Michele Bachmann is a useless fucking cunt

*This article is cross-posted from Positivelyharmful.blogspot.com*

Can he say that on here? Of course I can, especially since it happens to be so fucking true. In what I can safely say is the most infuriating piece of news to come out of Washington in some time, Michele Bachmann and her buddies on the Congressional Prayer Caucas--the very existence of which appalls me--recently wrote a letter to President Obama criticizing him for the sparsity of the words "God" or "Creator" in his public addresses.

Bachmann and her cohorts erroneously claim this lack of religiosity "cast[s] aside an integral part of American society," apparently by, "removing one of the cornerstones of our secure freedom." Really, Michele? What about my freedom from having your ancient, mystical, and ultimately incorrect point of view shoved down my throat?

First, for my sake, I'd like to point out that Michele Bachmann's ignorance in this matter, in my opinion, does not represent the primary viewpoint of her Minnesotan constituency--though this perhaps is due to my unwillingness to believe that my once-home state could be overrun by such stale, backword-thinking right-wing sympathies.

I flat-out reject Bachmann's assertions that "God" represents either an integral part of society or a cornerstone of our freedom. The very concept of a Christian God--one who is creator and master of all things, and that ultimately has the authority to condemn a soul to an eternity of damnation--is in all ways anti-freedom. The bullshit concept of seven deadly sins--all of which are an unavoidable part of what it means to be human--is perhaps the most devious control on individual freedoms ever to spew from the mind of man. In a sense, there could be no greaterthreat to the truest ideas of freedom than this concept of "God."

As far as representing an "intergral" part of society, I ardently disagree. The machinations of the god-worshipers and the sects by which they identify have shown through time to be very detrimental in serious ways. "God" and his name have been evoked in some of the sickest ways imaginable, allowing for human beings to do to others what would otherwise be nothing short of unthinkable. Also, I take it for granted that this god does not truly exist, as absolutely all available evidence (there's that word again Christians) points to the negative. As such, I honestly believe that, with time and awareness, the common knowledge of God's non-existence will eventually prevail, though on no certain time-table. With this being the case, it seems perfectly clear that we cannot, or at the very least ought not, allow ourselves to saddle God or his supposed word with the lofty title of Integral to Society.

Perhaps most shocking and frustrating to me (as I am rarely shocked anymore by the general stupidity of the religious right) is that this matter has found its way to the President and his public despite the enormous legitimate tasks facing every one of these representatives. With our country taking giant shit after giant shit all over this Earth and at home, the time of our elected officials is being spent bickering over a fucking fairytale. I'd assert--unscientifically--that potential factors in our current national financial woes include our tendency as a society to represent a major anomaly within the well-documented relationship between increasing wealth and decreasing religiosity in societies, if not directly than by some correlation (i.e. stupidity).

Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State called Bachmann's position "one of the silliest manufactured controversies I've ever seen," in a statement released in response to the letter. I tend to agree, though because I believe Bachmann-like thought is a serious threat to reasonable people everywhere, I would substitute the words "most ludicrous" for "silliest" to remove the connotation that anything about this type of thinking could be funny.

Michele Bachmann is a true disgrace to Minnesota and the nation at large. Her sense of values is completely out-of-whack, and the idea that she could be voted to such a position in life casts a horrifying reflection on the population that elected her. On behalf of myself and decent, freethinking people everywhere, I take great pleasure in typing to Mrs. Bachmann a well-deserved, "Fuck you very much."

Jeff N.

~One Nation, under Reason, with Liberty and Justice for all

Hey Vikings, fuck you!

In what has already been a stellar week for Packers fans everywhere, the Minnesota Vikings announced yesterday that they have fired Brad Childress. The firing comes after a humiliating home defeat by our beloved Green Bay Packers in which the hapless Vikings barely showed up. Even before this week--when the wheels officially came off for Minnesota--I knew this team was doomed. I could not help screaming at the television any and every time someone referred to this year's Vikings team as a serious Super Bowl contender. Seriously, this team was going nowhere from the start.

Favre is an ass-clown off the field and a liability on it. Even if he could replicate last year, he couldn't get them over the hump then and he wouldn't have been able to now. I could only laugh at the Vikings unconcealed desperation in their pathetic gestures to woo the old man back to the field. If I was a Minnesota fan, I would have been IRATE. I'm so glad my organization has its shit together.

