi-religious ‘spiritualities’) are more tolerant, accepting, and ecumenical than a lot of the traditional versions. Less damnation, more love. Lots of emphasis on the personal — personal experience, personal empowerment, personal spirituality, personal ways of knowing, personal therapy, personal choice.
On the negative side, they hack like bloody hatchets through science and history, distorting and lying and making crap up left and right — and then act all hurt and sensitive when called on it. Science is mean. Facts are mean. We all have our OWN reality, damn you!
jfatzsays
I think I’ll start my own religion based around the fact that, though Richard Harris is dead, he can still post on blogs! You were the best Dumbledore, man! Gulliver forever!!
Obviously, thou hast never been to the ritual of the acoustic guitar at the mud-earth-28 days-woman festival.
Oooooph. I feel scarred just reading about it.
Nelson Muntzsays
Richard Harris, women are not entirely blameless in the construction of religions. Think about nuns and the movie Dogma. Nuns made up all those silly stories to mesmerize and terrorize children. They are guilty as sin. (Smirk!)
jfatzsays
Obviously, thou hast never been to the ritual of the acoustic guitar at the mud-earth-28 days-woman festival.
Still better than a Baptism or a Bar Mitzvah; at least I wouldn’t be quite so bored, and might be able to find SOME eye-candy. Plus, you’re overlooking the potential…!
The power of my imagination of lesbians far outweighs reality.
I have found this to be a common condition among heterosexually-identified men.
Heh, Alison Bechdel of Dykes to Watch Out For fame had a treatment of this that had me ROTFLMAO.
I’m quoting from memory, and don’t have time to hunt the cartoon down right now, so I may have details wrong, but essentially, it was something like this–some of the dykes were on a political talk-radio call-in show, and the topic is something like “Is the prospect of gay marriage harming America?”, or somesuch.
This obviously well-intentioned, obviously heterosexual, presumably suburban woman calls in to the show, and says the question is just plain silly. “First of all, you girls aren’t hurting anyone. Besides, my husband just loves your movies!”
“First of all, you girls aren’t hurting anyone. Besides, my husband just loves your movies!”
ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!
Janine, IDsays
Funny, straight boy “lesbian porn” looks nothing like sex as I know it. Sorry. I had to say it.
jfatzsays
I have found this to be a common condition among heterosexually-identified men.
I don’t know if observing the fantasy is as entertaining as the fantasy itself is, but it’s kind of fun as an outsider.
Whatever, man…! I’ve watched the movies! I’ve seen the websites!
I’ve dated a few girls who identified as ‘bi’. All but two were serial monogamists, but with the two who were not: it’s kinda like being Indy to Indy’s dad in the Last Crusade; you want the grail, they know where the grail is and how to get it, but only the penitant man shall pass.
Greg Esressays
Richard Harris wrote:
Is there any evidence that women ever were involved in the construction of any religions?
Please tell me the lesbians got rid of circumcision
IIRC, Moses wasn’t snipped on the customary eighth day in any event. He was done much later, as a consenting adult, by his wife. (She used a rock!)
Mind you, Yahweh the Almighty Lord God of Hosts, apparently in the throes of a psychopathic fugue state, was waiting outside Moses’s tent to kill him if he didn’t have his lad trimmed. That does rather call into question whether Moses can truly be said to have given free and informed consent to the procedure….
For anyone interested in further tales of time-traveling lesbians, the web series Rebecca the Time-Traveling Lesbian” can be watched in its entirety by visiting http://www.afterellen.com/video/timetravelinglesbian.
jfatzsays
Are lesbians simply better-suited to the rigors of time travel, or something?
Argh! I couldn’t post this morning because of the downtime and ysubassoon beat me to it! Argh!
JJRsays
GLBT time travelers are the best time travelers because they’re not going to create absurd paradoxes by carelessly procreating with people from other timelines, like their own forbearers.
“Breeder” time travelers are where all the trouble starts…like Philip J. “I’m my own grandpa” Fry of Futurama fame…(Roswell episode)
jfatzsays
A bad example! Unlike time travel, Jesus, and Intelligent Design, Futurama is just make-believe!
Lilly de Luresays
Janine, ID said:
Funny, straight boy “lesbian porn” looks nothing like sex as I know it. Sorry. I had to say it.
You’re not alone, I’ve never seen any porn that looks remotely like sex as I know it either. Porn is however, absolutely hilarious to watch.
