Today we are joined by the venerable athiest, science-lovin’, feminist blogger Jen McCreight who has a thing or two to say about skepticism. She takes Dan to task for his lack of critical thinking while interviewing a recent guest about female ejaculation.
So, the calls today are all viewed through the cold, hard prism of science. This all BEFORE the rapture proved to be a non-event. That took courage.
Call us up:
206-201-2720
Check out Jen’s magnificent blog: at www.blaghag.com.
Today’s episode is brought to you by Netflix. For a free 30-day trial, go to netflix.com/savage.
Comment on this episode at www.thestranger.com/lovecast
Boy come back a day later and clearly some buttons got pushed. Damn. Not clear how this derailed anything–I just provided one personal reason why someone might have a spiritual perspective…since that was the rhetorical question posed by Jen and Dan in the podcast.
Is it not civil to mention tragedy in one’s reasons? Shit happens. And we all find our own ways to make peace with the shit that happens to us. And since my way of finding peace doesn’t impact any other than me, I’m not sure why some folks got their panties in a bunch and seem upset. I’m not trying to convince anyone I’m right, and so am highly amused by those trying to ‘reason’ me out of it.
I wish that Dan’s guest could have articulated herself in a manner keeping with all the degrees she has. I could barely understand her in between all her nervous laughter and babbling. It was not only highly annoying, but it was hard to take her critique of Dan’s interview with a prior guest seriously sounding like a school girl. From what I *could* understand, she had some good points. Obviously, the written word is more her strong suit. Please don’t have her on again.
Tonja CA: thank you for your reply – very much appreciated. I’m a Brit and know of a few Wiccans (but haven’t discussed their world view yet: would love to do so).
My question about whether Wicca makes unsubstantiated truth claims was (perhaps obviously) made with a big chip on my shoulder about the total waste of my first 30 years of life, spent trying to believe claims made with no evidence.
So even now, I listen to all kinds of religious types, who say things like: get in touch with your inner being and connect with nature. And I think: well – lovely – but does that actually mean anything? Because until it does, then it is pointless.
So I understand that Wicca is religion or philosophy closely focused on the natural world. I also though thought that Wiccans believed in verious power sources which are undemonstrated and perhaps deities whose existence is nearly as likely as santa.
So to the extent that adults want to believe anything they want that does not result in them harming other people – just fine.
But the moment that children are taught lies, say, or claims are made to the vulnerable about things that cannot be demonstrated, then suddenly it’s not so innocent.
I don’t know about Wicca – other than a passing, likely broadly right but wrong on specifics, knowledge. But if it does make claims that cannot be proven using a reasonable method then…I have a big issue, and that’s not so unreasonable. Of course it does not undermine the many good things that Wiccan’s might do – in the same way that donations from Christians to the project I’m involved in, in Sierra Leone, are very welcome.
But we can be totally wrong in what we believe, and still be trying very hard to be good neighbours, stewards of this earth etc..
Viola: you think you’ve been unreasonably jumped on here. However, perhaps I can show you why it was not so unreasonable?
Perhaps it’s complete bullshit, but I figure I’m allowed.
Absolutely. And it is a straw man to suggest otherwise. No one I know of would deny your right to believe anything you like. It is a big distraction to put up this argument.
And if you’ve never lived through a child’s death, let alone your only child…well, your judgment doesn’t mean much.
Your judgement on what? The topic of the day might be described as the valdity of religion, perhaps. So – if it is judgement on this topic, then you are clearly way off track.
We have all suffered as human beings. Some more than others. Some have experienced huge suffering, as you have, for which only deep sympathy can be felt.
But it is just wrong, plain nonsense, to suggest that this gives the sufferer some higher perspective on the truths (or otherwise) of religion. It clearly does not and to suggest it does is patronising and crass.
Find someone whose kid dropped dead to discover a whole new level of pain that essentially never goes away.
Absolutely: it is inconceivable to anyone who has not been through it. Unless you have had the experience yourself, then you cannot know what this is like. Anyone who suggests otherwise is kidding themselves.