This game, as we all know, concludes the season sweep of Minnesota by Green Bay and, as such, ensures that 2010 will go down as a successful season. I could not be happier that Favre decided to return to the game so that I could see the beaten look in his eyes and hear the defeated tone in his voice after we returned the favor for last year's fluke-of-a-sweep by the Vikings. The piece-of-shit traitor deserves everything he's gotten this season. It's like a karmic repayment for holding teams and fans hostage with his annual retirement flip-flops.

The Vikings, like Favre, deserve what they've gotten this year. By letting Favre keep them in waiting like his bitch, Childress and the organization set themselves back years. No coach, no long-term solutions at QB, too few wins, and no stadium deal have this team in a world of hurt. Personally, I love it.


Jeff N.

Judge Judy is a bitch

In the hustling-and-bustling that exemplifies my days off from my current gas-station job, I channel-surfed by Judge Judy for the first time in years. Among limited options, I unfortunately stopped to watch what I was sure was going to be some kind of circus.

Judy did not disappoint. She took no time at all to cut down her hapless defendant before turning a cruel eye on her slack-jawed plaintiff.

I did not feel sorry for them. In a dispute too stupid for me to remember, these folks opted to have their case aired out on national television in front of a camera-mugging she-dragon. That was their mistake.

What struck me most was Judy's hypocritical actions, shouting at dullards to respect her while showing them no respect whatsoever. These people, already so trodden-over by life that they would willingly choose to have their 6 minutes of fame spent cowering from a hideous, fire-spewing demon-bitch, are sad enough without Judy's heckling.

I asked my mom, "Why do you watch this shit?" Her response did not surprise me. "I like Judge Judy," she said, referring to the woman rather than the show, "because she puts people in their place and calls them on their shit."

I like to think my mom is indicative of far-too-great a percentage of Americans. These people are seeking vicarious justice. They want to see things "told like they are." In reality, the farce they are watching is nothing more than the ravings of a verbally-sadistic, power-mongering old woman. TV sucks, Americans are stupid, and Judge Judy is a bitch.


Jeff N.

Good Sans God

*This article cross-posted from Positivelyharmful.com*

In an editorial published recently at boston.com, columnist Jeff Jacoby shares his philosophy that God is a necessary component of human goodness. He cites historical examples to push his point that human beings cannot, without the word of God, know what is truly right or wrong. His editorial is a response to announcements that atheist groups in America are spending money to promote their non-belief around the holidays. In 2008, the message was "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake." This year, after expanding to TV and other media, the ads are going further, depicting the long-existing links between religion and violence.

Jacoby's stance, though ignorant, represents a pretty typical Christian-American viewpoint. These weak-minded people remove themselves from the responsibility of formulating their ownmoral identity. Jacoby writes:

For in a world without God, there is no obvious difference between good and evil. There is no way to prove that murder is wrong if there is no Creator who decrees “Thou shalt not murder.’’ It certainly cannot be proved wrong by reason alone. One might reason instead — as Lenin and Stalin and Mao reasoned — that there is nothing wrong with murdering human beings by the millions if doing so advances the Marxist cause. Or one might reason from observing nature that the way of the world is for the strong to devour the weak — or that natural selection favors the survival of the fittest by any means necessary, including the killing of the less fit.

I take grave offense to this statement as well as to the viewpoint it represents. Rather than rebut Mr. Jacoby myself, I'll let you read what Christopher Hitchens has to say on the subject.

I think our knowledge of right and wrong is innate in us. Religion gets its morality from humans. We know that we can't get along if we permit perjury, theft, murder, rape, all societies at all times, well before the advent of monarchies and certainly, have forbidden it...Socrates called his daemon, it was an inner voice that stopped him when he was trying to take advantage of someone... Why don't we just assume that we do have some internal compass?

Hitchens, of course, is a leading authority and spokesperson on the subject of atheism. Along withThe God Delusion author Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens is one of the most recognizable and outspoken anti-theists. He speaks worldwide and is known for having a standing offer to debate any religious authority who would care to challenge him of the subject of religion. Needless to say, he is smarter than Jeff Jacoby.

The reason I take such particular offense to this form of human subjugation to the idea of god is simple: I resent the notion that we could possibly need the "word of God" to make moral decisions. First, this idea robs humans of a precious distinction within the animal kingdom. It takes away one of our primary attributes, moral consideration. Second, this kind of thinking is patently and decidedly incorrect. Because human beings themselves invented the notion of God, a god, or many gods (depending on the time and place), they themselves are the originators and propagators of all morality, even the supposedly "divine." Third, by allowing ourselves to defer these decisions and considerations to invented deities, we dangerously transfer the responsibility and accountability of our actions to a fictitious source.

