Bad women!
Oh this is a must read. Go over to A J Chesswas and see him lament that some women actually mention penises or make jokes about them. Civilisation is doomed, doomed I say.
Key extracts are below:
Two years ago a female Christian friend who will remain nameless called us blokes to her computer to see something she found furiously funny. We watched a video clip which showed a keyboard in front of a curtain, as what looked like quite a fat finger started playing a tune from behind the curtain, and next thing you know a bloke’s head is visible above the curtain and the rest of us blokes realised exactly which of his 21 digits he was using to play the keyboard. We were shocked and I advised my female friend to delete it immediately.
Earlier this year another female Christian friend shared with me that she had to organise a Hen’s Night, and her friends she was organising it with wanted to have a “best penis” competition to see who could make the most realistic penis out of playdo. I was shocked, and encouraged this friend in her desire to organise something less derogatory.
I was thus all-the-more shocked when another Christian female friend recently showed me pictures of her and her friends at a hens night playing that very game, which she duly won with her tie-wearing penis (which is even more disturbing!). She seemed not to have a care in the world about the fact she’d participated in this game. I told her exactly what I thought, yet later when I told her I’d forgiven her she told me she hadn’t thought it had been that much of an issue. (btw I have forgiven you but I really want you to understand what I’m about to say here)…
I then received an email with the most foul “joke” about a bloke who was worried he was going to get raped by a big black bloke in an elevator. This was the straw that broke the camel’s back, I clicked “reply all” and told everyone exactly what I thought, and of course the usual “true for you but not for me” crap has manifested, apart from the few who are willing to buck the trend, who understand exactly what I’m talking about.
I have heard women justify this sort of carry-on by saying “guys talk about breasts all the time, etc. etc.”. I know they do, but hey, I DON’T. The attack on the male digit is an attack on men in general, and my appeal is that, sisters, we are not all like that. The penis is essentially a symbol of manhood, when you mock it or scorn it you mock men generally, and you look like a pathetic and immature piece of sub-humanity when you do.
I have not written off Western women because of their general bolshiness, unlike a lot of other Western men I know. Despite my numerous bad experiences with females I remain hopeful that within each of those females is a woman who is capable of living a respectful and virtuous life. Those who offend me I rebuke, for sure, but I wouldn’t proceed to DEGRADE them or women in general the same way they have degraded my male brothers.
However, all of these experiences are making me wonder if women are capable of truly understanding the virtue of fidelity and the sanctity of life and reproduction. As a result I am starting to understand why so many women fail to see the depravity of the homosexual act. Next time I look at the stats of who supports sexual reform and who doesn’t I will be able to explain it away by red=women and blue=men.
Come on ladies, think about it, repent of your bitter and stinking man-hating attitudes, and if you can’t then I recommend you go straight to your Heavenly Father who is always just a prayer away.
Later in comments, AJ says:
Personally, I’d feel more morally satisfied being signed up for Al-Qaeda than being addicted to pornography. And I’m not saying that tongue in cheek, I’m actually being honest.
The thing is, I think that a lot of those terrorists are actually more sensitive to knowing and feeling God’s wrath. I have to be honest, when I hear about a local pub having a “stripper night” and thinking about getting into the prostitution trade I SERIOUSLY feel like blowing the place up.
However, should Al-Qaeda sweep through and blow up a few Kiwi nightclubs, I wouldn’t describe their action as “condemning people to death before they have a chance to see the error of their ways”
I always wondered where the people who blow up abortion clinics and the like come from. I now have a better idea! This is either the funniest or the saddest post I have seen in a long long time. I genuinely can’t decide which.
November 12th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
“..the attack on the male digit is an attack on men in general..”
that must go into ‘quotes of the year’…
and those christian women eh..?..whoar..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 12th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
There is a man with serious problems with his own sexuality
It’s evil for women to joke about the male member
Words fail me
ray
November 12th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
What does he think about men making jokes about penes?
Hmmm….
November 12th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
He probably expects us to believe that he’s never ever flicked one off the wrist before either.
November 12th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
Ha! I nearly laghed my diget off reading this post, always thought MR Chesswas a a screw or two loose.
November 12th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
Perhaps AJ doesn’t have a penis.
November 12th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
i reckon we should start some viral marketing of the use of the word ‘diget’…
we could see the birth of a new slang-term..
(..”..i have to go and dangle the digit..”
“..how’s yer old-digit..?..”
“..he’s a right digit..!..eh..?..”
“..a ‘digi-coat’ = condom..”
“..he’s a dumb-digit..!..eh..?..”
digit-sack = underpants..
digi-rinse..fellatio without condom..
rubber-rinse = digi-rinse with condom..
you could make up songs..
“..somewhere..over the digit..”
so..if we work it…it could become much as ‘being a right richard’ has picked up traction as a substitute for ‘being a right dick’…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 12th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Good ‘ol AJ…another example of culturally inappropriate immigration.
November 12th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
Poor sad guy. Mired in guilt and wierdness thanks to religion. Maybe United Future could use him?
And I hate to be pedantic (well, no I don’t, I love being pedantic) but digit is surely only applicable to fingers and toes.
November 12th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
You forgot the most important part;
“[God] will help you understand true masculinity, and will open your eyes to the many blokes who follow his example rather than the likes of David Farrar or Generation X-Y.”
Sorry guys, but I don’t consider myself a monkey good for nothing more than self-abuse and degradation.
November 12th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
farrar..!..what the hell have you been up to..?
definitely enough to get a personal curse laid on you by old chesswa..
(and he/she must be ‘old’..eh..?..)
what’s ol’ chessy ‘got on’ you..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 12th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
farrar..!..what the hell have you been up to..?
definitely enough to get a personal curse laid on you by old chesswa..
(hope it was nothing to do with yr digit..eh..?..)
(and he/she must be ‘old’..eh..?..)
what’s ol’ chessy ‘got on’ you..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 12th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
AJ – You obviously have a hard-on for al Queda and the way that their women are suitably demure and don;t mention penises. Why don’t you go to the tribal areas of Pakistan and join them.
I just watched the Two Ronnies on UKTV and there were three or four toilet /body part jokes. I take it you frown on them as well.
November 12th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
Didn’t Jesus hang out with prostitutes on a regular basis?
I’m not convinced Cheswass is not some journos fabrication to wind people up.
November 12th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
Jesus hung out with repentant prostitutes, and I continue to hang out with women who call themselves Christian but mock and degrade me.
Another key quote that needs to go here, my summary if you like;
“I’m talking about finding a middle ground between Mohammed and Hugh Hefner”
So sorry Smaller I’m sticking around… And sorry Ruth, I’m real, we clarified that last year on Agri-Christian… and guess what, there’s a whole lot more like me
November 12th, 2006 at 5:31 pm
Loon. He needs to personally experience people’s blood on his hands before he can talk about blowing up people — it gives quite a different perspective to most people and they lose the ability to casually throw comments about killing people.
It just shows how easy it is to lose any perspective when you’re sitting in a cosy quasi-job on a pimply island on the backside of the world.
I’ve gotta get out of this place before I get Clark’d.
November 12th, 2006 at 5:34 pm
AJ I’m not sure mocking and degrading you is confined to Christians.
November 12th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
I think people might need to read the entire comment thread that DPF links to before assuming AJ is going to blow up the next pub with a stripper night.
November 12th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
chestwad sounds like he’d fit right in with “ole catmeat” in Sydney,a guest spot at his mosgue perhaps?.
November 12th, 2006 at 6:02 pm
I hate to think what kind of wierd fetishes Chesswas has developed through the course of his sexually repressed existance – thankfully I stopped being guilty about having a sexuality after my youthful god-bothering days were over.
May you one day see the light Chesswas!
November 12th, 2006 at 6:02 pm
What a send-up! Course it’s a joke – by some ignormaus having a go at Christians – yet again.
How boring and tedious this is all getting.
Seems if you want to make an impact, bring the word ‘Christian’ into it and you’ll be assured of a response. (Just look at the responses from those sucked into it and you’ll see what I mean.)
This person sounds like they never got past Sunday school in their understanding of Christianity – if they went to Sunday school at all!
Sad, pathetic, ignorant person.
November 12th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
“Seems if you want to make an impact, bring the word ‘Christian’ into it and you’ll be assured of a response. (Just look at the responses from those sucked into it and you’ll see what I mean.)” I was brought up a Christian and only rejected it in my early 20’s, so I feel entitled to make light of my former beliefs – if that gripes you, too bad. Simply put, any adult that believes that they will be punished by an imaginary friend for masturbating deserves to be mocked. Hell if a mocking helps them to see reason and stop feeling guilty about who they are, I consider that I’ve done them a service.
November 12th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
When will so called christians like AJ realize that they are responsible for more people not even wanting to listen to the message. Just because they fabricate this way of life in their heads that has nothing to do with Christianity but is a reflection of their own sexual hang ups.