Can some heterosexual man out there please explain just what it is that attracts heterosexual men to lesbians?
Ordinarily, one would suppose that hetboys and lesbians are (if I may put it into such crude terms) competing for the same resourse and therefore a certain natural enmity would exist between them. By similar reasoning, heterosexual and gay men are not competing for the same resource and so there should be no animosity.
This is something I, as an asexual (or possibly autosexual), really do not get.
Playing MST3K with porn can make for a very fun party.
jfatzsays
Can some heterosexual man out there please explain just what it is that attracts heterosexual men to lesbians?
To a guy, you know what’s better than a hot chick? More hot chicks. Basically, take as many hot chicks as you want, insert into sexual situation, and it just gets better.
It’s also “safe” for a lot of guys, because even though they might like porn, many will react to seeing another guy’s… you know… man-thingee. After all, if you’re aroused while looking at another man-thingee, you might turn gay!
Lesbian porn involves the highest concentration of bazongas and bajingos, without the possibility of running across a schwing-schwang.
(Meanwhile, you’ll note that there is NO competition for the “resources” in lesbian porn aimed at hetero guys, because they don’t exist in real life. ;) )
kmarissasays
Ordinarily, one would suppose that hetboys and lesbians are (if I may put it into such crude terms) competing for the same resourse and therefore a certain natural enmity would exist between them. By similar reasoning, heterosexual and gay men are not competing for the same resource and so there should be no animosity.
Actually, this is exactly the reasoning that my boyfriend claims to have, which puts “lesbians” and “straight men” on the same will-try-to-steal-girlfriend threat-o-meter. Gay guys don’t register on that. So some of them apparently think that way.
But I don’t think porn creates that same sort of dynamic, however.
Azkyrothsays
Can some heterosexual man out there please explain just what it is that attracts heterosexual men to lesbians?
Depending on what kind of “lesbian” porn we’re talking about, I’m sure at least some men appreciate the chance to (vicariously) experience slower, more tender, more sensuous sex (from what I’ve heard) without feeling like their masculinity is endangered.
I’ve never seen any porn that looks remotely like sex as I know it either.
Well, it is possible to have sex that resembles porn, but it’s hard to keep a straight, er, face when uttering lines like, “Oooh, yeah, baby! You know that’s the way I like it!”
Depending on what kind of “lesbian” porn we’re talking about
Azkyroth is exactly right–the conflation of porn made by women for women, with porn made by men about what they imagine lesbians are like, into one term (“lesbian porn”) can lead to exactly the confusion Bechdel was referring to (well, really, making fun of) in the DTWOF cartoon I referred to earlier.
“Your movies” refers, not to movies made by lesbians, but movies about women performing for a male viewer, which is a very different concept.
Ichthyicsays
Depending on what kind of “lesbian” porn we’re talking about, I’m sure at least some men appreciate the chance to (vicariously) experience slower, more tender, more sensuous sex (from what I’ve heard) without feeling like their masculinity is endangered.
hmm, I’m going to go a different route and suggest that it is a case of “superstimulus”.
*ahem*:
more breasts, more vaginas, etc., just act to stimulate the male libido further.
I will add, on a tangent to what Azky said, that there might also be the added removal of threats to masculinity that are at least slightly there when a man watches hetero porn, but not having anything to do with the idea of the sex being “sensual” or not.
so, you have the removal of potential inhibitors (another male in the picture, which represents competition, at least), along with the superstimulus of multiple images that stoke the male libido combining to produce a heightened attraction for multiple female only porn.
Ichthyicsays
“Your movies” refers, not to movies made by lesbians, but movies about women performing for a male viewer, which is a very different concept.
correct, but you have to compare that to other forms of voyeurism as well, including hetero porn, group porn, male-male porn, etc., which also have the same features.
Kseniyasays
Examination of the words and behaviors of my hetero male BFs, friends and acquaintences, going back to adolescence, reveals the following subtle profundities:
Guys dig chicks. Guys dig getting it on with chicks. Guys get being attracted to a chick, so the girl-girl thing isn’t all that weird to them. Guys fantasize about getting it on with more than one chick. So, two chicks getting it on is either 1) a pretty cool show, or 2) wicked hot foreplay.
Azkyroth is probably on to something, too, but my knowledge of the male psyche is sadly limited to the above, so we’ll have to hear from the experts. LOL
[Disclaimer: I’m not being entirely serious, and would never claim that my “research” or “conclusions” in any way represent an accurate sample or reflect the thoughts and feelings of the average male.]