Not every human, be they atheist, Catholic, Muslim, agnostic, or of any other belief, is "good," and there may be no universal standard for what that very ubiquitous-but-vague term means. The most important thing to keep in mind though is that we MUST take responsibility for our individual senses of right and wrong. We all do this in different ways, and this is just fine--so long as it comes from inside yourself rather than the inapt, dusty pages of antiquity.

One of Yours!

Positively Harmful is extremely pleased to introduce our first serial column, “One of Yours!,” in which we’ll highlight a different religious person—and their absurd or disturbing behavior—each week. Our purpose, as always, will be the shedding of light upon ludicrous, supposedly “pious” persons and practices with keen wit and unyielding mockery. Our basis for selection is simple: we’re stoked that, as atheists, we have absolutely no association with these people, be they standard quacks, truly evil hatemongers, or simply religious assholes.

What better way to kick things off, then, than by spotlighting the man who may very well represent the highest embodiment of quack, hatemonger, AND asshole. I’m speaking of no other than Westboro Baptist Church founder and noted anti-gay protester Fred Phelps. Phelps has seen his share of notoriety regarding his extreme views and the inflammatory nature of his protests and, as such, I’m sure many of you are familiar, at least vaguely, with this first-rate cunt.

The images of men, women, and children holding signs bearing “God Hates Fags,” “God Hates Fag Enablers,” “God Hates America,” and “God Hates Your Tears,” the last of which referring to tears shed by mourners at funerals of fallen U.S. servicemen*, provide more than ample support for our inclusion of Phelps.

But that’s not all, folks! The WBC’s primary website, godhatesfags.com (which I would refrain from visiting as not to generate additional hits for Phelps’ site), contains a rolling count of the number of human beings god has “cast into hell” since you loaded the page (approximately 2 per second). In more fun with numbers, godhatesfags.com also provides the enlightening statistics that god has killed 5780 American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, poured some 220 million gallons of oil in the Gulf, and, my personal favorite, killed 16,000,000,000 people in the “Flood.” No, I’m not drunk, I meant to type nine zeros. That’s because, according to this scholarly source, sixteen billion people were killed in god’s great flood (contrasted with eight survivors, a number the site also wants us to keep in mind). Fuck sake! I didn’t even think we had that many people now. Shows what I know I guess.

Lest you think Phelps only hates the GLBTA crowd, try this quote on for size.

Whatever righteous cause the Jewish victims of the 1930s–40s Nazi Holocaust had, (probably minuscule, compared to the Jewish Holocausts against Middle Passage Blacks, African Americans and Christians—including the bloody persecution of Westboro Baptist Church by Topeka Jews in the 1990s), has been drowned in sodomite semen. American taxpayers are financing this unholy monument to Jewish mendacity and greed and to filthy fag lust. Homosexuals and Jews dominated Nazi Germany ... The Jews now wander the earth despised, smitten with moral and spiritual blindness by a divine judicial stroke ... And God has smitten Jews with a certain unique madness ... Jews, thus perverted, out of all proportion to their numbers energize the militant sodomite agenda... Jews are the real Nazis.

Fuck you very much, Mr. Phelps. I’m quite sure whatever “bloody persecution,” to say nothing of its probably being quite justified, the WBC endured at the hands of Topeka Jews, does not register in the cosmic justice balancing equation against the FUCKING HOLOCAUST, you giant douche!

Even in defending himself, Phelps is an asshole.

We don't believe in physical violence of any kind, and the Scripture doesn't support racism. ... The only true Nazis in this world are fags.

But wait just a second there, Fred. You ended that other ignorant, hateful comment with “Jews are the real Nazis,” but you close this one by saying “The only true Nazis in this world are fags.” Well, which is it? Who ARE the Nazis? Jews or fags, Jews or fags… The world is dying to know!

It doesn’t really matter, of course, because to Phelps and his brainwashed band of ill-bred followers, we’re ALL fags, we’re ALL Nazis, and we’re ALL fucked. Now, it may seem easy enough to dismiss this man, his cohorts, and their relentless picketing as harmless spectacle. After all, the counter-protests they attract are generally larger, often by several times, than their own efforts. As I see it, there are two key reasons we, as rational men and women, cannot allow ourselves the luxury of dismissing the WBC.