But it still doesn’t make you an expert or authority on spirituality. And your statement your judgment doesn’t mean much does seem to suggest that this is what you think.
If not, then why mention the details of your suffering, because: with all due respect – they are as relevant here as me becoming an atheist because of trauma I had with my little boy when he was a baby. It’s just anecdote, and smacks of self indulgence. Of course: self indulgence is entirely understandable – but it is going to get called.
So our suffering definitely does not give us a right to a higher platform in this debate: let’s just to stick to what we know and leave the personal stuff at home, unless it directly changes or illuminates the facts. If you believe fairy stories and want to admit to that on a public forum – particularly if you then justify it with the very public airing of your own very private suffering…then the reaction was really to be expected.
Is that harsh? Well…read it all again – your own post – and remember how often atheists run into people arguing this kind of thing…
I suspect I’m wasting my time here because several others tried to explain this to you and it went right over your head… But anyway.
since my way of finding peace doesn’t impact any other than me,
Are you absolutely certain? Do you support groups who make unsusbtantiated truth claims? Do you give money to any religious groups? Does your belief in things that aren’t likey to be true change the way you behave at all?
I’m not sure why some folks got their panties in a bunch
It’s because you tried to intimidate the opposition in a public debate with a pre-emptive poor me story. It’s really bad etiquette to do that. Who could reasonably feel anything but horror and anguish at your loss? Likewise who could feel anything but slightly nauseous at your crass use of that trauma in such a lame and public way? With all due respect it denigrates the significance of your loss to do so.
Could I propose that this is not the type of place to deal with the very reasonable issues you are likely to be living with?
JimmyBoy @31
I think this is the point of demarcation between people who accept spirituality (whether or not they experience it themselves) and people who don’t.
I think philosophy and psychology add a lot to life. I think spirituality and religion can add a lot to life. Not because they’re necessarily true, but because they can add richness and depth to life. I can sort of understand believing that philosophy/psychology/spirituality/religion “don’t add much to anything at all.” I just know that, for me, that would be a bleaker way of experiencing the world than I now experience.
Hi Canadian Nurse – thanks for posting: I’ve really enjoyed this threat.
So on your point there: I think this is the point of demarcation between people who accept spirituality (whether or not they experience it themselves) and people who don’t.
I just don’t know what spirituality means any more: for me, as a very devout Christian, it used to be a term that was used to differentiate between quasi ‘good’ and ‘bad’ people. My church used to use the term ‘non-spritual’ in a highly derogatory way about people who weren’t following their (narrow, bigoted) path. Am I spiritual because I find wonder in the natural world? (I live on a beach, on a beautiful island just off the French coast: our natural surroundings are exquisite). If that’s spirituality – fine: though the spirit bit is a bit misleading in that definition. But if it means ‘god’ in some form, then…
I just cannot understand how believing things that aren’t true is in any way a good thing! Apart form anything else it allows those who would use religion/spirituality for evil ends that free pass I object to so strongly (and there is no shortage of such people).
How can believing things that aren’t true give us “richness” or “depth”? I think they give us laziness and arrogance, such that we can then, without question, assert things like: being gay is evil; or god wants you to give your cash to me, your parasitic priest/minister; or god will heal you (and when he doesn’t, it was just his will – and his will is a mystery).
This is all bad. Can you nail this for me in hard terms because I genuinely do not see it. Where is the richness and depth of life that comes from religion? I see mental degredation (the Jesuits are right: reason and faith are enemies); I see deep immorality; I see opression of women and minorities; I see murder and bloodshed; I see lies and equivocation in the face of true evil (so many examples).
Looking at it the other way: when I realised what a big old con the whole sick profiteering edifice was, then all the beauty of the services, the incense, the mysticism, the funny dresses and the archaic language became so transparent a trap. And the liberation I felt as I rose from that mental quagmire was stupendous. Truly I was blind, and now, just occasionally, I see.