Man your life is Christlike AJ. You judge and condemn. Point the finger. Throw that stone brother. Man where do you get off “forgiving” your acquaintance ? That stone a bit heavy in your hand brother? Maybe you should ask her forgiveness for sitting in judgement?
November 12th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
AJ: To be rich with friends is enviable..to judge them suggests self-loathing
November 12th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
The sad thing about strong Christians is that they don’t have much of a sense of humour.
November 12th, 2006 at 6:41 pm
No, Bob, AJ’s female Christian friends apparently do, but the joke is lost on the types of AJ. I sort of understand his point of view, even though I strongly disagree with it.
November 12th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
This guy reminds me of another fake blogger:
http://www.blogger.com/profile/25209306
November 12th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
Thank you, Phillip John, your response makes my argument better than I did.
November 12th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
Look at the bio….a hoax AND a sheepherder.
The mind boggles
November 12th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
Here’s AJs basic problem: he’s proudly virginal and considers ALL kinds of sex outside the bounds of marriage sinful. He knows he’s not a monkey – or indeed any kind of animal – he’s a human and he also knows that whatever being created the immense vastness of the universe fifteen billion years ago is curiously and maliciously preoccupied with our sexual behaviour. AJ is keen not to disappoint it.
Unfortunately for him he IS an animal, and his testes are currently producing several dozen million sperm an hour while his hypothalamus is drenching his body with hormones urging him to frequently and vigorously eject said sperm – preferably inside one of the fallen women AJ is surrounded by. (Presumably the number of women in AJs proximity will drop once they read his blog and find out he fantasises about murdering them.)
It could be worse – maybe he’ll decide taking a crap is sinful, switch to an all-bran diet and fantasise about blowing up public toilets.
In the meantime it’s nice to reflect that we live in a society in which the reality challenged legions of true believers mostly make their own lives miserable instead of everyone elses.
November 12th, 2006 at 8:09 pm
Thank you mainstream, your lack of willingness/ability to engage in debate, coupled with your child-like grammatical capabilities, have served to subvert you position almost as effectively as my above arguments.
November 12th, 2006 at 8:15 pm
Well, I always thought he was a total dick, so there you go…
November 12th, 2006 at 8:29 pm
I’m just a “silly farmer” (Dr Sullen) I always thought I was a bit Christan prehaps not as tough as AJ.
Always believed that Jesus hated the sin and not the sinner.Prehaps A.J’s real demon lives in the mirror.
November 12th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
one shaven pussy, and chesswas will be completely corrupted.
November 12th, 2006 at 9:26 pm
Is anybody actually going to try and engage in serious debate on this issue, and show me why they’re right and I’m wrong? Or are people happy to just point out that I’m “Christian” and that somehow that makes me irrelevant?
Some comments above which surely require some justification…
“they fabricate this way of life in their heads that has nothing to do with Christianity but is a reflection of their own sexual hang ups”
“Man your life is Christlike AJ. You judge and condemn. Point the finger. Throw that stone brother. Man where do you get off “forgiving” your acquaintance ? That stone a bit heavy in your hand brother? Maybe you should ask her forgiveness for sitting in judgement?”
Mr “Why?”, given this comment you really need to read my post “Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged”. That’s if you really care about having a conversation.
http://matthew5-9.blogspot.com/2006/08/judge-not-lest-ye-be-judged.html
However, if you just want to spin superficial and groundless statements without being challenged and actually engaging with the issues of today then you’ll probably just ignore it. Don’t come complaining to me when the Jihadists get your number.
November 12th, 2006 at 9:45 pm
chestwad,you are the jihadist, with a cross rather than the crescent moon.
November 12th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
This thread is simply gold…pure gold.
And AJ keeps coming back…
November 12th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
AJ, just out of interest, what would be your reaction to a Christian who professes to be homosexual? I am neither – but that’s not relevant to the question.
I presume you’ll say they’re somehow less “moral” than you. Does it make any difference that they’re practicising Christians? And, if so, what’s the difference between that “sin” (as you see it) and a woman who has an “unhealthy” interest in men?
Oh, and just for the record, I’ve read your “Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged” in the faint hope that I might somehow find a backbone to your argument that has, thus far, always been missing.
Some cases in point:
To say to someone that I KNOW God is real, and has purposefully planned their existence and has expectations of them, when they have ideas and experiences to the contrary, is surely to trust my own experience and judgment more than theirs and thus is, in a way, to be proud and judgmental.
This is essentially a dressed-up form of an “I am right, and you are wrong, QED” argument.
For compassion cannot exist without some understanding of what life SHOULD be like for people. And we know that at the heart of our feelings of compassion are those principles I referred to throughout the debate on Farrar’s blog – human dignity and justice.
Again you speak of universal principles without recognising that different people apply them in different ways.
Jesus clearly desires us to be in a position to be able to help others out of their sin. He wants us to be able to help remove the speck from our brother’s eye. But what he is saying is we need to first start with ourselves. There’s no point harping on about our brother’s sins if we’re not willing to deal with our own first.
Your final comment, in particular, is a relativist argument. You define the “speck” in the eye from your own viewpoint as in need of corrective action, cleanse your own, and then apply the blowtorch. While you’re entitled to your own opinion, I fail to see how that entitles you to sit in judgment on others. and require them to atone for their own sins.
And, AJ, how about engaging Danyl’s comment above? He seems willing to debate with you.
November 12th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
“And, AJ, how about engaging Danyl’s comment above? He seems willing to debate with you.”
Aj is more interested is mass debating.
November 12th, 2006 at 10:04 pm
“And, AJ, how about engaging Danyl’s comment above? He seems willing to debate with you.”
Aj is more interested in mass debating.
November 12th, 2006 at 10:07 pm
Wow, I thought people like AJ were extinct.
His life I suppose, it is hard to imagine how he copes with the world of today.
November 12th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
And I can’t resist pulling you up on these comments, AJ:
If I fail to identify sex-hatred when I see it, even in little things like these sorts of “jokes”, then I would be nothing more than a hypocrite.
Just as a thief starts by first stealing a cookie from the cookie jar, so does a man-abuser of woman abuser start by mocking and scorning the opposite sex behind their backs.
Are we to understand from these comments that women who enjoy “penis jokes” run the risk of becoming “men abusers”? Or are you a strong contender for the “wowser-of-the-year” award?
November 12th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
I think its pathetic that Farrer has reduced his blog by using tactics similar to school-yard bullying.
I dont agree with AJ but I do have to say that he has every right to believe whatever it is that he believes.
Its interesting to note that many of the people who have jumped at the chance to ridicule AJ would have nothing short of a tantrum if they were under such unneccessary scrutiny themselves. Its a tad hypocritical I must say.
November 12th, 2006 at 11:23 pm
Thanks Graham, looks like this thread may not be a waste of time after all…
Just like the Boobs on Bikes thing, I do think this is a matter of respect, not religion. People say, “well it’s just not your taste in humour”, implying that taste in humour is morally relative. But when it comes to these sorts of things I am adamant taste is either more moral or less moral.
You really have to ask yourself, WHY do you find profaning sexual organs funny? The only way I can make sense of why people find this sort of thing funny is because either a) they have some offence against the opposite sex in general and mocking that sex makes them feel better, or b) they are tired of the way sex and marriage is respected and honoured so deeply, especially given their own moral failings, and as a result welcome any effort to make sex not such a sacred thing – to profane it.
Now this seems glaringly obvious to me. So obvious that until someone can explain otherwise this will be the only way I can interpret that sort of humour. And thus because it amounts to either dishonouring men or women, or profaning sex and marriage, then it is clearly at the immoral end of a behavioural spectrum based on the virtue of respect, which is not just a Christian virtue but a universal virtue.
Jokes about sexual organs can in no way be a relative application of principles of dignity and justice. If it was then surely you could articulate how and why. See, this is just like the Boobs on Bikes debate.
As for “defining the “speck” from my own viewpoint, I fail to see what other viewpoint I could possibly define anything from. I cannot buy the assertion that we are incapable of making moral judgments on the behaviour of our fellow human beings.
I didn’t think I needed to address Danyl’s comment. It didn’t contradict anything I said, but simply highlights how difficult it is to live a chaste life given our physiology, let alone the highly adverse sociology we’re confronted with every day. Andrew is quite right when he says “it is hard to imagine how he copes with the world of today”. Harder than imagining it is trying to live it. But then again, it’s quite easy to refrain from manipulating a woman into bed when one cultivates a deep level of respect for women, as well as self-respect.
And Graham, do tell me, why is it, do you think, that women enjoy penis jokes if it isn’t because they degrade men? Call me Wowser, call me Flanders, call me what you like. It won’t change anything unless you can actually engage with my argument.