First, though the adult followers of Phelps (a large portion of whom are in some way related to Phelps himself, go figure) may be lost causes, the many children dragged to these events and instructed to bear signs, the implications of which they assuredly do not fully comprehend, do not have to be. This type of mental abuse, of conditioning and brainwashing, though used in some fashion by most if not all major religions, is particularly insidious in the case of the God Hates Fags agenda. Without consequences for Phelps, and the WBC as a whole, these innocents will again and again be subjected to the unbridled fusion of hatred and idiocy. Every malleable mind lost to this kind of scum is a loss for humanity.

The second key rationale for taking Phelps seriously is this: Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church’s travel budget for picketing alone is estimated near $250,000 yearly. That’s one-quarter of a million dollars each year spent to ensure that wherever something too faggy is going on, these assholes can be there to fuck with people. The point I’m trying to make is that these are not homeless men shouting Biblical verses at the top of their lungs on a street corner. They have money, they have resources, and, as such, they are a legitimate threat to common sense and decency worldwide.

Yes, Fred Phelps truly is a shithead. In fact, despite the name “Westboro Baptist Church,” they are not actually connected to any Baptist associations. Phelps claims to adhere to Primitive Baptist and Calvinist ideals, but mainstream Primitive Baptists (as though there were such a thing) have rejected the WBC whole-heartedly. Not even PRIMITIVE BAPTISTS will claim Phelps. Well, that’s too bad really, because the Primitive Baptists, Calvanists, and the rest of you religious folks out there can have the sonofabitch. We don’t want him. We’re glad he’s One of Yours!

J. Scott Neums

*This is not because the soldiers themselves were gay, at least openly, but rather because they fought and died for a country in which homosexuality is merely tolerated.

Still Grumbling

In her article “Chilean miracle, atheists stop grumbling,” Suzette Martinez Standring points to their faith in god as an important, if not overriding, factor in the survival of all 33 miners trapped some half-a-mile underground. She goes a step further in criticizing outspoken atheists upset that god, rather than the massive group of talented, dedicated scientists, professionals and volunteers, received too much credit for this “miracle.”

She writes:

They complain that engineers, psychologists and workers have set the bar in global cooperation and shared expertise, so why does God get all the credit? What about God¹s hand (or lack of one) in the Chilean earthquake that killed 500 people earlier this year?

No believer or non-believer can ever answer fully the questions of the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of God. But what has been documented is that the miners held their faith to be a life-saving factor when they were buried alive for 69 days, 2,300 feet under a desert after a mine collapse.

Alright, I’m going to stop her right there for a moment. First, we non-believers don’t have to answer fully the questions of “why” or “how” when it comes to god. We don’t have to answer them at all, in fact. We simply know its bullshit¹. Second, the fact that the miners held their own faith to be a life-saving factor is all fine and dandy, but this isn’t the point. Reasonable people are upset that crediting god, who clearly did not contribute in any (measurable, testable, concrete, real, etc) way, detracts from the brilliant and tireless efforts of the many human beings responsible for devising and coordinating this massive rescue, which seems logical to me.

She writes later:

Modern technology achieved success, yet to believe a higher hand doled out the gifts of intellect, ability and perfect timing on those connected with the rescue is not unreasonable. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive in this event. No doubt the men drew comfort from knowing the finest minds and the best machinery worked continuously on their behalf.

But it is also clear that faith played a significant part in their survival. At the request of the miners, Bibles measuring 3 inches by 5 inches were sent down along with magnifying glasses for easier reading. Each book was inscribed, “We are praying for your return.”

Again, I’ll interject. When you discard the notion of god itself as being “unreasonable” (which is the clearest result of weighing the evidence² at our disposal), it inherently makes the statement “…to believe a higher hand doled out the… is not unreasonable” unreasonable.

Standring may have a point in saying science and religion are not mutually exclusive in this event, but wouldn’t it be fun if we could make it so they were? For instance, if we could replicate this event twice over we could better control the variables of science and religion. In the first replication, we’ll allow for as much religiosity among the trapped, their loved ones, and the general public as possible, but will completely restrict the use of science. In the second, our poor victims and their rescuers will be atheists, completely occluded from God’s miraculous countenance, and there will be no prayers for their survival, but we will allow them the full gamut of scientific options. I don’t know about you, but I only wish I had the resources to make this happen—I so wanna know how things would work out!

Moving on, I quickly want to discuss the bibles the miners requested. I’d like to know, first of all, whether the requests for bibles came before or after the repeated requests for beer, wine, and cigarettes. Second, I wonder, if given the choice between bibles and the above-mentioned contraband items, how many of the 33 men would have chosen bibles? I can’t say for sure, of course, but I know what I would do. After all, nicotine addiction and the intoxicating effects of alcohol are very well documented and real, which is more than I can say for… well, you get the point.