So – just my view (but I’m not alone): it doesn’t have to be bleak when reality kicks in…apart from anything else, death became far less frightening for me. I just don’t want it to hurt (modern science can help a bit there perhaps), and I want to do a load more stuff before I get there. And then worm food. Happy days. Happy with every one I get: what a fantastic world we live in!
And that should have been – this thread not threat!
ASX:
Nice mansplain (and I don’t even know if you’re a man or not). You sound like the dimwit from the UK who took offense at the Ig Nobel prizes because they somehow made science look undignified, even though scientists in general tend to be fans of the Igs.
Don’t ever visit ERV’s blog. Your head’ll explode.
Viola was unreasonably jumped on here. She gave her own religious/spiritual story which should be allowed. I’m an atheist myself, but I don’t expect everyone to share my (non)belief system. I don’t begrudge anyone finding solace in something spiritual as long as that spiritual thang isn’t shoved down my throat. I seriously don’t get where all this hate is coming from.
Nordica: another classic attempt to derail the conversation with a straw man and distraction from substance.
Who said Viola should not be allowed to say anything she wants?
If what she says is objectionable, then it might well get objected to. But there was no attempt to silence her. It is actually deeply objectionable to make the accusation. It did not happen.
And who begrudges her finding solace anywhere she wants to? Or asks that she believes what someone else believes? No one that I read. You implictly suggested that this had happened. It did not.
We just objected to her attempting to hijack the conversation in the crass way she did. Her story did not give her the right to tell the rest of us well, your judgment doesn’t mean much.
That’s a really irritating thing to say.
Several of us objected to her logic. But there was no attempt to intimidate or to coerce. We took issue carefully with her argument and her manner of arguing. Both were deeply problematic. Saying so is entirely reasonable.
Or are we not allowed to point out the problems in her argument because of her trauma? The implicit suggestion is that we should censor ourselves here. This wasn’t just a story put out there of one person’s position: we were told clearly that our judgement doesn’t mean much because we haven’t had her (horrible) experience.
Did you actually read the thread at all? That this was the problem, was explicitly pointed out several times.
And there was no hate: (don’t be so melodramatic) – just a refusal to be bullied by such a naked appeal to emotion.
No, nobody is telling viola to delete her comment, but attacks for making her comment make her much less likely to make similar
Comments in the future, which is akin to silencing her. I don’t understand the accusations that she derailed this debate with her own personal story. I personally did not feel that way is all I’m saying.
OK – I understand what you are saying Nordica: but the well, your judgment doesn’t mean much comment was absolutely central to what she said. She didn’t take it back but accused those who didn’t like it of getting their panties in a wad. Well she can proper piss off for that truly crap response. Really: that’s just rubbish.
Then you said:
She gave her own religious/spiritual story which should be allowed
You are saying – implicitly, but very clearly – that there was a suggestion that some (maybe me?) thought she should not be allowed to make such a comment. Not what you meant? Well – it is what you said…
To help understand the strength of the reaction: this is a very common tactic adopted by many Chrstians in particular (I note you say you aren’t one), where they raise a straw man about atheists, say (“they want to ban religion” for eg) and turn themselves into the victims. It’s really not cool. This seems to be in a simlar vein:an implicit suggestion that she is not being allowed to hold a view.
The word “attacks” is also pretty strong here. If there were any, they have been explained at (massive) length now – without any further discussion of the arugments put forward: just a bit pf whining about how we’ve jumped on her. Well – the arguments are still there to be discussed if anyone wants to it.
The reason I felt she derailed the debate was laid out a couple of times above: we could discuss those points if you wanted?
The derailing came with the “I’ve had a terrible experience; I therefore have a superior claim in this debate; I dare any of you to take me on with my horrible trauma”. (Go and re-read her post if you still disagree and walk me through how she was actually saying something else)
Well – it’s been done a zillion times elsewhere, and now therefore it gets a strong reaction.