November 12th, 2006 at 11:56 pm
AJ: A woman who makes a penis joke is, for me, not male-degrading. Such jokes seem more offensive for you than for others. I don’t know whether this is because you’re feeling insecure in that department, or whether it’s simply a case of you being extremely sensitive to any kind of sex joke.
I think context is everything here. It ultimately comes down to a relativist judgment.
Would you suggest, for example, that a woman is somehow degrading men by commenting on “beer bellies”? And, before you answer, I just don’t think that it’s an adequate answer to say that a penis is a sexual organ, and somehow male degrading, whereas a beer belly is not. Your definition of male-degrading conduct doesn’t seem to be limited to sexual content.
Nor do I think that a woman admiring the figure of another woman (not a lesbian fantasy – just an appreciation of beauty in others) is female-degrading.
The point I (and others) keep coming back to you is that you’re sitting in judgment of others. You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but to send a mass e-mail lecturing others on why a joke about two men in a lift just isn’t funny is comically hilarious. I think this is because humour is subjective. What is funny for me may not be your cup of tea – and vice versa.
You want others to engage you in debate, and we can certainly do that, but you have to understand that others are coming from a different viewpoint to your own. And we’re just as entitled to that viewpoint as you are to yours, surely?
November 13th, 2006 at 12:10 am
A man walked into a bar, sat down at the far end and had a drink. He noticed there was a horse in the back of the bar room with a big pot of money on the floor in front of it.
“What’s up with that?” He asked the bartender, pointing at the horse.
“You gotta put a dollar in the pot,” explained the bartender,”if you can make the horse laugh, you collect the pot.”
The man walked over to the horse, dropped a dollar into the pot, and whispered into it’s ear. The horse cracked up, fell over, and rolled on the floor in laughter. So the man picked up the pot and walked out.
Five years later the same man came into the bar, and saw the same horse, with another big pot of money in front of it. The bartender recognised the man and noticed him looking at the horse in anticipation. “It’s not so easy now… this time you gotta make him cry.” he said.
The man walked over to the horse and whispered in its ear, and from behind, in the shadows, appeared to pull something out of his pocket and showed the horse. The horse fell to its knees sobbing as though its heart was breaking. The man picked up the pot and was walking out the door when the bartender stopped him.
“Hey! At least you can tell us what you told him!” “Easy,” said the man. “The last time, I told him my thingy is bigger than his. This time I showed him
November 13th, 2006 at 12:25 am
OK, comparing to a beer-belly joke is a good approach. At the end of the day there is a degree of degradation in commenting on beer bellies, as they really are not the ideal and not something to be proud of. It’s obviously not as big a deal as making a joke about a sex organ, as male bellies are a lot more observable and open for public perusal than other items, for obvious reasons. See there are two elements in this sort of humour – degrading persons (i.e. “men”, “women”), and degrading ideals (i.e. monogamy). Beer-belly jokes only really deal with the former, and as a result are not such a big deal.
And by no means am I saying that admiration of anyone’s body is a degrading thing. It is rather the way a body is admired, where the emphasis is placed, aesthetic rather than sexual, and in a social context that doesn’t incite the latter.
As I said, unless you can explain the reasons WHY people find those jokes are funny, and show that those reasons aren’t in any way derogatory, then my point stands that there is moral objectivity in humour. As with the last debate, I have philosphically explained and justified my viewpoint. Why should I respect your viewpoint if you are unwilling to do the same?
November 13th, 2006 at 12:50 am
That kind of rant is typical of religious lunacy. So is a bit of embellishment. There is in fact no keyboard in front of a curtain. There is only a keyboard. And it is just over waist high so the man’s head is visible the whole time. But the embellishments aside Mr. Cheesewad is several bulbs short of a chandelier.
As a male, and last time I check (oh, horrors) I had a penis. Now exactly how is a playdo penis derogatory? I can understand some men being upset if their partners preferred the playdo penis to the real one. While this obvious concerns Cheesewad I’m not sure very many other men feel either threatened or degraded.
The religious fanatic like the authoritarian feminist proclaims as demeaning and derogatory things which most people find neither. Now if he thinks it is derogatory I suggest he avoid playing the piano with his “digit”. Now he claims he that a lot of Western men have “written off Western women because of their general bolshiness”. I had to look that up since it’s a made up word not in the dictionary. I find it is “an emotionally charged term used to refer to extreme radicals or revolutionaries.” Now I know he’s nuts
Most women are not revolutionaries or radicals. And sexual humour has been around long before the radical left and has nothing to do with degrading or insulting men. But I think Cheesewad has problems with women. He mentions “numerous bad experiences” with them. Bad for him perhaps but probably perceptive on the woman’s part. He says women who offend him “I rebuke”. He attributes expanding social freedom (ie. failing to see the “depravity of the homosexual act”) to to women and says he wonders if women “are capable of truly understanding the virtue of fidelity and the sanctity of life and reproduction.” Come on ladies, you are baby machines so get pregnant and in the kitchen.
He tells women “repent of your bitter and stinking man-hating attitudes” and if you just pray to Magic Man he “will open your eyes to the many blokes who follow his example.” (See girls, I can’ call you girls can’t ?, if you pray you’ll find Cheesewad just the sort of “bloke” you really need and then all his bad experiences with women will go away.)
This guy either needs a good therapist of some really strong meds.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:22 am
AJ:
See there are two elements in this sort of humour – degrading persons (i.e. “men”, “women”), and degrading ideals (i.e. monogamy). Beer-belly jokes only really deal with the former, and as a result are not such a big deal.
I just can’t see the logical connection between penis jokes and monogamy. I doubt anyone else here sees a logical connection.
And your “degrading persons” point is more about how one interprets humour – so you seem to agree (even though you expressly deny this point) that humour is inherently subjective.
As I said, unless you can explain the reasons WHY people find those jokes are funny, and show that those reasons aren’t in any way derogatory, then my point stands that there is moral objectivity in humour. As with the last debate, I have philosphically explained and justified my viewpoint. Why should I respect your viewpoint if you are unwilling to do the same?
My point is that this is a case of “agree to disagree”.
There are two views: penis jokes are either harmless or outright offensive. For me that depends on one’s sense of humour; for you the correct answer depends on one’s moral compass.
I think the discussion would go something like this:
Humorist (female): Hey AJ, tell me a sex joke about penises.
AJ: Absolutely not! That would be so unchristian of me! And besides, it’s unchristian of you to even suggest it.
Humorist: Don’t be silly now. Come on…
AJ: No, it would not be consistent with the universal principles of human dignity and justice.
Humorist: Huh? But it wouldn’t be offensive for me.
AJ: Well, that’s either because you’re immoral, or because you don’t respect men.
Humorist: Now you ARE being silly. Of course I respect men – a penis joke doesn’t change that. And I’m a Christian too, so please don’t question my sense of morality.
The point of this hypothetical exchange: humour is inherently subjective, so trying to subject it to an objective analysis is a pointless exercise. And, for that matter, trying to explain WHY something is humourous is a bit like trying to pin jelly onto the wall.
Dealing with your points more specifically:
(1) You set up a false proposition: if I can’t show why something is funny, to your satisfaction, then it is objectively “unfunny”.
What it actually shows is that different people have a difference sense of humour.
(2) It’s completely inappropriate for you to appoint yourself as the unelected humour ombudsman and issue infringement notices when people offend your sense of humour.
(3) This is particularly so when you’re in a social group and everyone else find the jokes rather entertaining. The fact that your Christian friends (and I have nothing against Christian people, by the way) were more amused than you is, for me, quite revealing.
(4) Again, just so we’re clear on this, I’m not asking you to agree with my viewpoint. I’m simply asking you to respect my right to hold a different opinion. Because humour is inherently subjective, it’s impossible to explain WHY something is funny. Humour isn’t clinical even though you seem to want it to be.
November 13th, 2006 at 5:12 am
‘ It’s obviously not as big a deal as making a joke about a sex organ, as male bellies are a lot more observable and open for public perusal than other items.’
There’s your answer. Penis jokes are funny because they’re transgressive. They bring what is hidden by society — the repressed knowlede of sexuality — into the public space of the joke. They overturn assumptions or expectations (like in the horse in the bar joke above), or, in the case of your young women, they allow engagement in play and experimentation with an object which is fetished by society, but also the subject of a very powerful taboo. It’s something that half of the human population has, but never gets talked about publicly outside of medicine or humour. Medicine objectifies it, describes it and explains it as a functional object, but humour (usually) carries with it the experience of sexuality, and the highlights the burden of the taboo.
