Most people who hate Katherine Heigl hate the actress because she seems like a bit of a diva, or because she keeps appearing in annoying rom-coms, including one with Ashton Kutcher that hurts my head when I even think about it. The fellas at Register-Her.com have another reason: she hates balls. As in, testicles.
Well, not really. What the Register-Her fellas are worked up about is a PSA she did for Funny or Die in which she claims to be in favor of neutering pets not because she loves animals but simply because she hates balls so much. At one point she declares, tongue firmly in cheek:
I can’t cut the nuts off human men … yet. So, I’ve dedicated my time to the neutering of dogs, cause that’s legal.
The joke here, as any rational person can plainly see, isn’t that cutting off balls is inherently hilarious. The joke is that an actress with a reputation as a diva is basically doing her critics one better by portraying herself as a deranged, narcissistic, supremely creepy ball-hater. And she’s spoofing her own bad reputation for a genuinely good cause: reducing cat and dog overpopulation and therefore the number of unwanted animals that are put to death in our nation’s animal shelters.
Of course that’s not how the fellas at Register-Her.com see it. And so they’ve put Heigl on their faux “offender registry” as a “bigot.” Their explanation?
The actress’s willingness to endorse male targeted sexual mutilation betrays a bigoted indifference to sexual violence, and justifies her inclusion on this registry in the category of bigot.
Presumably the fellas at Register-Her will next go after the people who have posted the more than twenty thousand YouTube videos that feature dudes getting hit in the nuts. Surely these videos, which feature actual violence against actual human balls are a far graver threat to the balls of the world than even Katherine Heigl.
The Register-Her Action Squad might start by tracking down the (admittedly quite ingenious) ball-hating dudes involved in this video.
And then move on to all the ball-hating bigots featured here:
And here are 50 more:
Better track down the ghost of Scott Joplin, too, for providing the music to the last one from beyond the grave.
‘The partial or complete removal of female sexual agency.’
Women, and indeed men, having agency improves society in ways most people cannot imagine. Nations were people have the greatest inter-personal freedoms (not neccessarily religious etc freedoms) are also the most successful economically and by human development index standards.
Decisions made by free women tend to be the correct decisions, it’s not hard to understand. For the small number of individuals who make decisions that harm others, or indeed society, checks and balances are introduced in the form of law enforcement. However the majority make decisions that benefit everyone.
‘It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.’ – Adam Smith
Giving women agency, giving women choice benefits everyone in the world. Women having the power to act in their own interests as all free adults should do leads to injustices beyond the removal of female agency, such as more crime, more violence, and more pain and suffering.
Note choice and agency should be given to all people, even if it didn’t come with the huge economic and social benefits that it does, based on moral and logical grounds. It is morally wrong to remove someones freedoms and choices. It is logcially wrong that people should not have equal rights to pursue their own destinies and desires.
‘We offer evidence that legalized abortion has contributed significantly to recent crime reductions. Crime began to fall roughly 18 years after abortion legalization. The 5 states that allowed abortion in 1970 experienced declines earlier than the rest of the nation, which legalized in 1973 with Roe v. Wade. States with high abortion rates in the 1970s and 1980s experienced greater crime reductions in the 1990s. In high abortion states, only arrests of those born after abortion legalization fall relative to low abortion states. Legalized abortion appears to account for as much as 50 percent of the recent drop in crime’ – S. Levitt.
Sorry to quote the dismal science, but I love economics.
I’ve done the jackhammering with a guy who had a John Holmes-like cock thing. It wasn’t fun. In fact, as sexy as the guy in question was in other ways, the actual sex wasn’t great because his size limited positions, range of motion, etc. Most women seem to prefer penises of roughly average size. Which is convenient, what with those being the ones there are most of.
Jackhammering in general is such an adolescent fixation. How old are you, Arks? How many women have you actually had sex with? Because I don’t know a single adult man with any sexual experience who believes that that’s what all women want out of sex.
How many women have you actually had sex with?
he’s part of the 80%. no women will sleep with him because hes not an alpha, apparently.
I should also add that if women having sexual agency ultimately leads to very tall people (both men and women) with huge jack hammering penises (presumably just men this time) that it isn’t entirely a bad thing. Forced or institutionalised eugenics is horrific, but people choosing the best possible mates is not.
Jackhammering in general, regardless of size, was a pretty good indicator that the guy doing it would not be asked back for a repeat performance. Those types usually couldn’t take instruction for shit either.
Putting on my maths/science hat for a moment, Arks seems to have as much biology 101 fail as NWOslave a few days back; each child receives 50% of a mother’s (or father’s) genome, so parents (like my partner’s) who only had a single child only succeeded in passing on 50% of their genes. More children means passing on more of the genome.
Two children of the same parents could have completely different (or same) genomes, but this amounts to flipping a coin 46 times in a row (for each chromosome) and coming up with heads (or tails) every single time. Concentrating on the contribution from just one parent, two children will probably have received about 75% of that parent’s genome between them: inheriting 50% (all chromosomes the same) or 100% (all chromosomes different) are the very unlikely end-points of the ‘flip a coin 23 times in a row’ thought-experiment.
Jack-hammering a woman’s cervix, if Arks thinks this is enjoyable for everyone, well that’s another biology 101 fail. Back to sex education classes for you Arks! And please, if you have any more hilarity such as ‘slobbering crotch maws’ that you haven’t already shared, please go right ahead and post them. That bit of misogyny was so ridiculous it cracked me up. Here’s a hint though: if you say things like this around people, they may catch on to the possibility that you’re a badly socialised misanthrope.
