last rites, first aid

A man walks into a backwoods bar in Kentucky and orders a cosmopolitan. The bartender looks the man over and says, “Not from ’round here, are ya?” “No” replies the man, “I’m from Providence, Rhode Island.” The bartender looks at him and says, “Well what do ya do in Providence?” “I’m a taxidermist,” says the man. The bartender looks bewildered, so the man explains, “I stuff and mount dead animals.” And the bartender stands back and hollers to the whole bar full of hilbillies, “It’s OK, boys! He’s one of us!”

So the man gets comfortable and sips his cocktail. And by and by he becomes peckish, and asks the bartender for a bite to eat. All the bartender can offer him is pork rinds, so that’ll have to do. So the man chomps down on those salty, crunchy pork rinds. And he likes them. In fact, he likes them so much that he gets a pork rind lodged in his throat. After a minute or so he is in real distress. So one of the barflies walks up to him and says, “Kin ya swallar?” The man shakes his head. And the hillbilly follows up, “Kin ya breathe?” The man shakes his head as he begins to turn blue. And the hillbilly reaches around the man’s waist, unbuckles his belt, drops his breeches, yanks down his briefs, and sticks his tongue up his ass crack. The man is so shocked that he has a violent spasm, which causes the pork rind to fly out of his mouth. As he begins to breathe again, he struggles to express his gratitude to the good Samaritan. And the hillbilly goes, “Hit don’t mean doodley squat. Ackshly, I’m much obliged to ye. Ya know, I’d heerd of that there ‘Hind Lick Maneuver’ but I ain’t niver had no chance to do it to anyone before!”

пидорас в нехорошем смысле

Еврейский анекдот наоборот:
— Мойша, а ты знаешь, что Жора — пидорас?
— Что, он занял денег и не отдаёт?!
— Да нет, в хорошем смысле.

Une histoire juive à rebours :
— Moishe, tu savais que Gégé est un pédé ?
— Quoi, il a emprunté de l’argent et ne le rembourse pas ?
— Non, dans le bon sens.

The contrary of a Jewish joke:
— Moishe, you know that Gerry is a fag?
— What, he borrowed money and refuses to repay?
— No, in a good way.

Tenue de soirée vingt-sept ans après:

the advantages of sodomy over orthogenitalism

Methinks the homophiles are protesting too much by resolving to ignore the obvious charitable reading of Justice Scalia’s insistence on submitting law to moral scrutiny. Consider that their most compelling current jurisprudence calls for equal protection of homosexuals as distinguished by immutable characteristics of their sexual preferences. Suppose that tomorrow, psychiatrists declare the preferences of coprophagia, apotemnophilia, or kleptomania to be equally immutable. Would it be reasonable to demand that restaurants served excrements on par with conventional nutrients; that surgeons be compelled to amputate healthy limbs on their owners’ demand; or that bankers and shopkeepers surrendered their stock to anyone organically beholden to the advantages of theft over honest toil? Might it not make more sense to submit equal protection to moral judgments? Anyone who thinks this far-fetched is welcome to contemplate the immutability of schizophrenia as grounds for mandating equal treatment for its patients.

the leaky vessels of state

The best reason not to have sex in public is to avoid exposure to well-meaning second-guessers. Thus the late Robert Hughes ably illustrated the stupidity of judicial censure of sexual deviance:

Why so few [sodomy] convictions? Ernest Augustus Slade, who had been superintendent of the convict barracks at Hyde Park in Sydney from 1833 to 1834 (his resignation was forced by sexual scandal, though over a woman), testified that “among [the lower] class of convicts sodomy is as common as any other crime.” It was an ineradicable part of jail culture. But only about one case in thirty could be proven. Molested youths lodged complaints but then prevaricated in court; and other evidence tended to be vague, since “shirtlifters” were rarely caught in the act of buggery. “If you had it proved” Slade told the Molesworth Committee in 1838, “that men were found with their breeches down in secluded spots, and they stated that they had gone there to ease themselves, and upon examination it was found that they had not done so, what could have occurred?” But no jury would convict on such grounds. Out in the bush, the dreaded act became more obscure still, as there was nobody to watch the assigned convicts. Bishop Ullathorne believed that sodomy was less frequent among the shepherds, who tended to live alone, than among stockmen, “a much more dissolute set” who practiced “a great deal of that crime” and even taught it to the formerly innocent Aborigines. And if the Man from Snowy River’s convict forebear was not content with the brusque embraces of Jacky-Jacky, there were always sheep. “As a juryman,” one witness told the committee, ”I have had opportunities of hearing many trials for unnatural offences, with animals particularly. … I think they are much more common than in any other country inhabited by the English.” “That is, among the convicts?” interjected one committee member. “Yes,” said the witness, dispelling the thought of the colonial gentry practicing abominations on their own merinos.

—Robert Hughes, The Fatal Shore: The Epic of Australia’s Founding, Vintage Books, 1988, p. 267

Would that the indicters of WikiLeaking condoms took heed of rapidly dwindling chances of securing a jury conviction of Julian Assange.