Suzette moves on to discuss the images of miners emerging from their would-be tomb, more than two months of their lives elapsed, wearing t-shirts emblazoned with religious sentiments, and continues:

Chile is an overwhelmingly Christian (89% Roman Catholic) country. A high percentage of Americans also profess to be Christian. But, had the disaster occurred in the United States, would the miners have returned to the surface holding Bibles and wearing scripture-printed T-shirts (given the lawsuits and the controversy that dogs something as simple as singing “O, Holy Night” at a public school concert)?

Suzie, Suzie, Suzie… I don’t know what America you’re living in babe, but it’s not mine. I live in an America where, yes, probably at least some of the men would have emerged adorned with some sort of religious sentiment. (Particularly true given the backwoods-ass places we tend to mine coal in this country and the stupid, bible-thumping rednecks that tend to inhabit those areas). If the miners themselves weren’t repping the G-man, then certainly their family members and the inevitable crowd of hooters-and-hollerers would make up for that. The massive vigil that would undoubtedly have been erected at the site certainly would have had some crosses, at least, and probably a verse of scripture or two as well. The point, Suziekins, is that as a religious person in America today, you have no right to bitch.

I wish Ms. Martinez Standring were right, though. I wish we lived in a country where nobody would credit god for countless men and women’s hard work. Ideally the entire world could get on that page. By allowing ourselves to credit mystical forces for good outcomes, we not only do injustice to the true forces at work—in this case, thousands of people and tireless efforts—but we also lose sense of the beauty and importance of the world and our lives for their own sake, as they are, in the absence of god or any other supernatural myths.

Jeff Neuman

¹I’m well aware that this statement can be construed as representing a smug sense of superiority and, well, it does. But I’ve got reason on my side.

²For our religious readers out there, evidence is what we use to make judgments outside the realm of faith, which, of course, has no place in rational decision-making. In this case, I’m referring to the scientific.

Timeline of a Drunkass

My mom was going through photos of me on Facebook recently and asked me a very simple question which sparked some thought.

"Are you drunk or drinking in every one of these?"

I pondered an instant and replied, "Um, yeah, probably. I might be high in a few."

She failed to see the humor in this and rolled her eyes, but said nothing and went on chain-smoking and playing around on Facebook.

I didn't give it much thought at the time, but I had before and I have since. I looked through the photos of myself several times and, indeed, she was correct in detecting a high percentage of alcohol-related shots, which was not shocking. Indeed the majority of moments over the last several years I'd deem photo-worthy have revolved around sporting events, birthdays, parties, and other pro-drinking occasions.

Anyone glancing through would likely assume I spend the vast majority of my time under the influence. Now, this certainly isn't entirely true, but I'm not going to sit here and categorically deny it either. In any case, rather than shy away from the fact or accept being saddled with any negative connotations, I've decided to put together a little timeline of some of my greatest/drunkest photos from throughout the years.

2004

Event: General tomfoolery

Drink of choice: Jim Beam

Summary: In an act of youthful, drunken, carefree petty crime, James, Nate, Amanda, and I attempted to get this microwave to hang in the U of M's "shoe tree," where students and alumni for years have thrown their shoes in homage to the University and their time spent there. Not content to settle for the norm, we took this broken microwave and heaved it into the tree. It took multiple attempts--I had to hike down a bigass hill and retrieve that wretched appliance twice--but we finally got it in there and it hung for some time before it fell or was cut down. Ah, to be a freshman.

2005

Event: Night of the week in the dorms.

Drink of choice: 151 and Sprite.

Summary: Not sure what all there is to say about this one. It was first semester, sophomore year at the University of Minnesota, and in those days it seems we all drank all the time. This photo was taken just around the time I was blacking out, and the next morning I woke up fully clothed with a bar of soap in my pocket.

2006

Event: Brandon's birthday weekend.

Drinks of choice: Grain Belt Premium. More shots than could possibly have been necessary.

Summary: It was a hot night in July, but for whatever reason David and I felt the need to be stylin' in our badass track jackets. I can't remember what we were laughing at, but I have a feeling it must have been damn funny.

2007

Event: Case Race

Drink of choice: 20 Michelob Golden Lights

Summary: It was Easter weekend, and with nobody around in our apartment complex but the four of us guys, Tyler, Pete, Jeremy, and I decided to attempt the Case Race, with hilarious and disastrous results. Tyler ended up with puke on his back. Jeremy and Pete, I heard, broke down and sobbed drunkenly over something. And, thanks to an anonymous 5th party with a cruel sense of humor and unabated access to my cell phone, there may still be people I don't talk to very often who think I came out of the closet that night. (Asshole)

Final Score: Tyler 24. Jeff 20. Pete 19. Jeremy 16.