You may have noticed…
Cheers,
Jimmy
And ,no, I don’t want anyone to censor themselves. If this is your reaction to her, express it. I was just surprised myself that her comment evoked so much emotion and that people felt their whole conversation was derailed by her. I didn’t have that reaction but that’s just me. As for my use of the word “hate”‘, where I come from saying “fuck you” to someone is kinda hateful.
Nordica: can you see why there was the reaction to her comment: well, your judgment doesn’t mean much?
If not – we’re going nowhere with this one.
Repeating that you don’t want anyone to censor themselves is just evading the discussion: you say – we jumped on her; I say – in excrutiating detail – this is why we did. You say: I was surprised she was jumped on. That’s not really much of a contribution: you’ve already made that point and I spent ages explaining why we did.
Why not actually explore the points made? We can perhaps guess that you did not mean to express yourself the way you did. Possibly Viola didn’t either. But you did say the things quoted – and the argument has been put forward that it was reasonable to understand them, in a specific way.
Rather than just repeating that you were surprised at the emotion evoked (which is pretty quickly not much of an argument: we got that – and explained why the reaction occured…), how about perhaps explaining why the interpretation of the words written was unreasonable, say?
I’d not tell someome to fuck off either as a first gambit: but I totally understand the emotion that takes someone there, particularly having participated in 50 such discussions previously and become very tired of these tactics. I don’t find it that hateful either by the way…and it was one comment in a much larger population – all expressing the same sentiment: this is not an OK way to argue. We reject the attempt to shut us up by dragging out a personal tragedy.
It was an utterly crass way to conduct the conversation. I’ve had a dreadful trauma; therefore my experience means I get to be right irrespective of what anyone else thinks.
Can’t you see why we would react as we did – particularly as there was no subsequent recognition that this is just not acceptable?
If you don’t agree – perhaps could we discuss the points (ie the substance) I’ve been making? ie I’ve explained why I (and perhaps others) had the reaction I did, and why I felt it derailed the conversation: you could explain why we over-reacted, or…? I’m pretty clear now (thanks) that you were surprised at the reaction…any more points to make there?
Cheers,
Jimmy
Btw, Jimmy, I was writing response #63 while you were posting #62, so 63 was not my response to 62. I’m starting to get why emotions are running so high on this issue – sorry, but I can be a little slow on the uptake 😉 You and I (and probably the others here) are coming from different places in that you have had 50-some conversations about this, and I have not. Now I understand how Viola’s comments hit a hot button for you and others. Not being one who regularly (or ever, really ) argues about atheism/non-atheism, I was completely unmoved when Viola said, “your judgment doesn’t mean much.” Buddists’, Christians’ etc. judgment of me means nothing to me, so I would not expect them to care about nonbelievers’ judgment of them. So, I didn’t take her comment personally. But I now understand how this comment offended you and others. For the same reasons of not having a vast experience of participating in the believers/nonbelievers debate, I did not see her comment as derailing at all. I did not see her comment as an attempt to shut you up at all. But I now understand that you have seen the comment she made many times in the past as a means of derailing a perfectly good debate, and you’re rightfully sick of it. So, we’re just coming from different places, which is why I was surprised at what I initially found to be hostile and overly emotional response but now understand in the context of your (and others’) past experience with this issue.
Hey Guys and Gals, RICK SANTORUM is running for President.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/201…
Hey Nordica…look at that: and by being gracious in your response, you make me feel like an idiot at pursuing something which ultimately is trivial (and does have the very real context of a dead child hiding in there…which, of course, is truly unimaginable – whatever the debate might throw up).
I do get a bit raw: but that’s my problem, not anyone elses!
I take my hat off to you. Thank you.
Jimmy Boy –
I guess the big difference between Wicca and the Big Three Monotheisms is that you don’t have to believe anything to be Wiccan.