That’s why penis jokes are funny, AJ. It’s got nothing to do with degradation, except in the sense that degradation can also be transgression. It doesn’t have much to do with ‘the way in which sex and marriage is honoured in society’, except in the sense that it highlights the repression that is part and parcel of that ‘honour’. It’s more about creating a third space in which repressed knowledge can be brought to light, momentarily, and assumptions can be, y’know, laughed at. But I guess, like anything, if you have to explain the joke, it’s probably no longer funny.
November 13th, 2006 at 6:50 am
Sorry, I think AJs attitude is the type of thing that had table legs being covered in some Victorian households, classical statues having their sex organs smashed off and more recently Bamiyan Bhuddas being blown up. If AJ publically posts his opinion on the merits of penis jokes in the internet then he begs response.
November 13th, 2006 at 7:25 am
AJ is bitter that people don’t want to debate with him – they just want to make fun of him. For those who came late to the party and think we’re being mean, this approach is derived from the boobs on bikes thread in which AJ reveals:
His moral and ethical beliefs (which are Christian) are the one true code to live by. These things are NOT subjective. Everyone who disagrees with him (which is almost everyone on the planet) is wrong and he is right. That is all.
If you point out that other people of other religions believe in THEIR ethics just as much as he believes in his he’ll reply that they were bought up in those faiths and have been brainwashed into believing a bunch of falsehoods, while he has thought long and hard about these issues and come to the rational and logical conlusion that Christianity is right and the others are wrong. Needless to say he was also raised as a Christian . . .
Try to point out to him that many of his beliefs aren’t actually in the Bible, or that Jesus appears to specifically contradict many of his viewpoints he’ll patiently explain that the Bible means whatever he wants it to mean. If you cite specific (very clear) passages he’ll reveal that they are metaphors meaning the opposite, or that they simply aren’t relevent to him.
This makes an actual argument rather tedious. He is right – you are wrong. End of story.
We can still make fun of him though – and that’s the only reasonable response to someone who thinks the creator of the universe saw fit to endow him with testes and a penis and fitted him with an overwhelming compulsion to use them only to punish him with torture for the rest of eternity if he ever does so. What a chump.
November 13th, 2006 at 7:31 am
“Everyone who disagrees with him (which is almost everyone on the planet) is wrong and he is right. That is all.”
To be fair though Danyl, I bet a number of posters here think much the same way. I am guilty of that.
November 13th, 2006 at 8:29 am
He seems like a very confused person who hasn’t got out much. No wonder he is a raving loon, so young and so angry.
I suspect he and Maia would get on famously!
November 13th, 2006 at 8:33 am
He seems like a very confused person who hasn’t got out much. No wonder he is a raving loon, so young and so angry.
I suspect he and Maia would get on famously!
November 13th, 2006 at 9:34 am
Hmmm, quite a thread! And interesting to see folks drag out the heavy artillery so quickly. Makes me wonder if it’s possible to respect a person while rejecting their moral or philosophical position on an issue. Based on the abuse that AJ has sustained here I’d say probably not. Well done AJ for staying the course.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:06 am
“And interesting to see folks drag out the heavy artillery so quickly.” Given AJ’s previous contributions to the “boobs On Bikes” thread then that was to be expected!
SB
November 13th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Funny, I read the piece AJ had written and took the following message from it.
1. Degrading woman, and treating them only as objects of sexual gratification is considered taboo in our modern, respectful society.
2. Doing the same to a man is not.
AJ dislikes this imabalance, but for a religious reason, rather than for a simple social / respect level. Oddly enough, I can kinda agree with that viewpoint. Of course, the llama tends to misread everything, including his own name, so I might have the short end of the … er … stick here.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
AJ, is your main complaint that your “offence” is not the defining limit of speech?
Don’t feel isolated, it’s a common NZ phenomena.
November 13th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
Sounds like AJ needs to lighten up a bit and enjoy life more.
He needs a good shag.
Can anyone out there oblige?
November 13th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
AJ doesn’t want a good shag – he wants a wife.
SB
November 13th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Ah leave the poor guy alone. We might think his views are madder than a mad hatter on P, but he clearly is a)sincere and b)harmless.
November 13th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
I thought harmless until he started talking SERIOUSLY about blowing buildings up. Religious fanatics in the US do actually convert words to deeds.
November 13th, 2006 at 5:27 pm
At the end of the day there is a degree of degradation in commenting on beer bellies, as they really are not the ideal and not something to be proud of.
I was willing to let your other comments go, but now you’ve gone too far!! Why should one NOT be proud of their beer belly???
Huh??
Answer me that!!!
Huh?
November 13th, 2006 at 6:12 pm
“unless you can explain the reasons WHY people find those jokes are funny, and show that those reasons aren’t in any way derogatory, then my point stands that there is moral objectivity in humour”.
Ok, ok, ok AJ….
Deconstructing humour leads to madness…as you’ve found through personal experience.
Humour often contains one deep philosophical truth indirectly expressed…humour abides no political correctness…which is the secret reason for the failure of socialism, but I digress.
So this is the oldest NZ joke in Aust….see how you go on the laugh meter.
“How do you pick the Kiwi in a shoe shop?
He’s the one standing near the UG boots with an erection.”
It covers the penis thing and has rural connections, right up your alley.
Feeeeed back AJ.
November 13th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
AJ, explaining humour is difficult. It is highly situational and cultural. There are hundreds of different kinds of humour. What is funny to one culture is not to another. What is funny to one person is not to another, especially when they are the butt of the joke.
You confess to finding yourself on the butt end of a lot of jokes, so it’s no wonder you don’t think they’re funny, but your lamenting plea for an explanation of why sexual jokes are almost universally appreciated, with yourself as the almost the only exception I’ve personally come across, does have an answer. We are ALL sexual beings. Yes, even you. This also explains the popularity of other anatomical jokes too.
Geeks jokes appeal only to geeks, and I struggle to get the jokes my accountant tells me. But almost all humans are either male or female and have the parts about which the jokes are being made. So they get them. Most adults have had sex so they get sex jokes. You may one day get them too.
Exactly what is funny in any particular anatomical joke is dependent on the joke. Often, as you suggest, it’s the irreverence of it. There’s nothing evil or ungodly about irreverent jokes. They just irreverent. That’s pretty much the level of most teenage boy dick jokes. To even mention the unmentionable toy that every boy has played with, is amusing for a few years. It’s a deliberate thumbing of the nose at people who want to tell you how to think. And that includes you. Especially you. I don’t give a stuff what 2000 year old quote you dig up, I know what my cock is for and I intend to use it for that until the day I die. If you don’t get it, I don’t care. That is your problem for being obtuse to the extreme, and it is you that’s missing out on everything except giving others amusement.
November 13th, 2006 at 6:29 pm
Most of the commenters here seem offended at the notion not so much of AJ Chesswas’ beliefs, but that he ACTUALLY ATTESTS THEM TO BE TRUE! In our relativistic age the worst sin is to claim some kind of transcendent Reality or ulitmate Truth. Despite appearances to the contrary we live in a very religious age. In our time Humanism reigns supreme, where the only god is Self, and any attempt to restrict this god is met with fire and fury.
To shake off a lifetime of this kind of indoctrination is not easy: it’s hard to quit yourself entirely of the deeply instilled notion—perverse though it is—that the ultimate act of goodness is to deny the existence of moral boundaries or rules beyond the unfettered will of Man Triumphant. The vilification of those who dare to reject this orthodoxy should not be underestimated. It’s ugly to see DPF and cohorts playing the man, not the ball.
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and equal rights are not natural givens, but are rather a precious heritage that had to be fought for and that are now under attack and must be defended without hesitation or apology.
November 13th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
There’s a gene pool far away beyond the city wall….
You poor bastard…in the nicest/saddest possible way.
November 13th, 2006 at 6:45 pm
Mate, this might take me a while…
“Now exactly how is a playdo penis derogatory?”
“I just can’t see the logical connection between penis jokes and monogamy”
These sorts of jokes are derogatory because sex is an intimate experience that, when preserved and “tabboed” enhances the intimacy of the marital bond.
“There are two views: penis jokes are either harmless or outright offensive. For me that depends on one’s sense of humour”
Graham, you seem not to have an understanding of exactly what humour is, and why we find things humourous.
Mausie understands;
“Penis jokes are funny because they’re transgressive. They bring what is hidden by society — the repressed knowlede of sexuality — into the public space of the joke. They overturn assumptions or expectations (like in the horse in the bar joke above), or, in the case of your young women, they allow engagement in play and experimentation with an object which is fetished by society, but also the subject of a very powerful taboo. It’s something that half of the human population has, but never gets talked about publicly outside of medicine or humour. Medicine objectifies it, describes it and explains it as a functional object, but humour (usually) carries with it the experience of sexuality, and the highlights the burden of the taboo.”