A pedantic addendum to my last, there are instances where two (or more) children do have the same genome, identical twins (or triplets, etc). There is still only one sperm and one egg involved, with the zygote splitting after fertilisation, so this is the same as the case of a single child, only 50% of each parent’s genome being passed on.
I read the exact same thing in an article recently. It says it in my economics book too- Freedom and democracy makes us richer, and education raises living standards
Aside from economic success, it deeply disturbs me knowing there are such repulsive human beings out there who honestly see nothing wrong in removing women’s choices, freedoms, rights, and advocate forcing them into sexual slavery either through brothels or through some butchered form of sexual communism. As you said it’s morally and logically wrong, and knowing people out there have no problem with it (and this goes for any rights, not just women’s) is what makes us have to remain vigilante.
By the way, Arks, if women are selecting for tall men with large penises, so what? Men also tend to select for certain characteristics, as a group. Natural selection is, well, natural. Maybe we as a species are meant to evolve to feature giant men with giant cocks. Who are you to argue against nature?
What shocks me is not that Arks believes that mass rape is acceptable, but that he believes that billions of other people will agree with him within the next ten years.
Look out MRAs. Katherine Heigl is coming to cut the nuts right outa yer yambags. If you’re nice, she may even give you a spinal block first.
I actually like being jackhammered.
Different strokes for different folks! 🙂
Is economics your field quackers? Can you recommend any books I should look into purchasing?
I looked out the Human Development Index site, Compare the gender inequality index
http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/indicators/68606.html
top 10
1 Norway 2 Australia 3 Netherlands 4 United States 5 New Zealand 6 Canada 7 Ireland 8 Liechtenstein 9 Germany 10 Sweden
With the top 10 Human development index (all factors)
http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/
1 Norway 2 Australia 3 Netherlands 4 United States 5 New Zealand 6 Canada 7 Ireland 8 Liechtenstein 9 Germany 10 Sweden
Notice a pattern?
Ozy, I see what you did there, and I approve. 🙂
Ozy, I see what you did there, and I approve.
*looks back*
oh!
*applause*
“Sorry to quote the dismal science, but I love economics.”
I do and don’t! I’m actually trying to refresh my knowledge right now. Interestingly, I just read an article (that’s a mixed bag, I would say) http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/eugenics-progressivism%E2%80%99s-ultimate-social-engineering/ that claims”
“David Levy has shown that economics became known as the “dismal science” because classical-liberal economists (such as J. S. Mill) favored racial equality in a free labor market. Reactionary, elitist British Romantics such as Thomas Carlyle and John Ruskin argued that the free market, with its underlying assumption of equality, would eliminate racial hierarchies and bring a “dismal” future of racial mixing.”
So that seems to be WHY it was called the dismal science, and apparently it was because it wasn’t racist enough. So, I may wanna not call it that. 😉
But yes, more freedom, good for everybody. Good stuff.
I too see what ozy did, and approve.
First of all, ozy, lol. I also enjoy a good jackhammering. If that was my first experience with a guy, though, without me asking for it, it would probably earn a raised eyebrow.
I’ll also agree with everyone here: sex is totally manageable with a larger penis. It’s just about paying attention when your partner says “that’s too deep” or “this hurts, let’s try a different position,” etc. I have chronic pain associated with my pelvic floor muscles, so adjusting around pain (unfortunately) is a regular part of my sexual experience. But we still have awesome sex because we listen to each other!
Viscaria: Totally. I am personally of the radical opinion that All Penises Are Good Penises. From micropenis to porn-star dick, with confidence, joy, communication and lube, a person with any kind of penis can have a mutually enjoyable sex life.
Dam I loved the nickname Dismal science. I knew Thomas Carlyle gave the nickname in his paper favouring slavery, but I thought it was from a purely economical standpoint. Not a racially motivated one.
I also love the freakonomics quote.
‘Economics is the science of explaining tomorrow, why the predictions you made yesterday, didn’t come true today.’
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/eugenics-progressivism%E2%80%99s-ultimate-social-engineering/
interesting in parts, but an article on progressives and eugenics that doesnt even mention oliver wendell holmes and his awful “three generations of imbeciles is enough” line from buck v. bell shows an author who isn’t as familiar with the subject as he wants to come across as.
actually, if you want a more thorough history of american flirtations with eugenics, one of the professors at my school published a book on buck v. bell a couple of years ago; i haven’t read it yet but it’s very well regarded:
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Generations-No-Imbeciles-Eugenics/dp/0801898242/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323221183&sr=1-2
It’s just about paying attention when your partner says “that’s too deep” or “this hurts, let’s try a different position,” etc.
fwiw i think all sexual experiences should be governed by a mantra of ‘just fucking pay attention to your partner’
“fwiw i think all sexual experiences should be governed by a mantra of ‘just fucking pay attention to your partner'”
To an MRA this is an evil misandric demand, and a sign that society is falling apart at the seams.
forgot to add to two posts above: at least the author didnt propagate that embarrassing meme that ruth bader ginsburg is a eugenicist
Sharculese “interesting in parts, but an article on progressives and eugenics that doesnt even mention oliver wendell holmes and his awful “three generations of imbeciles is enough” line from buck v. bell shows an author who isn’t as familiar with the subject as he wants to come across as.”
bingo – Nor does it mention any classical liberals who weren’t that unkeen on eugenics. Definitely a mixed bag as an article. (Still, The Freeman as a whole is the best libertarian magazine, I would say, with some clunkers and catoid stuff, but a far cut above the rest in general)
Ty much for the book rec!