Ichthyicsays
hmm, I’m beginning to get a great idea for a new grant proposal…
correct, but you have to compare that to other forms of voyeurism as well, including hetero porn, group porn, male-male porn, etc., which also have the same features.
true, ichthyic–I didn’t mean to imply that the analysis stopped where I left off, just to start the analysis by noting that “lesbian porn” is a paraphyletic term, and thus somewhat misleading.
as for the grant proposal idea, count me in :).
windysays
OT, guys, but a little help please. Please go tell this gomer that “the human species” is not generally agreed by biologists to be “2.5 million years old”. Or maybe it’s just me? He’s such a long-winded gasbag that I’m getting confused myself…
jfatzsays
hmm, I’m beginning to get a great idea for a new grant proposal…
I like the way you think, Ichthyic! Need a lab assistant? Hell, even just extra janitorial staff?
Ichthyicsays
It might be the first grant to set aside funding for fluffers.
seriously, though, I would hardly be surprised to find out it’s already been done.
Ichthyicsays
lease go tell this gomer that “the human species” is not generally agreed by biologists to be “2.5 million years old”.
I saw mention of Homo habilis? (btw, never trust anybody who claims to be a scientist, or even know scientists, who capitalizes a species name after a genus. Even more correctly, both genus and species should be italicized.)
I’m not an anthropologist or paleontologist, but that’s not the modern human species.
H. habilis died out about a million and a half years ago.
don’t know what point the guy is trying to make, but it shouldn’t be hard to use your google-fu and find some decent references.
just google “human evolution”.
Ichthyicsays
…It seems possible that the confusion arises from “genus” instead of “species”
the GENUS Homo is currently described as being 2.5 million years old, with the earliest species in that Genus currently classified as habilis.
the modern human SPECIES is sapiens, however, and is MUCH younger (250k, last I checked).
windysays
It might be the first grant to set aside funding for fluffers.
(although it’s a misnomer to call semen collection “fluffing”: how about “he gives happy endings to elephants”?)
windysays
don’t know what point the guy is trying to make, but it shouldn’t be hard to use your google-fu and find some decent references. just google “human evolution”.
I know about habilis and I gave him links already, but he’s not having it from me… oh well. guess I’ll just have to accept people being wrong on the internet.
Ichthyicsays
(although it’s a misnomer to call semen collection “fluffing”: how about “he gives happy endings to elephants”?)
that’s not what a fluffer does, IIRC.
(disclaimer – I am not an expert on porn!)
*ahem*
a fluffer simply uses their hands(?) to keep a guy hard for upcoming sex scenes.
I think I picked that up from “Boogie Nights”.
Ichthyicsays
guess I’ll just have to accept people being wrong on the internet.
before you give up, see if it was just a confusion about the Genus/species thing.
If he wants to classify “humans” as being the multiple species that belong to the genus “Homo”, that would resolve your differences, wouldn’t it?
I meant that the elephant-wanking guy does a bit more than a fluffer.
Ichthyicsays
no, I don’t need to watch it, see:
The title refers, in gay pornography terms, to the person on a set whose function is to prepare or “fluff” the male performers so as to be fully aroused when they go before the camera.
Please tell me the lesbians got rid of circumcision.
Is there any evidence that women ever were involved in the construction of any religions? I think that the female sex is just about entirely blameless in this regard.
what’s this I hear!?
“certain evilutionary superscientist a happy fifty-first birthday”
Oh my mthical diety! you are surely on the downhill side of life now!
“Now lets get back to our portal the desert where no one will notice the fireworks from that rip we made in the time-space continuum. Who knows what kind of stories they will make up if someone notices it.”
well!!! i never!!!. guess i’ll just have to wait on that email from god about this one.
If Christianity does have its origins in time-travellers playing practical jokes, it would certainly explain a great deal…
…then again, jokes generally have to make sense.
Oh, Monkey Fluids…
I’m also fond of
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1373/1395314778_45c5f81683_o.gif
#2, Unfortunately Women have often played a dominant role in Japanese native religion. Religiously active Queens who were responsible for spreading and protecting the religion. Not so much these days though.
Well, if I HAD to join a religion, I’m pretty sure I’d like the lesbian-themed one best!
Services would be awesome.