unnatural crimes amongst pachyderms

If crimes of sexuality were confined to the human species, we should not have an opportunity to study the biological beginnings of crime as observed in curious instances of criminality in animals, which raises doubts as to whether these inversions of the genesic instinct are with them unnatural phenomena, or rather an outward manifestation of an imperious functional want. Without exposing the details of the analogy upon which is founded the presumption, we are warranted in saying that as many of the lower beings in the zoölogical scale show virtues having analogy to those of man, we must expect to find parallel vices. It is an error to suppose that aberration of the genesic instinct is confined to our species, time, or race. Evidence shows that unnatural crime exists under all latitudes. It extends from the prehistoric time of the troglodytes up to Hippocrates, who stigmatizes it in his oath, and from his time to the present. I have observed common instances of sexual perversion in dogs and turkeys. A short time since, at the Washington races, a celebrated stallion was the favorite on whom the largest bets were made. A friend of mine, having ascertained from the groom the day before the race that the horse had procured an ejaculation by flapping his penis against the abdomen, accordingly risked his pile on another horse, who, by the way, came in ahead. Only a few days ago, to escape a shower, I took refuge in the elephant house in the Washington Zoölogical gardens, where are confined two male elephants, “Dunk” and “Gold Dust.” To my astonishment they entwined their probosces together in a caressing way; each had simultaneous erection of the penis, and the act was finished by one animal opening and allowing the other to tickle the roof of his mouth with his proboscis after the manner of the oscula more Columbino, mentioned, by the way, in some of the old theological writings, and prohibited by the rules of at least one Christian denomination.

—Irving C. Rosse, “Sexual Hypochrondriasis and Perversion of the Genesis Instinct”, Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, whole series volume 19, new series, volume 17, number 11, November 1892, pp. 798-799

they asked him for some collateral and he pulled down his pants

Deshon Marman, 20, a University of New Mexico football player who was in the city to attend the funeral of a close friend, former Lincoln High School standout David Henderson, was being held at San Mateo County Jail on suspicion of trespassing, battery and resisting arrest.
    Marman grew up a block from Henderson in the Bayview neighborhood, and the two were teammates at Lincoln High School and City College of San Francisco before they transferred to separate four-year universities. Henderson was shot May 26 on Kirkwood Avenue and died 11 days later.
    On Wednesday, San Francisco police got a call about 9 a.m. that someone was exposing himself outside a US Airways gate, Sgt. Michael Rodriguez said.
    An airline employee spotted Marman before he boarded Flight 488, bound for Albuquerque, and complained that Marman’s pants “were below his buttocks but above the knees, and that much of his boxer shorts were exposed,” Rodriguez said.
    The employee asked Marman to pull up his pants before he boarded the plane, but he refused, Rodriguez said. Marman allegedly repeated his refusal after taking his seat on the plane.
    “At that point he was asked to leave the plane,” Rodriguez said. ““It took 15 to 20 minutes of talking to get him to leave the plane, and he was arrested for trespassing.” Marman allegedly resisted officers as he was being led away.

—Justin Berton, “Grieving Passenger’s Sagging Pants Lead to Arrest”,
The San Francisco Chronicle, 16 June 2011

Folk etymology connects saggin’ with backwards niggas.

The fashion actually transitioned from prison culture, said author-youth advocate Judge Greg Mathis of the “Judge Mathis” show.
    “In prison you aren’t allowed to wear belts to prevent self-hanging or the hanging of others,” said Mathis, who at 17 once served eight months in jail. “They take the belt and sometimes your pants hang down. The same with no shoestrings in your shoes. You aren’t allowed to have shoestrings. Many cultures of the prison have overflowed into the community unfortunately.”
    Saggin’ also has sexual connotations in prison.
    “Those who pulled their pants down the lowest and showed their behind a little more raw, that was an invitation,” said Mathis. “[The youth] don’t know this part about it. I always tease and tell them that they better be careful because some man who has been in prison 30 years who comes home and doesn’t know any different may think it’s an open invitation.”

—Margena A. Christian, “The Facts Behind The Saggin’ Pants Craze”,
Jet, Vol. 111, No. 18, 7 May 2007, pp 16-18

Deshon Marman is expected to plead guilty to possession of crack with intent to sell.

it was twenty years ago today: a marginal screed in progress

Message-ID: <>
Date: 15 Mar 91 22:59:27 GMT
In article <> (Jakob G}rdsted) writes:

I myself think, that the 1/20 should be sustained. Not because I dislike gays or think they should not practice what makes them feel good, but because heterosex have a better performance rate in reproducing mankind, compared to homosex, so far. And like we should not rid this planet of trees or elephants, we should not work against nature/evolution. I dunno about these last lines. Maybe it’s just thoughtscrapup, whatdoyasay?

I myself wholeheartedly agree, and would welcome some rational argument for or against this position.
    First, about the use of ‘should’. In my case, and in the present context, I use it to refer to some transcendental moral values. All moral relativists are invited to turn the flamethrower on, as I hereby state that, not being a Politically Correct person, I believe in the objective existence of the True, the Good, and the Beautiful.[1] […] I believe that in the realm of politics, there is no place for moral judgements. Morality neither can (in practice), nor should (morally) be legislated. The best that a government can hope for is to guide its laws in accordance with some standard of common Good.
    A corollary of the above: homosexuals, drug users, gun owners, in short everyone who deviates from that, which by any statistical standard may be accepted as the Norm, have absolutely the same rights as everyone else, provided that they, as individuals, do not injure or coerce anybody else. “Setting a bad example” does not count as coersion.
    This is the old “consenting adults cannot do anything legally wrong to each other” thesis. Note that children are automatically excluded, until they reach legal majority.[2]
    Concerning the main issue: death is the price we, as a species, pay for the privilege of having sex. While, as Sade among many others very clearly understood, the degree of erotic excitement increases with any increase in the distance between recreation and procreation, some measure of restraint must be imposed on this distance out of moral considerations. Where to draw the line is subject to many questions. Personally, I believe that many organized religions go to far in their proscription of “spilling the seed on the ground”, birth control, and so on. On the other hand, it is equally clear to me that, until and unless homosexual reproduction has been invented, homosexual intercourse will remain morally wrong. tl:dr