Wicca does honor a God and a Goddess, but there is no set rules as to how the God and Goddess are supposed to be viewed. There is a broad spectrum of “belief” from Wiccans who think the God and Goddess are Jungian archetypes; others are polytheists who believe that there are many Gods and Goddesses who are separate and individual deities; and yet others believe that the various Gods and Goddesses from the world’s mythologies are simply facets of “The God” or “The Goddess” – some refer to this theory as the Disco Ball Theory of God/dess.
So, Wicca (and other neo-pagan faiths) are highly personal because experience, not dogma is what is valued. It can sound very airy fairy, but really, Wicca doesn’t require one to leave their critical thinking at the door.
Within Wicca, people are very careful to make the distinction between personal experience and fact. Someone might share that a particular God or Goddess told them to do X. This doesn’t mean every Wiccan is expected to do X. Even the individual with the experience of having a God or Goddess tell them to do something can exercise free will and not do X. The only things you will find everyone agrees on are facts that can be supported with academic research (i.e. archaeological digs find papyrii and statues that document how a particular God/dess was worshipped in a particular place and time).
Though I am not a parent myself, I know several Pagan families and they are careful to allow their children self-determination when it comes to spirituality. They will teach their children, “this is what we do/practice/believe” but there is a strong emphasis on the individual finding what is right for them, even if it means being an agnostic or atheist.
:Sigh: I have a few points to make, belatedly. I just came back to listen to this week’s podcast when I noticed a truckload of comments here, and read for a while:
I think that philosophical discussions between people of faith and atheists are all well and good. I am a polytheist reconstructing a religion of the past. People take me to task for that A LOT. It is their right to do that. It is a little offbeat, and if I can’t defend my beliefs, then maybe I should rethink them.
But is it really necessary to categorically dismiss all people who practice religion as irrational and silly ON A SEX PODCAST? Is this really the time and place? Can’t I get my weekly fix of relationship, sex, and physiology advice without being insulted for something that has nothing to do with any of that? The venue, not the opinion itself, is what bugged me.
On a related note- a lot of the atheists are missing the point here. Many of you, I am sure, do not believe in God, Goddess, Gods, or whatever because you have seen no evidence of any of that. Fine. Nobody should believe something without having experienced a reason to believe it. However, most atheists I have met have concluded that this means that nobody else ever has, either. People with religions keep being asked why we believe things that are not true. Obviously, we don’t think we do. That’s like a Christian asking a pagan why they failed to understand that the Bible proves paganism to be wrong. (Which they do a lot, by the way.)
I have had a lot of odd things happen in my life. Examining all of my experiences, some of which are pretty out there, I came to a conclusion about the nature of reality. Someone with different experiences will doubtless come to a different conclusion. Moreover, scientists do it too. There are various pieces of data that make sense, can be replicated in the lab, and seem to be true, that don’t work well if other similarly replicatable pieces of data are also true. Physics is a great one for this. Does that mean that one of these things is wrong? Maybe, but really it just means we don’t have all the information yet.
Which leads to another thing: (I’ll shut up soon, I swear) Not all people who have a religious belief system are anti-science. There doesn’t need to be a conflict. I’m not really sure how the idea that there are things more powerful than humans at work in the universe means throwing physical laws out the window.
I totally side with the guest on one thing, though- if you are not a believer, then the religion is not the place for you.
#12 Why are so many parents scared to talk to their children about the world they live in? I never get folks who say “how will I explain it to my child…”.
You sit down and tell them the truth, leaving out certain details if they aren’t really age appropriate.
More likely, your kid won’t see his dad’s penis much (hopefully) as he gets older.
BTW: I agree that male circumcision is barbaric and should never be done on a child because he can’t give consent.
For those who are so worried about the STDs or visual appeal, let the boy decide for himself when he’s a man if he want’s to lop off.
yeeeahh, I never felt compelled to leave a comment until now. The ‘Wiccan’ bit did leave me a bit cheesed. I’ll admit though that I’m amused by the comments here how many people are casting opinions about Pagans without really knowing anything about them. It’s like pulling shit from your ass and calling it peanut brittle.