Although I think Mausie is asserting that the “burden” of this “repressed taboo” is too great and release from the taboo should be allowed. I disagree. The taboo is there is to add value and intimacy to the marital bond. Sex and marriage are sacred things, of the deepest sources of intimacy and commitment, and crucial to the creation of new human life. Sexuality is also one of the deepest aspects of personality, and to profane it is to profane humanity generally.
And as I have said, Spitting Llama take note, this is not about whether or not a person is Christian, it is about basic human values of honour and respect.
And on that point, Danyl is entirely up Sh** Creek in a barbed wire boat with no paddle when he starts talking about other religions. There are very few religious systems that would take an alternative view on sexuality, certainly none of the main ones (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism) with the exception of some strands of “Hinduism” (apparently). And even if you look beyond “religious” systems you will find the humanist “life skills” taught in school are all based on principles of honour and respect.
And to refute your points Nos. 1, 2 & 3, Graham, morality can certainly be objective if we define an objective by which morality should be measured. The objectives I’m applying here, as always, are respect, dignity, honour and justice. All behaviour can be measured against those objectives, including humour.
I also refute Graham’s assertion that “Because humour is inherently subjective, it’s impossible to explain WHY something is funny”. Humour is always funny because it HUMOURS something that was otherwise revered. This can be a positive thing when people or ideas have become too far reverenced and demand to be humoured, or when one can joke about oneself to make others feel more comfortable, or mates hassle or mock each other with a bit of friendly banter. But a blanket humouring of the penis without some sort of context is clearly profaning things that should be revered; sexuality, monogamy, masculinity and femininity.
Now Danyl, re your statement “he’ll patiently explain that the Bible means whatever he wants it to mean”, I’d love to see you try and take me to the task on accurate biblical exegesis over this one! I also beg to differ that a sexually chaste experience is “torture”. You belittle men with such a statement as much as any woman constructing a playdo penis! There is a lot of evidence to suggest that sexual chastity actually enhances a man’s capacity for creativity, work, vision and drive in life generally. I can certainly testify to this. I certainly don’t feel like I’m about to burst and cover the walls in semen!
Oh, Clint, that makes me laugh; “He seems like a very confused person who hasn’t got out much”. Tell me, how many churches have you visited lately? As many as the number of pubs I have visited? I suppose you work in an entirely decent and respectful work environment, and have countless friends who live sexually chaste lives and conduct themselves and their speech with good taste and decency. Just the same way I have worked, played rugby and been educated in environments that are more than a little hostile to the views I’m articulating here. All this thread tells me is that Farrar and his friends are the sheltered ones. And given the immense ignorance you have displayed in your comment above I would have to make the same conclusion about you.
Fred, sorry, I don’t get the joke. I don’t get either of them…
Ben;
“You confess to finding yourself on the butt end of a lot of jokes”
What? When have I said that. I guess it is true though, especially at this blog…
And I do understand how people get those jokes, as Mausie points out it’s because of the “burdensome taboo”. Trouble is I understand the value of that taboo, unlike the majority of commenters in this thread who seem to know Freud better than their own mothers…
November 13th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
You had me fooled.
You got me good.
Congrats.
November 13th, 2006 at 7:08 pm
No, really I don’t Fred. Can you explain the jokes for me. Usually when I don’t get jokes people can explain to me why they’re funny, and then I laugh. Could you do the same?
Or have I really got you fooled and got you good
November 13th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
Yeah, you did.
Brilliant.
November 13th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
I’m laughing now
Really hard…
I love these threads…
November 13th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
AJ, it’s patently obvious that you are the one who doesn’t understand humour, because you are asking why most of the planet find dick jokes funny.
I’m not going to bother inventing reasons why jokes are funny, because nothing could make them less funny. I’m just going to note that most of the definition of humour revolves around people *finding it funny*. There is very little by way of absolute rules for humour, and I suggest that is also almost by definition – any rules would need to be broken almost immediately. You can’t get a computer to write jokes. A joke is only as funny as the way it is told, and usually only the first few times. Many things that are not jokes are funny, in a particular time and place.
You can refuse for the rest of your life to appreciate dick jokes. No one can explain it to you. If you don’t think it’s funny, then it isn’t for you. But it still is for everyone else. Just because you are blind doesn’t mean sight doesn’t exist.
““You confess to finding yourself on the butt end of a lot of jokes”
What? When have I said that. I guess it is true though, especially at this blog…”
Sigh, you’re as lazy with your memory and the search button as you are with your reasoning. On this thread alone you said:
“Jesus hung out with repentant prostitutes, and I continue to hang out with women who call themselves Christian but mock and degrade me.”
and you have hinted as much many more times. It is exactly this pigheaded obtuseness that earns your stripes. You want people to explain every bloody obvious thing to you, and it shits them off. It’s not ’shaking them out of their preconceptions’ or any similar noble sentiment. It’s a childish game to seek attention, and the derision you have earned is richly deserved.
November 13th, 2006 at 8:33 pm
Ooooooh, Ben
November 13th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
Ben Wilson:
Unsupported statements:
“most of the planet find dick jokes funny”
source, please…
“I’m not going to bother inventing reasons why jokes are funny, because nothing could make them less funny”
So the funnyness of a joke takes priority over the ethics of a joke. I should have expected that… The joke is sacred
Nothing else, certainly not monogamy or sexuality. Worship the joke…
“There is very little by way of absolute rules for humour”
How about this one; Humour is always funny because it belittles something that was otherwise revered, and brings relief to the hearer.
“If you don’t think it’s funny, then it isn’t for you. But it still is for everyone else.”
Lets say I pried into your personal life, found a whole lot of contradictions, and made up a whole heap of jokes about you and you took offence. Could I then say;
“If you don’t think it’s funny, then it isn’t for you. But it still is for everyone else.”
“I continue to hang out with women who call themselves Christian but mock and degrade me”
This was merely referring to “penis jokes” and my identification as a male. Note there was no indication of how OFTEN I am mocked and degraded there. I certainly didn’t say I am “on the butt end of a lot of jokes”.
“It is exactly this pigheaded obtuseness that earns your stripes. You want people to explain every bloody obvious thing to you, and it shits them off.”
What do you mean by obtuse? On the one hand you tell me I’m on another planet and need to get out more, yet on the other hand this is your approach to communication; you call me obtuse! It is not about seeking attention any more than it is about trying to grapple with the gulf between what happens in certain social and blogial circles around me in contrast to other circles, and what goes on within me.
And I am yet to be convinced that any of you have a case that can justify this sort of behaviour. More importantly, you need to be called to account for it before you defile every last woman on the planet with such evil and manipulative thinking. It is not just a “culture war”, it is a war over our women. Sorry MVT, Maia and Span if that sounds possessive, but you guys as much as anyone blame these sorts of machomanial idiots for the predicament of Western Women in the 21st Century.
November 13th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
Yeah, Fred, I get it. I’ve fallen prey to AJ’s attention seeking black hole again. No pun intended.
November 13th, 2006 at 8:56 pm
AJ: I think Ben was speaking metaphorically. His point stands: there are many out there in the world who take life less seriously than you seem to.
And besides, you make sweeping statements of your own.
A case in point:
More importantly, you need to be called to account for it before you defile every last woman on the planet with such evil and manipulative thinking.
Silly me! And here I was thinking that it was your “female Christian friends” that were out of line! Did I misread your blog?
Come on ladies, think about it, repent of your bitter and stinking man-hating attitudes, and if you can’t then I recommend you go straight to your Heavenly Father who is always just a prayer away.
No, I guess not…
November 13th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
It’s better than that Ben…..think Borat like.
November 13th, 2006 at 8:59 pm
AJ
“Source please”
ask anyone other than yourself.
“So the funnyness of a joke takes priority over the ethics of a joke.”
“Lets say I pried into your personal life, found a whole lot of contradictions, and made up a whole heap of jokes about you and you took offence. Could I then say;
“If you don’t think it’s funny, then it isn’t for you. But it still is for everyone else.””
You could, if it was true.
“I certainly didn’t say I am “on the butt end of a lot of jokes”.”
No, I inferred it from the 50,000 odd words of you that I’ve read. I didn’t do a google search “AJ butt end jokes” and I can’t give you a series of quotes, nor would I bother if I could. Again, ask anyone.
“What do you mean by obtuse?”
Aha, now you finally have cracked a joke, and it is funny, and no, I’m not going to explain why. Get a dictionary.
“And I am yet to be convinced that any of you have a case that can justify this sort of behaviour.”
Who cares if you are convinced? Failure to understand the bleeding obvious is your cross to bear. You are a culture of one, and you can stick machomanial in your monomania for all Western Women in the 21st Century care.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
Oops, missed one:
“So the funnyness of a joke takes priority over the ethics of a joke.”
Yes.
This is probably the gotcha you really need, if you aren’t just tooling around like a child playing ‘why?’. If you genuinely are the ‘brain without a body’ that you imply, struggling to understand humanity having been given only the bible to work with, then yes, this is it.
