This, like so many good things in life, begins with a snippet:
(me): so you ever read this bit on a random internet spot and think hey, that’s kinda interesting, i’ll go up one dir and see what this is
(me): and be blown away by how utterly antithetical, retarded, and unexpected it is?
It isn’t every day that you ask MP if he’s experienced something and he says no. Actually, it isn’t any day. Something’s in order, and since I live gloriously free from the fetters of response determined by social consensus and public feeling, I’ve decided what’s in order are oatmeal cookies and a closer look at said utterly antithetical, retarded, and unexpected happenstance. Instead of whatever it is the masses do, which is, I guess, nothing.
So in the beginning, there was a random bit. It went like this:
“To say that a young woman has a vagina or that she has sexual intercourse is an affront to her modesty that is not tolerated. The correct and expected reference is to her cunt and to fucking.”
I could see this guy running sex ed courses. In the US I guess he’d have to duct tape the “adults” down first, but whatever.
Now this bit belongs to a slightly longer, still interesting, anecdote apparently domiciled on the server of heretical.com, which before this afternoon I’d never heard of, observing only that it housed said anecdote with a picture of a perfectly respectable pair of bazoongas:
“SEX AND DIRT. In the terminology of sex, there are clean words as well as dirty words. The clean ones are chiefly of Latin or Greek derivation and were originally of aristocratic usage, a heritage of the Norman Conquest. The dirty ones, many of them playful euphemisms, are chiefly of Anglo-Saxon and Old Norse derivation and were originally plebian in origin.
The cultural relativism of dirty versus clean sexual terminology is well illustrated by the complete reversal of the categories in English usage in Nigeria. In the history of acculturation, the moral taboos of sex were taught by missionaries and administrators who used only clean words. These were the words that became taboo. The dirty words used as part of the vernacular of sailors, traders, and the like, became part of Nigerian vernacular English, with no taboo attached. In consequence, today it is as forbidden to say sexual intercourse, penis, and vagina on Nigerian television as it is to say fuck, cock, and cunt on the national networks in the United States. In Nigeria. the latter terms are considered normal and respectable. In individual conversation, the same holds true. To say that a young woman has a vagina or that she has sexual intercourse is an affront to her modesty that is not tolerated. The correct and expected reference is to her cunt and to fucking.
The taboo on the word, fuck, has left generations of people whose native language is English without a publicly usable verb or noun that fits in everyday usage as colloquially as does eat, sleep, think, talk, and dream. That is not fortuitous, for it is in the very nature of a taboo to proscribe an activity in which human beings otherwise might ordinarily engage.”
Reminded somewhat of rotten.com’s collection of entertaining and occasionally informative articles (there, not at Playboy, is where I can believe people actually check stuff out for the text and not the pictures), I went to the main index to see what I could see.
I actually didn’t notice the swastika favicon for a few minutes. The unexplained peppering of the text with “jew” and creativisms therein didn’t bode well. But then, they’re just words and scribbles after all, and one can’t reasonably go through life ignoring things that might be interesting or informative based on knee-jerk reactions. Unless one is cultivating that ever-popular and particular breed of wilfull stupidity rampant in just about every corner of the world where people have given up on thinking for themselves because they have too much environment to “save” and even more television to watch.
So I picked a link. The Tyranny of Ambiguity, it read.
“SEXUAL DEFINITION CYCLE. Sexual conditioning takes two forms, inherent and adaptive. Inherent male sexuality is fixed by a sequence of hormonal changes which are thought to take place in the foetal male brain around six weeks after conception. In mammals the default state is to be female. (In birds it is the other way round, that is, the default state is to be male and if a modification process takes place then a female ensues.) The Y chromosome generates a pair of testes, which then produce testosterone to masculinize the brain.”
Alright, not the worst premise to begin a thing [though I'm not sure what that parenthetical assertion is on about; apparently it's not at all clear how avian sexual differentiation functions, nor whether it actually works the same way in all species. That the author didn't cite anything here (which I suppose would have either been some wikipedia argument or else Gramma Mimaw, whereas the uncertainty is well-documented by people actually performing research) is strike one I guess].
A few similarly innocuous but ill-supported assertions follow. And then we’re brought to what The Ambiguity of Tyranny seems to actually be focused upon, which is, of course (?!), gay people.
“HOMOSEXUALITY. According to evolution theory, homosexuality is not a stable strategy and is therefore highly unlikely to have a genetic origin. A homosexual individual is less likely to produce children and this, reinforced over thousands or millions of generations, clearly implies that conditioning for homosexuality must be something which takes place during the lifetime of the individual (including gestation). This is as certain as there is no such thing as hereditary infertility; one cannot have a eunuch for a father. In Amsterdam there were reports of high levels of promiscuity in both male and female homosexual circles.”
Seriously, a gay person is less likely to produce children? You read it here first. Or wait, I guess you could’ve read it at heretical.com first. Seeing as it’s the foremost bastion of what, going back to that peppery index, is evidently piles enough of assbrained attempts to sound scientific about both the incredibly banal and the weirdly homophobic to keep those without a paddle gurgling in muck for life.
I stopped at the Amsterdam Proof, lovingly named for its excellent illustration of how to stick a baseless accusation into an otherwise rational argument. And by rational I mean bizarrely emphasized and occasionally flat-out wrong, but hey.
Heretical.com, the word “truth” belongs nowhere on your site, and your irretrievably broken definition of the same belongs, with the rest of you, in a ditch somewhere. And no, the dandelions won’t be buying your mod-podged fallacy crafts, either.
So how did it happen that an interesting, seemingly researched bit such as the account of flipped slang taboo above was nestled among such exemplary failure? I have no idea, but if we trust in higher powers, as the site instructs us to in its compendium of footnoted religious creepisms, perhaps it was all a divine plot to give me cookies. They’re pretty good.