Richard Harris #2 wrote:
Oh my yes. Wicca. The neo-pagan “Goddess” Religions. Madame Blavatsky and Theosophy. Mary Baker Eddy and “Christian Science.” JZ Knight and “Ramtha.” And of course, the sweet and sappy religion which fell out of The Course in Miracles. I suppose one could even add Oprah’s favorite The Secret.
On the plus side, most of these religions (or quasi-religious ‘spiritualities’) are more tolerant, accepting, and ecumenical than a lot of the traditional versions. Less damnation, more love. Lots of emphasis on the personal — personal experience, personal empowerment, personal spirituality, personal ways of knowing, personal therapy, personal choice.
On the negative side, they hack like bloody hatchets through science and history, distorting and lying and making crap up left and right — and then act all hurt and sensitive when called on it. Science is mean. Facts are mean. We all have our OWN reality, damn you!
I think I’ll start my own religion based around the fact that, though Richard Harris is dead, he can still post on blogs! You were the best Dumbledore, man! Gulliver forever!!
Well, if I HAD to join a religion, I’m pretty sure I’d like the lesbian-themed one best!
Services would be awesome.
Obviously, thou hast never been to the ritual of the acoustic guitar at the mud-earth-28 days-woman festival.
Terminology violation. Five yard penalty and loss of down. That’s a cutline. Captions are on top of the image.
Is it me, or does baby Moses look completely high on drugs in that picture?
Happy Birthday PZ!
Karl
LOL! Both to the picture and to comment 14. :-D
LOL! Both to the picture and to comment 14. :-D
LOL! Thanks for finding that, PZ!
All babies look high on drugs.
Obviously, thou hast never been to the ritual of the acoustic guitar at the mud-earth-28 days-woman festival.
Oooooph. I feel scarred just reading about it.
Richard Harris, women are not entirely blameless in the construction of religions. Think about nuns and the movie Dogma. Nuns made up all those silly stories to mesmerize and terrorize children. They are guilty as sin. (Smirk!)
Obviously, thou hast never been to the ritual of the acoustic guitar at the mud-earth-28 days-woman festival.
Still better than a Baptism or a Bar Mitzvah; at least I wouldn’t be quite so bored, and might be able to find SOME eye-candy. Plus, you’re overlooking the potential…!
Plus, you’re overlooking the potential…!
Really, I’m not. In a number of ways.
You’re just missing your own superfluousness :)
The power of my imagination of lesbians far outweighs reality.
The power of my imagination of lesbians far outweighs reality.
I have found this to be a common condition among heterosexually-identified men.
I don’t know if observing the fantasy is as entertaining as the fantasy itself is, but it’s kind of fun as an outsider.
Heh, Alison Bechdel of Dykes to Watch Out For fame had a treatment of this that had me ROTFLMAO.
I’m quoting from memory, and don’t have time to hunt the cartoon down right now, so I may have details wrong, but essentially, it was something like this–some of the dykes were on a political talk-radio call-in show, and the topic is something like “Is the prospect of gay marriage harming America?”, or somesuch.
This obviously well-intentioned, obviously heterosexual, presumably suburban woman calls in to the show, and says the question is just plain silly. “First of all, you girls aren’t hurting anyone. Besides, my husband just loves your movies!”
And, on a totally different note:
Happy birthday, PZ!
/writing-break
“First of all, you girls aren’t hurting anyone. Besides, my husband just loves your movies!”
ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!
Funny, straight boy “lesbian porn” looks nothing like sex as I know it. Sorry. I had to say it.
I have found this to be a common condition among heterosexually-identified men.
I don’t know if observing the fantasy is as entertaining as the fantasy itself is, but it’s kind of fun as an outsider.
Whatever, man…! I’ve watched the movies! I’ve seen the websites!
I’ve dated a few girls who identified as ‘bi’. All but two were serial monogamists, but with the two who were not: it’s kinda like being Indy to Indy’s dad in the Last Crusade; you want the grail, they know where the grail is and how to get it, but only the penitant man shall pass.
Richard Harris wrote:
Christian Science was founded by Mary Baker Eddy.
MAJeff @1,
Please tell me the lesbians got rid of circumcision
IIRC, Moses wasn’t snipped on the customary eighth day in any event. He was done much later, as a consenting adult, by his wife. (She used a rock!)
Mind you, Yahweh the Almighty Lord God of Hosts, apparently in the throes of a psychopathic fugue state, was waiting outside Moses’s tent to kill him if he didn’t have his lad trimmed. That does rather call into question whether Moses can truly be said to have given free and informed consent to the procedure….