Humour
is
a
good
in
itself
November 13th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
“Come on ladies, think about it, repent of your bitter and stinking man-hating attitudes, and if you can’t then I recommend you go straight to your Heavenly Father who is always just a prayer away”
It was very good of Farrar to bring this into the light. As I have said before – all the extreme conservative interpretations of religions are misogynistic and militaristic, or at least I can’t think of a single one which isn’t. Their relative popularity today shows that the appeal of a violent and woman-hating religious angle has grown, and one reason for it surely is that women are not quite as oppressed and silent as they have been in the past.
So we have ‘repentant prostitutes’, not repentant clients. In another instance, the Bible only condemns female adultery before Jesus says otherwise. Men were viewed as unable to be adulterous in that society, given that they could always just take another wife. So adultery applied only to women. Until Jesus argued for a change in the rules. For some reason the wingnut Christians ignore Jesus here.
No one needs to be told of the specific misogynistic ideology of the bin Laden types – the wingnuts on the other side share a “kinder, gentler” form of the very same ideology, where good conservative Christians are lifted into the heavens as naked as they were born, while everybody else is left behind to be roughly sorted out by a Rambo Jesus.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:10 pm
Graham,
“Silly me! And here I was thinking that it was your “female Christian friends” that were out of line! Did I misread your blog?”
Yes. If you read more closely you would find I talked about the way women have been mistreated by men (i.e. pornography), and how the “penis joke” stuff is largely a reaction against that. I have this from the mouths of the guilty parties themselves. I “get out” well enough, thank you. However I am starting to wonder if the trolls on this blog ever do.
Fred, I think you’ve gone way off track. You knew that if you explained the joke to me you would proceed to spell out why the joke is funny and thus prove my point that funnyness isn’t “just funnyness” but that it is always reasonably funny.
Ben,
“ask anyone other than yourself”
I will take you up on this challenge and report my findings.
“Lets say I… made up a whole heap of jokes about you and you took offence… Could I then say; “If you don’t think it’s funny, then it isn’t for you. But it still is for everyone else.”
“You could, if it was true.”
“So the funnyness of a joke takes priority over the ethics of a joke.”
“Yes.”
Are you saying it is morally neutral for a person to joke, humour and scorn someone no matter how offended or hurt they are by it?
Of course I know what obtuse means. That’s why I couldn’t understand why you’d apply it to one of the few commenters here who actually intelligently string together clear and strong arguments without resorting to hissy-fits and name-calling.
And Ruth, I am shocked at your totally accurate and derogatory description of me and my ilk, particularly;
“all the extreme conservative interpretations of religions are misogynistic and militaristic”
“Their relative popularity today shows that the appeal of a violent and woman-hating religious angle has grown”
“So we have ‘repentant prostitutes’, not repentant clients”
“For some reason the wingnut Christians ignore Jesus here”
You might be interested to know that not all women write off Islam the way you have;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/3673730.stm
Sadly you seem to have experienced abuse at the hands of people who call themselves “Christian” or “religious” but don’t at all walk in the love that Christ requires of us. Has it ever occurred to you that just because someone gives themselves a label doesn’t mean they represent it? If I told you I was a hamburger would you believe me? I must be honest that by lumping us all together as one homogenous women-hating unit you display an ignorance that is more than disturbing.
Pretty much every woman I’ve ever got to know well has clearly valued the ideal of monogamy. Christian, Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist men have for centuries protected their women from men who are a law unto themselves. At least we did until we went all weak at the knees in Century 20.
But your statements “we have ‘repentant prostitutes’, not repentant clients” and “wingnut Christians ignore Jesus” are so far off the mark that I wonder if you have ever met a real Christian. If someone I knew went pimping or hiring prostitutes I can assure you they would get one hell of an earful of correction. I have had many friends through the years who have agreed amongst ourselves to give each other a firm rebuke, even a punch in the arm, just for viewing pornography. You only need to check out the “Boobs on Bikes” post to see that I spend far more time calling blokes to account than the ladies.
However, in saying all that, I quite like your description of Christian eschatology;
“where good conservative Christians are lifted into the heavens as naked as they were born, while everybody else is left behind to be roughly sorted out by a Rambo Jesus.”
Aaah the Rambo Jesus. I can’t wait for the sequel to “The Passion”
November 13th, 2006 at 10:10 pm
AJ – let us educate you on humour:
Here is a good mondegreen. At the end of a long and probably very boring meal (at a formal dinner), (British Prime Minister) Macmillan turned to Madame de Gaulle and asked politely what she was looking forward to in her retirement. Quick as a flash the elderly lady replied: “A penis.” Macmillan had been trained all his life never to appear shocked, but even he was a bit taken aback. After drawling out a series of polite platitudes, “Well, I can see your point of view,” “Don’t have much time for that sort of thing nowadays” It gradually dawned on him to his intense relief that what the old girl had actually said was “happiness.” [Paul Foot, in the essay A New Definition: The Quality of Life, British Medical Journal, VOLUME 321, DECEMBER 2000]
Source: http://wordsmith.org/awad/awadmail29.html
November 13th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
I probably tend to agree with AJ more than not.
I mean, laughing at penis’s (penii?) is a little 6-years-old isn’t it?
I thought we gave up giggling about such things (as well as “poos” and “wees”) at that age.
I can’t really see the humour in it – maybe it’s funny when you’re drunk? I don’t know.
Reminds me of a story I heard about Abraham Lincoln. He was once in the company of some fellows that got to telling jokes, and the jokes got more and more rude. Finally, Lincoln got up to leave and said, “excuse me, gentlemen, but I’d still like to be able to call myself a Christian”.
I don’t know why, but most American ‘comedy’ on TV now seems based on sex and innuendo. Sure, a little can be funny, but it ALL seems to be based on that now and it’s just not funny. What happened to shows like M*A*S*H etc, that were actually well written and had humour that was smart and WITTY?
Sorry, but now it’s dumb and embarrassing…
November 13th, 2006 at 10:30 pm
Actually, Ben, I can’t bring myself to email people and ask them if they find penis jokes funny. I’m just too prudish. I can talk about it here in the same way that a self-respecting medic can talk with blokes about prostate cancer. But to ask people if they think a guy playing a keyboard with his willie is funny would just be ridiculous.
I am comfortable that I know a large enough cross-section of humanity to be confident that every decent and self-respecting person will avoid such immature forms of entertainment. You will know whether or not the same experience of social life applies to you. Readers will know which people they would expect penis emails from and which people they’d never send a penis email. They’ll also have a fair idea about how diverse the types of people they know really are.
So I’ll say every decent and self-respecting person I know would not email such tripe, and you’ll say everyone else on the planet can appreciate penis jokes, but I’ll remain convinced of the truthfulness of my position and leave you to honestly ponder the same for yourself.
And finally some comments that I empathise with.
“I mean, laughing at penis’s (penii?) is a little 6-years-old isn’t it?
I thought we gave up giggling about such things (as well as “poos” and “wees”) at that age.”
That’s exactly what I said to a certain guilty party the other day. “I laughed about that sort of thing when I was a kid, and the adults told me not to be stupid. But I have matured since then, and I plan to continue maturing as I grow older, not to become like [That]. Yet here I am rebuking the same generation that used to rebuke me. What hypocrisy!”
And this is why I don’t bother with TV anymore, I don’t even have one in my house. If you’re not prone to giggling and guffawing over jokes over private parts then it all gets very boring very quickly.
Ponder this, if it’s all about breaking the taboo that makes it funny, and the “irreligious” are cracking these jokes every second (comedy shows are even worse), then tell me who is more conscious of the taboo? And why are they so conscious of it? Why the constant need to break the taboo and relieve themselves? Especially given there’s so few of us propagating the taboo anymore.
Yet as the profile if the taboo diminishes the breaking of the taboo increases faster and faster. An innate need to continually reimmunise against the conscience, perhaps?
November 13th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
“Actually, Ben, I can’t bring myself to email people and ask them if they find penis jokes funny. I’m just too prudish. I can talk about it here in the same way that a self-respecting medic can talk with blokes about prostate cancer. But to ask people if they think a guy playing a keyboard with his willie is funny would just be ridiculous.”
That’s the funniest backout I’ve ever read. I think the Borat insight may be easy money. Nice one, man.
But I take it you therefore admit you don’t really know anything about the opinion of others on this matter? 63% of respondents said some dick jokes were funny, that kind of thing? Because you can’t bring yourself to ask at all. Man, that’s conflicted.
“I am comfortable that I know a large enough cross-section of humanity to be confident that every decent and self-respecting person will avoid such immature forms of entertainment.”
One man does not a cross section make.