Ok, I’ll be the first to admit that some pagans, as with any subculture, has some crazy wack-jobs. They always find their way onto the presses too, but judging pagans by photos, rumors, or knowing one dude who played D & D too long in his parent’s basement would be like judging the whole gay community based off of the floats from a gay pride parade (my favorite being the leather boys).
With regards to what Pagans (and Wiccans, which are a kind of Pagan) believe in, that will run the gambit. Some believe in multiple “imaginary forces”, some are very science based, and a few would call themselves athiests. It’s all good, the cool thing about Paganism is it’s your path, you drive your own damn bus and you get to decide what you believe in. As to why… well in the words of one of my athiest pagan friends, he does rituals because they feel good. It helps him work through his stuff. Many people in Paganism see magic and ritual not as ‘spooky spook forces’, but as psychological tools to help them mark, celebrate, or mourn, or whatever. I figure, if it’s not harming anyone, and people are cool with each other I don’t care who or what they call their higher power, even if they don’t have one at all.
I guess what irritated me about Dan and his guest was the guaffawing over how ‘ignorant and silly’ people are who feel or choose to believe that there is/are a higher power/s. Fucking hell like anyone has all the answers… Whenever someone tells me ‘SCIENCE IS GOD’ I think back to the beginning of the 20th century and it’s predictions about how that century will end, that all pests will be eradicated, the world would be domesticated, and everything will be controled and wonderful. I’m sure what we believe about the world today isn’t quite spot on, because in the end we’re all stupid apes living on a tiny world in a vast universe.
Anyway, being that it’s pride month I’d wish to encourage everyone to celebrate diversity, even those with philosophical or spiritual beliefs that differ from yours.
oh and footnote, gay pagans throw the BEST PARTIES EVER!
It’s a bummer to see bigoted, closed-minded, ill-informed intolerance from anyone, but someone it’s especially disappointing to see it coming from science-minded people/skeptics/atheists, because I’d like to think they know better, since they’ve been widely attacked for so long. Why do things have to be so black-and-white? I’d love for more religious people to analyze their own beliefs and use more objectivity (which plenty do, though not enough), because that would make the world a *lot* saner, but I don’t think doing so would point to one correct conclusion of giving up their religion (or religion/spirituality) entirely. And I’d like to see more skeptics and atheists and scientists – in *addition* to recognizing frequent harms and objective untruths that can come about via religion/spirituality – be able to consider the possible *useful* (or even beneficial) sides that religion/spirituality can bring about for *some people*, even if they don’t personally find it relevant.
One additional note: just because someone has religious and/or spiritual interest doesn’t necessarily mean that person takes it as empirical fact. Plenty of people do respect scientific knowledge and view their particular religious/spiritual interests as symbolic or metaphorical (with those symbols or metaphors helpfully informing parts of their life), while still thinking analytically.
Gist is… why so much generalizing?
To the Vag DP lady…it is totally awesome! My husband thinks so as well. It will require a bit of patience and a lot of lube but well worth the effort!
On a side note…I would start with one boy and one toy. That way when it doesn’t fit the first time (and it won’t) no one has hurt feelings when he is thrown off the bed for the remainder of the encounter.
And buy lube…like a ton of lube, you will be glad you did.
the caller who left a response message about this on the last podcast stated Dan Savage was ignoring the science.
But you have to look at the WHOLE science of the study done in Africa: the men who were circumcised also received basic sex education. So, the scientific proof would be that basic sex education leads to lower HIV rates (….and please don’t refute that).
The other point he made was that Female Genital Mutilation is performed to inhibit a woman’s sexuality.
Dr Kellog, the driving force of the popularity of male circumcision in America, recommended circumcision specifically for that (to inhibit and curtail masturbation, etc….). I’m not comparing FGM to male circumcision, just the ideas prevalent behind both.
Just wanted to respond to the “science” of the caller’s statements….