He was done much later, as a consenting adult, by his wife. (She used a rock!)
So basically, we’re all screwed because Moses was a cutting sub?
I notice that it is the white woman talking while the woman of color is silently doing the work of paddling the outrigger.
Mrs Tilton @#32
I’m simultaneously amazed and disturbed by your knowledge about Moses’ dick.
For anyone interested in further tales of time-traveling lesbians, the web series Rebecca the Time-Traveling Lesbian” can be watched in its entirety by visiting http://www.afterellen.com/video/timetravelinglesbian.
Are lesbians simply better-suited to the rigors of time travel, or something?
Bride of Shrek @ 34,
why, it’s all in the Good Book! Don’t worry, though, there’s tamer fare than cutting in there as well; vanilla stuff like scat and golden showers.
Yes. Yes, they are.
Haven’t you seen the documentary film The Rocky Horror Picture Show?
Did someone say time-traveling lesbians?
http://www.afterellen.com/video/timetravelinglesbian
Argh! I couldn’t post this morning because of the downtime and ysubassoon beat me to it! Argh!
GLBT time travelers are the best time travelers because they’re not going to create absurd paradoxes by carelessly procreating with people from other timelines, like their own forbearers.
“Breeder” time travelers are where all the trouble starts…like Philip J. “I’m my own grandpa” Fry of Futurama fame…(Roswell episode)
A bad example! Unlike time travel, Jesus, and Intelligent Design, Futurama is just make-believe!
Janine, ID said:
You’re not alone, I’ve never seen any porn that looks remotely like sex as I know it either. Porn is however, absolutely hilarious to watch.
Can some heterosexual man out there please explain just what it is that attracts heterosexual men to lesbians?
Ordinarily, one would suppose that hetboys and lesbians are (if I may put it into such crude terms) competing for the same resourse and therefore a certain natural enmity would exist between them. By similar reasoning, heterosexual and gay men are not competing for the same resource and so there should be no animosity.
This is something I, as an asexual (or possibly autosexual), really do not get.
Porn is however, absolutely hilarious to watch.
Playing MST3K with porn can make for a very fun party.
Can some heterosexual man out there please explain just what it is that attracts heterosexual men to lesbians?
To a guy, you know what’s better than a hot chick? More hot chicks. Basically, take as many hot chicks as you want, insert into sexual situation, and it just gets better.
It’s also “safe” for a lot of guys, because even though they might like porn, many will react to seeing another guy’s… you know… man-thingee. After all, if you’re aroused while looking at another man-thingee, you might turn gay!
Lesbian porn involves the highest concentration of bazongas and bajingos, without the possibility of running across a schwing-schwang.
(Meanwhile, you’ll note that there is NO competition for the “resources” in lesbian porn aimed at hetero guys, because they don’t exist in real life. ;) )
Actually, this is exactly the reasoning that my boyfriend claims to have, which puts “lesbians” and “straight men” on the same will-try-to-steal-girlfriend threat-o-meter. Gay guys don’t register on that. So some of them apparently think that way.
But I don’t think porn creates that same sort of dynamic, however.
Depending on what kind of “lesbian” porn we’re talking about, I’m sure at least some men appreciate the chance to (vicariously) experience slower, more tender, more sensuous sex (from what I’ve heard) without feeling like their masculinity is endangered.
I’ve never seen any porn that looks remotely like sex as I know it either.
Well, it is possible to have sex that resembles porn, but it’s hard to keep a straight, er, face when uttering lines like, “Oooh, yeah, baby! You know that’s the way I like it!”
Azkyroth is exactly right–the conflation of porn made by women for women, with porn made by men about what they imagine lesbians are like, into one term (“lesbian porn”) can lead to exactly the confusion Bechdel was referring to (well, really, making fun of) in the DTWOF cartoon I referred to earlier.
“Your movies” refers, not to movies made by lesbians, but movies about women performing for a male viewer, which is a very different concept.
Depending on what kind of “lesbian” porn we’re talking about, I’m sure at least some men appreciate the chance to (vicariously) experience slower, more tender, more sensuous sex (from what I’ve heard) without feeling like their masculinity is endangered.
hmm, I’m going to go a different route and suggest that it is a case of “superstimulus”.
*ahem*:
more breasts, more vaginas, etc., just act to stimulate the male libido further.