One cross section of the same size I consulted was my Grandmother, a straight laced old christian. The dirtiest word I ever heard her say was ‘F-ruit’. Anyhow, I told her that I remembered as a child sneaking in the early morning to see them, and hearing Grandma telling Grandad off for snoring – ‘Pat, stop that!’. She went all silent and Mum asked if he really was snoring. Grandma cracked up.
If you think about that, it’s a dick joke, at least in the mind of my Grandma. So I’m pretty sure at least one decent and self-respecting person, by your god-fearing standards, appreciates a good dick joke. But you wouldn’t appreciate it because you don’t know what goes on in a married woman’s bed. You simply have no idea. You don’t know what goes on in an unmarried couple’s bed either. The only bedding you know about are what porno scenes look like. And that gives you a very warped perspective on the matter, I can tell you. Sonny, it ain’t like that, sorry to disappoint.
And if you get Sky, you can watch anything, not just cheezy sitcoms. You shouldn’t have chucked the TV out man, there’s a whole christian channel you can subscribe to.
But I certainly agree that a lot of sitcoms are pretty crap. Change channel. Is that what’s been gnawing at you, man? I agree, it’s a serious problem – we need another Seinfeld. He knew how to break new taboos.
“Yet as the profile if the taboo diminishes the breaking of the taboo increases faster and faster. An innate need to continually reimmunise against the conscience, perhaps?”
Is this a babelfish translation of something out of the old testament in the original Hebrew? I think I preferred the original. At least I knew I couldn’t understand that. And it sounds cool.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:18 pm
Actually I feel stink for ragging out babelfish. It’s a great service. I just find what it outputs funny sometimes. Keep it up you NLP geniuses, you’ve saved my bacon many times.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:30 pm
AJ Chesswas’s views are not sad, as he supports the use of violence to enforce them. That is disturbing, and he has expressed views that would be welcome in Iran or Nazi Germany.
AJ – you know a tiny sliver of the cross section of humanity. Have you spent any time in Africa, Asia, Latin America, eastern Europe? How many languages are you fluent in, how many Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, Buddhists, Shintoists, Atheists have you talked to Alan? If you did know a wide cross section of humanity you would start to think how bizarre it is to think that one religion based on writings in one small part of the world did not propagate for many centuries to most of the world’s surface and most of the world’s population (still hasn’t), and for part of that time created rivers of blood as it did so.
For starters, any anthropologist worth her degree would reveal the broad extent of genital based comedy in the world among many cultures and jokes in many languages. Look it up Alan, or do you fear your loving God’s wrath if you search for truth?
Ruth has a lot of it correct. Conservative Christianity and fundamentalist Islam stand side by side in their belief that your life does not belong to you, it belongs to “God” and it isn’t enough to let the ghost enforce its laws once you die – but “God’s” believers will enforce them on earth based, by and large, on no rational philosophy whatsoever.
Alan believes that men and women have no right to control their bodies, and it is fine to do violence to people who choose to use their bodies in ways he disapproves of.
That is the bottom line.
The joke is the thin edge of the wedge. He would probably ban it, which means arresting anyone publishing or saying it and throwing them in prison or fining them – both forms of violence.
Alan Chesswas does not just pontificate about his religion and beliefs and encourage people to do the same, he supports violence to make people do the same or deter them.
Puerile humour may be just that, and it is harmless. The deep satisfaction a man gets from blood thirsty revenge imposed by his “God” or “God’s” followers is simply uncivilised, like a knuckle dragging savage.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:31 pm
Yes. If you read more closely you would find I talked about the way women have been mistreated by men (i.e. pornography), and how the “penis joke” stuff is largely a reaction against that. I have this from the mouths of the guilty parties themselves.
So you DO conduct some market reseach along these lines – even though you’ve retreated from this position in your last comment to Ben.
Yet as the profile if the taboo diminishes the breaking of the taboo increases faster and faster. An innate need to continually reimmunise against the conscience, perhaps?
AJ – you do seem to be a lone voice wailing into the wind here. Have you considered why that might be? And you can’t deny that Kiwiblog attracts a wide cross-section of people – so that’s one argument that you can’t run with.
I imagine your response will be something along the lines of “you’re all corrupted beyond recognition” – but that’s hardly an argument, is it?
November 13th, 2006 at 11:38 pm
Just our of interest: how old are you AJ?
November 13th, 2006 at 11:39 pm
Just out of interest: how old are you AJ?
November 13th, 2006 at 11:41 pm
Just out of interest: how old are you AJ?
November 13th, 2006 at 11:41 pm
Just out of interest: how old are you AJ?
November 13th, 2006 at 11:52 pm
AJ, Whats the problem man, its just a dick, you dont need to act like one yourself. Chill out cuz
November 14th, 2006 at 3:52 am
I don’t know what is worse, AJ’s gutless sympathy with terrorists or the fact that he is trying to dictate (no pun intended) what we call humour and in essence what we should use as entertainment.
I am glad the mainstream christianity does not even pretend to be so hardline and oppressive. AJ is not only giving men a bad name, but everyday christians.
November 14th, 2006 at 3:56 am
I don’t know what is worse, AJ’s gutless sympathy with terrorists or the fact that he is trying to dictate (no pun intended) what we call humour and in essence what we should use as entertainment.
I am glad the mainstream christianity does not even pretend to be so hardline and oppressive. AJ is not only giving men a bad name, but everyday christians.
November 14th, 2006 at 6:55 am
The number one movie in New Zealand is currently Jackass 2.
The clear instructions not to pass judgement on others seem to have passed you right by.
Heh.
November 14th, 2006 at 8:31 am
LibertyScott, I am not a full-time anthropologist who has been in the field for 50 years. However I am a sociology major, and have since been applying much of what I have learnt as I take up the challenge of participating in a political democracy. I really think the burden of proof is on you when you make statements like “would reveal the broad extent of genital based comedy in the world among many cultures and jokes in many languages”. Anyway the point isn’t whether or not they exist, but whether or not they are considered ethically appropriate in those cultures.
You are right though about Christian and Islamic views of the body. “Your body is The Lord’s, your body is not your own. Therefore worship The Lord with your body”. Entirely consistent with Lockean private property rights too I must add.
Why do you, and so many others like you, think you can make wild statements without supporting them?
“”God’s” believers will enforce them on earth based, by and large, on no rational philosophy whatsoever.”
Bit of a broadbrush approach if you ask me. As for your interpretation of my political theory, I really haven’t decided fully where I stand on all that but what you describe was reality in New Zealand only 50 years ago.
“Alan Chesswas does not just pontificate about his religion and beliefs and encourage people to do the same, he supports violence to make people do the same or deter them.”
It’s not about forcing people to believe religious dogma. I don’t think I would support legislating against heresy. But I probably would support legislating for respect, a virtue that permeates and transcends any and every religious dogma.
“you can’t deny that Kiwiblog attracts a wide cross-section of people”
Prove it. How about we debate on the merits of the arguments put forward. Numbers mean very little when it comes to determining truth, especially in a mass-media indoctrinated society such as ours.
And if I sound like a lone voice in the wilderness I wouldn’t be the first. Humanity has a long history of isolating their prophets and missing the boat as a result. I’d seriously read up on a little history if I were you. There is nothing new under the sun. A people can only stand lawlessness for so long before they either reform or are conquered. Whichever happens The Good Lord has a habit of benefiting as a result. Prepare ye the way
Hey sorry Ollie, but I got to be true to who I am. Sorry if there’s a shame factor in that. I hope you understand. You know this is where our branch have always been at though right, it’s no surprise… And don’t worry this isn’t an everyday conversation for me! I use the blogosphere to vent my frustrations with the world so I can get on with everyday life when I’m not in cyberspace…
“I am glad the mainstream christianity does not even pretend to be so hardline and oppressive”
Which “mainstream” Christianity is that Clint? The handful of grey-haired old ladies that go to the essentially dead and gone Methodist Church down the road? Or the Young Labour Christian Socialists who call themselves Christian but haven’t stepped inside a church or read The Bible for years? You certainly wouldn’t be talking about Christians in Russia, China, Heartland USA, and definitely not Africa
And you certainly wouldn’t be talking from a historical perspective. As I said, it is you who needs to get out more mate…
Danyl, you also need to read my exegesis of Matthew 7:1-5 (which is the “Do Not Judge” passage);
http://matthew5-9.blogspot.com/2006/08/judge-not-lest-ye-be-judged.html
Note that I said you “look like” a pathetic and immature piece of sub-humanity. I didn’t you “you are”, thus I leave it open for debate in case there is something I misunderstood. And I certainly haven’t condemned anyone to Hell or judged them as worse than anyone else, after all we all do things that make us look like “a pathetic and immature piece of sub-humanity”. It’s just that most of us appreciate others calling us on it when we do.