2008

Event: Phil's wedding.

Drink of choice: Obviously, Captain Morgan.

Summary: Out of necessity, and a sense of hilariousness, Tyson and I used the coffee pot in our hotel room to mix one helluva rum and coke. An unusual conveyance, perhaps, but nonetheless effective.

2009

Event: Random night at the bars.

Drinks of choice: Long Islands, Whiskey Sours, Whiskey Cokes, cheap beer.

Summary: In possibly the greatest photo ever, I show my undying affection for Rizzle as Meg looks on in astonishment.

2010

Event: New Year's 2010

Drinks of choice: Keg beer, champagne, fruity/delicious/lethal wop, Jello shots

Summary: In my very first drunk-pic of 2010, Hoberg and I are apparently looking to throw down in brohood fisticuffs, possibly over a beer pong dispute. I have absolutely no recollection of this photograph having been taken, so your guess as to the truth behind it is as good as mine.

Well, there you have it. Seven years, seven photos, and seven stories of youthful exuberance and quasi-alcoholism. I don't know about you, but a trip like this down memory lane sure does warm my heart. If you've learned nothing else, hear this: Alcohol is an important vehicle through which we celebrate our triumphs, drown our failures, and generally amplify the enjoyment of our lives. And now, thanks to Facebook, we get to share that with everyone. If I'm lucky, someday my grandchildren will ask, "Grandpa, were you and your friends drunk in all those pictures?" And I can answer, "Um, well, we may have been high in some of them."


Jeff N.

Tranny Porn

Many times, when guys are discussing porn, the subject of tranny porn is breached. Now, most people are uncomfortable discussing their views on transsexual porn, and because of this, the most common response to the subject is absolute disgust. At least on the surface.

Most heterosexual guys are closely guarded when it comes to the fact that everyone, on some level, is at least a little, tiny bit gay. In the wake of this, transsexual porn is quickly derided, likely even by the men that watch it, as "something for faggots." Now, as Dan Savage, and research, would tell us, the majority of viewers of tranny porn are straight males. Gay men, generally, do NOT find it appealing as masturbatory material.

So, I wonder, what is with the stigma attached to this type of porn? I can see that some people may find it unnatural, and I completely understand if this is their reason for not watching. I am not here today to advocate the mass-viewing of tranny porn (nor am I decrying it). What I am here to do is to prove that it does not have to be considered gay.

Consider the following, if you will: The "gayness" of a porn is directly related to the ratio of dicks to tits.

This means that any porn containing only men has an infinite ratio of dicks-to-tits, and therefore, is absolutely gay. The addition of extra men only serves to amplify an already infinite ratio of dicks-to-tits (any number X : zero), and therefore absolute gayness.

Presumably, the majority of porn watched worldwide involves one man fucking one woman. The dick-to-tits ratio in this standard porn convention is 1:2. A video of one man fucking two women has a 1:4 ratio of dick-to-tits. In the reverse threesome scenario, guy-guy-girl, the ratio is an even 1:1--two dicks vs. two tits.

By this rationale, we can up the number of dicks in our porn (to increase the percentage of holes penetrated) without throwing off the balance of dicks-to-tits by adding shemales to the mix. A porn with one tranny and one female results in a 1:4 dick-to-tits ratio. Two trannies and a female: 2:6 or 1:3. You can play around with the hundreds/thousands of additional combinations of men, women, and trannies.

My contention, to state it clearly now in light of the dick-to-tits-ratio evidence, is that most combinations of pornstars in which men are replaced by transsexuals result in a decrease in gayness, without sacrificing penetration, and not vice-versa.

SPOOGEFIST!!

In a recent bout with boredom, which I was losing, I googled the word "spoogefist." I was shocked and disgusted that not a single page in GOOGLE's search engine contained the word spoogefist, and I decided to make a page that would, for once, give the hilarious act of spoogefisting a full introduction.

(GO ahead, google it now, it's finally there.)

Spoogefisting is a term I coined many years ago while I was in high school. It is a hilarious prank in which you, in short, blow a load into your buddy's cupped hand while he is sleeping/passed out, then take a feather and tickle his nose with it until he scratches the itch with his fistful of cum.

BAM--SPOOGEFISTED!