I will add, on a tangent to what Azky said, that there might also be the added removal of threats to masculinity that are at least slightly there when a man watches hetero porn, but not having anything to do with the idea of the sex being “sensual” or not.
so, you have the removal of potential inhibitors (another male in the picture, which represents competition, at least), along with the superstimulus of multiple images that stoke the male libido combining to produce a heightened attraction for multiple female only porn.
“Your movies” refers, not to movies made by lesbians, but movies about women performing for a male viewer, which is a very different concept.
correct, but you have to compare that to other forms of voyeurism as well, including hetero porn, group porn, male-male porn, etc., which also have the same features.
Examination of the words and behaviors of my hetero male BFs, friends and acquaintences, going back to adolescence, reveals the following subtle profundities:
Guys dig chicks. Guys dig getting it on with chicks. Guys get being attracted to a chick, so the girl-girl thing isn’t all that weird to them. Guys fantasize about getting it on with more than one chick. So, two chicks getting it on is either 1) a pretty cool show, or 2) wicked hot foreplay.
Azkyroth is probably on to something, too, but my knowledge of the male psyche is sadly limited to the above, so we’ll have to hear from the experts. LOL
[Disclaimer: I’m not being entirely serious, and would never claim that my “research” or “conclusions” in any way represent an accurate sample or reflect the thoughts and feelings of the average male.]
hmm, I’m beginning to get a great idea for a new grant proposal…
true, ichthyic–I didn’t mean to imply that the analysis stopped where I left off, just to start the analysis by noting that “lesbian porn” is a paraphyletic term, and thus somewhat misleading.
as for the grant proposal idea, count me in :).
OT, guys, but a little help please. Please go tell this gomer that “the human species” is not generally agreed by biologists to be “2.5 million years old”. Or maybe it’s just me? He’s such a long-winded gasbag that I’m getting confused myself…
hmm, I’m beginning to get a great idea for a new grant proposal…
I like the way you think, Ichthyic! Need a lab assistant? Hell, even just extra janitorial staff?
It might be the first grant to set aside funding for fluffers.
seriously, though, I would hardly be surprised to find out it’s already been done.
lease go tell this gomer that “the human species” is not generally agreed by biologists to be “2.5 million years old”.
I saw mention of Homo habilis? (btw, never trust anybody who claims to be a scientist, or even know scientists, who capitalizes a species name after a genus. Even more correctly, both genus and species should be italicized.)
I’m not an anthropologist or paleontologist, but that’s not the modern human species.
H. habilis died out about a million and a half years ago.
don’t know what point the guy is trying to make, but it shouldn’t be hard to use your google-fu and find some decent references.
just google “human evolution”.
…It seems possible that the confusion arises from “genus” instead of “species”
the GENUS Homo is currently described as being 2.5 million years old, with the earliest species in that Genus currently classified as habilis.
the modern human SPECIES is sapiens, however, and is MUCH younger (250k, last I checked).
Just a day’s work to some people.
(although it’s a misnomer to call semen collection “fluffing”: how about “he gives happy endings to elephants”?)
I know about habilis and I gave him links already, but he’s not having it from me… oh well. guess I’ll just have to accept people being wrong on the internet.
(although it’s a misnomer to call semen collection “fluffing”: how about “he gives happy endings to elephants”?)
that’s not what a fluffer does, IIRC.
(disclaimer – I am not an expert on porn!)
*ahem*
a fluffer simply uses their hands(?) to keep a guy hard for upcoming sex scenes.
I think I picked that up from “Boogie Nights”.
guess I’ll just have to accept people being wrong on the internet.
before you give up, see if it was just a confusion about the Genus/species thing.
If he wants to classify “humans” as being the multiple species that belong to the genus “Homo”, that would resolve your differences, wouldn’t it?
You need to watch The Fluffer.
I meant that the elephant-wanking guy does a bit more than a fluffer.
no, I don’t need to watch it, see:
http://www.reelingreviews.com/thefluffer.htm
…and it’s not just applicable to gay pornography, but to porn in general.
man, this thread is getting weird.
I meant that the elephant-wanking guy does a bit more than a fluffer.
*ding*
Ok, I’m tagging out of this discussion.
:p
Interesting link, windy, but it didn’t answer a seminal (hah!) question: how *does* one massage an elephant’s prostate gland–with a caber?
Whoops, the previous link had a typo, too. Here’s another one with video (answers your question in graphic detail…)
thanks, windy–now there’s some guys who really earn their paychecks.
funny, I would have thought the elephant prostate was deeper than that.