November 14th, 2006 at 9:02 am
“And if I sound like a lone voice in the wilderness I wouldn’t be the first. Humanity has a long history of isolating their prophets”
Watch out for the sin of pride mate.
November 14th, 2006 at 9:10 am
Do you think if I start worrying about whether or not my convictions are the result of an overinflated ego then I might just shut up and let you get on with your own sins. I’ve been through that and I’ve figured it out. I wrote about it in the post I referred to above
http://matthew5-9.blogspot.com/2006/08/judge-not-lest-ye-be-judged.html
November 14th, 2006 at 9:59 am
And, predictably, your ‘exegesis’ is a fine example of deciding the Bible means whatever you want it to mean. Jesus specifically tells his followers not to judge others (and in other sections of the Gospels explains that it’s up to God to judge, not the individual) and you decide that he really means the opposite and wants you to judge your bitter little heart out.
November 14th, 2006 at 10:24 am
So do you propose we do away with our judicial system and just live in anarchy? That would be sensible, would it not? Come on, address my argument point by point. You are the one who is reading into the text what is not there. Why don’t you actually read The whole book, rather than just picking the verses you like to refer to whenever convenient? Oh that’s right, because you don’t care about truth, you just care about living the life you feel like living and not letting anyone interfere with that…
November 14th, 2006 at 11:03 am
AJ, it’s pretty obvious dim doesn’t propose that. He is more likely to propose that the bible does not form the basis of our laws. It’s a moderate, simple proposal that would occur to anyone who can break themself free from the idea that the bible is the source of all goodness.
““you can’t deny that Kiwiblog attracts a wide cross-section of people”
Prove it.”
How about *you* prove it doesn’t? You can do some of the legwork you’re constantly trying to foist on others, like wading through the bible, or coming up with arguments to explain things because you don’t get them, or proving to you that you said something an hour or two earlier.
I don’t remember reading that obtuseness was a virtue anywhere in the bible. I certainly don’t remember it being elevated to the level of being a prophet as you constantly fantasize about. There is nothing prophetic about your prudishness, it merely hearkens back to the past, where most of your sentiments live.
November 14th, 2006 at 11:08 am
I’m not proposing that, but then again, I’m not a Christian. I don’t have to base my entire life around a bunch of absurd, mistranslated bronze age superstitions.
You don’t have an argument – just a belief that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
November 14th, 2006 at 11:24 am
Damn it… I have not based this on The Bible or superstition at all… Just the simple principle of respect…
Right now I am feeling my patience tested in the extreme like never before. It is very hard to try my patience but you guys are being very successful…
And if you think mine are the ideas that are in the past you really need to study history. It would give you perspective that is sorely needed. Sexual infidelity has lurked in the depraved corners of human existence ever since ever…
So ignorant… I can’t believe it… You guys are seriously ignorant with your “Christian” this and “Bible” that…
If you ever hear a message that challenges you morally you think you can’t just call it “religious” and escape into mind-numbing self-indulgence land…
I can’t believe you are calling ME obtuse…
You must be so terribly perverse to enjoy wasting peoples’ time like this again and again, spieling out crap that you expect to be taken seriously just because all your friends are doing it…
I thank God that conservatives breed far more proficiently than liberals, and pray that we have learnt from the 1960s and that sort of thing never happens again…
You guys are so marred it’s beyond belief…
November 14th, 2006 at 11:38 am
Please don’t kill me.
November 14th, 2006 at 11:45 am
AJ, that you are cracking is the first sign you are an intelligent human being.
Yes, ‘depravity’ has always been around. But I was talking about prudishness, an equally ancient idea. The two go hand in hand since it is your prudish standards that define what you consider to be depraved.
What is more modern is to tell people like you to get stuffed. Of course you prefer the more ancient time.
Your last 6 paragraphs are pure ad hominem. I see this as a sign that something is getting through, since it breaks your pattern of unfailing politeness. Now we get to see if the pattern of endless obtuseness will continue, or have you finally had enough of swimming against the tide? That’s a dick joke all by itself.
November 14th, 2006 at 11:14 pm
“Entirely consistent with Lockean private property rights too I must add”
Um sorry, I am not owned by a supernatural being, and until some supernatural being asserts control over me directly and not through some other human, I’ll defer to personal sovereignty thank you.
“but what you describe was reality in New Zealand only 50 years ago.”
The weakest defence for anything is because “we always did it that way”. I agree people should respect each other, respect their lives and choices and that means you getting out of the way of consenting gay adults. Leave peaceful people alone AJ – then we can agree on something, that it is not your business to police how others run their lives as long as they respect the same right.
“I don’t think I would support legislating against heresy. But I probably would support legislating for respect, a virtue that permeates and transcends any and every religious dogma.”
You don’t THINK? Oh how gracious of you to defer to freedom of religion. You support legislating against blasphemy, which is not far different – the right to say that Christianity is nonsense. That is a right I want, the right to express an opinion that others find offensive. What does legislating “for respect”? How would you police that? How do YOU know what respect is for others, since you show little respect for gay and lesbian people living their lives in peace? Respect is about having an open mind and not assuming what or who people are and giving them the benefit of the doubt – it also means letting peaceful people live their lives. Your politics shows you want the state to force quite the opposite. You want to throw some in prison, not for hurting anyone else but because it offends your view of respecting THEMSELVES. In other words, a victimless crime, with you as the defining superdaddy of everyone.
“I thank God that conservatives breed far more proficiently than liberals, and pray that we have learnt from the 1960s and that sort of thing never happens again…”
We are not born Christians or conservatives AJ –it is something that is a choice, it requires people to do the one thing that separates humans from most other creatures – think. You have continuously put up straw men about respect and the state needing to use violence against people who have hurt no one, other than your own personal morality. Until someone touches you, or does something on your property that you disapprove of, it is none of your business. Morality does exist outside of any religious framework because it is rational and it is critical for survival.
Tell me how bad a world it would be if nobody initiated violence (I don’t mean consensual activity like boxing) or stole or defrauded? You would find a far better place if people concentrated on resisting violence, theft and fraud. Whether someone tells a joke about penises is pitifully irrelevant, when every few seconds someone somewhere is murdered and every second someone is raped.
AJ you, at best, know how you want people to treat you and act around you. Which is what respect is for you. Respect for me is something different from you in some, same in others (I’m sure neither of us want to be robbed).
November 16th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
Well I think this is a huge beatup. I have not read the article on this site because I can’t really be bothered. What is David achieving by quoting such a big article in its entirety, does he think everyone wants to come in here to read such a large posting when he could have posted a link to it.
The only reason I can see for posting the entire article here is to ridicule with bells on. The article is much easier to read on the original site because of much better layout and formatting.
This Kiwiblog site has posted enough graphically offensive material that I read it with a browser that has the images turned off.
November 16th, 2006 at 10:50 pm
If you blindfold yourself, that works also.
November 18th, 2006 at 10:59 pm
Hey, AJ, you really shouldn’t have chucked that TV man, I just saw the classicest film on Sky about you – ‘The 40 Year Old Virgin’. It’s a real crack up man, you would really appreciate it. Perhaps get the DVD out.
And hey, it’s an american film, so he does get some in the end. Just a little spoiler to get you interested.
It’s kind of full of dick jokes, but you’re completely represented as the kind of guy who doesn’t appreciate them. It sort of makes out the other guys who aren’t virgins to be cursed with problems, and also wankers, so there’s got to be chord for you.
I do have to ask, are you a collector of any kind?
November 18th, 2006 at 11:30 pm
It’s good to see that you’re joining in with the masturbation references like the rest of us Ben.
November 18th, 2006 at 11:36 pm
Oh yeah, AJ Chesswas, if your faith allows it, pretend to be a muslim for a day and watch all the hand wringing social liberals suck up to you, or not post at all. Taking the piss out of some churchy nutcase won’t get your head hacked off, right ?
November 19th, 2006 at 11:37 am
No Spirit, I meant wanker as in ‘nasty person’, which is how AJ sees everyone. And I really do think he’d like the film. It’s quite funny.
November 11th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Yeah – I’ve had a look at Chesswas’ blog. I find him a little disturbing. Disturbing because I think he is very self-regarding, probably narcissic. Looking at his banner, he apparently sees himself as some kind of prophet.
And the “cultured bloke” thing! Cultured is a pretty relative quality. I imagine you could quite easilly delude yourself that you’re cultured living in Stratford. Get to New York, Paris or even Wellington and you could quite quickly find that you’re a bit of a hick. That’s because we all osmose our environment, and osmosing Stratford isn’t likely to turn you into Kenneth Clarke. And have you seen their bloody clock tower. It’s so embarrassing – the whole try-hard Shakespeare thing. What is it about small towns clutching at straws to get an identity.
Agri-christian, get down on your sorry knees and ask forgiveness for your arogance, ignorance, corniness and vanity.