….and for the record: I am in my late 30s and uncircumcised. I thought a lot about getting it done when I was younger (because I thought I looked ‘different’ and felt weird)…. I was worried about what it was going to be like since I was ‘different’…. and then I started having sex. …and realized everyone is different.
Most people I have been with, male and female, cannot tell I am not cut. Unless you are bowing before someone’s cock and staring at it reverently to worship it, and hey you may be doing that, you won’t notice and or care— it’s a penis and it does what a penis does.
Also, if you are in the gym and catch me walking from the shower and it’s cold, my dick may look a little different (and by the way: so does yours).
Let’s just all admit that it is a personal preference.
-Tape
Yo fellow lovers of Dan,
I just finished listening to this episode and was inspired to come and leave a post about the circumcision thing and the double penetration one as well…
Firstly, let’s start with the topic that seems to have been mostly ignored, except for ‘forcrimeinitaly’.
I was surprised Dan didn’t seem to know much as I imagine that he might have seen two dicks in one arse, 2d1a, so it is not much of a leap to move to 2d1v.
I have played around with this and firstly it feels good, for all concerned. It makes the pussy nice and tight and really alright. One thing to consider is how well can your pussy expand and how big are the dicks you are going to put into it…
I think the advice Dan gives for preparing for anal sex is pretty appropriate for preparing for 2 real dicks… start off really slow with only one dick and lots of toys that gradually get larger…
This allows for baby steps to be taken and see just how big you can go… once you have an understanding or your limits and what feels good, then, you can start auditioning dicks until you find one that you are comfortable with.
Happy expanding… of your horizons that is…
Now onto the topic of the hour…
I don’t really have much to add to the ethical side of the debate, that seems to have been fairly well covered. However, I do have a bit of a twist in the usual story.
My parents couldn’t decide what to do about my dick in regards to circumcision. The background is that I was born in the mid ’70’s in Australia, and apparently attitudes where changing from being for to being against. (My brother who is two years younger is uncut.) For completeness, there was no religious impetus forcing their decision, so in the end they took a punt both ways.
I ended up being half circumcised.
I tend get a lot of blank looks when I tell people, so I generally have to show them. (Dan, pictures available on request). Anyway, I don’t seem to be able to add them here, so, I have a foreskin that when my dick is flaccid, finishes near the end of the glans. However, when erect, withdraws out of the way leaving the head exposed. (However, when really cold, I do manage to get a full foreskin 🙂
There seem to be a few advantages of this that I can see.
1. No annoying dripping after peeing
2. When masturbating, I still have enough foreskin that I can use that to run back and forth over the corona
3. Easy to clean
4. Good party talking point when the conversation dries up
5. Doesn’t collect fluff
The last one I made up. I have no idea if anyone else’s collects fluff… perhaps a later topic.
Hope you found this interesting, it’s my first post…
Anyway, been great talking with you guys.
You may have been the first person to publically use the word ‘solodex’. I understood it immediately and thought it was funny as hell. But there was no definition for it on Urban Dictionary, that great beacon of public knowledge. So I posted it, with full credit to you: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.ph…
http://www.bilerico.com/2011/11/dan_sava…
I’m annoyed that some people think all Wiccans/Pagans are somehow anti-science. I belong to a small Wiccan tradition with three scientists as members one of whom received her PHD in biochemistry from Oxford. You can believe in atoms and protons and also believe in the numinous. It’s ok.
Also while many of us believe in beings we refer to as gods we are not going to tell you those gods ever make frogs fall from the sky or destroy all life on earth with a flood then repopulate with just two of every species. No I cannot scientifically prove gods exist and I don’t think you will have a life any less fulfilling than mine if you don’t believe in them.
But to the topic, Wicca is pretty sex-positive and one of the founders was interested in nudism and BDSM so there are sexually charged rituals that some people perform. The caller will have to ask herself “Am I ok with my BF having a sexual experience with someone else that doesn’t involve intercourse?” “Am I ok with my BF being naked around other adults?” “Would it be ok for him to be on a nude beach without me?”
As someone pointed out