If You Disagree With Me, You're WRONG

Equality means EQUAL -- for women AND men...

A female version of this was going around recently. Why should women be the only ones who have unquestioned rights over their reproductive organs? If you believe in equal rights but still support R(outine) I(nfant) C(ircumcision), you're a hypocrite!

A pair of substantial mammary glands have the advantage over the two hemispheres of the most "learned"... brain

I spend a lot of time in doctor's offices, and thus have spent a lot of time reading magazines (although I generally do try to have a book handy).  Every now and then a magazine or article will catch my eye.  As a new mom, I came across a local monthly, Washington Parent, touting itself as "The Trusted Source for Parents in DC, MD & VA."  It didn't take me long to stop reading it, though.  Why?  For one, it's not much more beyond a book of advertisements, mostly for local businesses and events.  Nothing particularly wrong with that, but it wasn't exactly something I found useful.  Then there's the fact that their "special" issues, discussing things like local camps and the "best" local schools, only feature companies or organizations that advertise with them.  It's the way of the business world, I get that, but again, not particularly useful.

But the single biggest reason?  Their articles.  The articles are just regurgitations of old news repackaged.  For some parents that may be helpful, but for me, I just didn't need to waste my time reading the same things I'd already read at the source.  Especially when the source articles aren't condensed and riddled with the opinions of the magazine staff.  Specifically, I found myself balking at articles regarding breastfeeding, co-sleeping, or other Attachment Parenting style techniques.  Not just because I disagreed with them, but because they were often filled with misinformation, if not clearly biased in their disfavor.

For some reason I picked up their latest edition.  Can't remember why.  Decided to flip through it a bit, see if I could figure out what must have caught my eye.  On page 68 is an article entitled "What?  I Need More Vitamin D?"  It is about pediatric recommendations for Vitamin D supplements.  The topic isn't a new one and the article contained no new information.  In fact, the topic has only been mentioned in any news sources over the last few years because the recommended dosages have been slightly adjusted.

The more I read of the article, the more irritated I became.  First, there is the large, prominent picture in the center of the page.  Cute baby, pretty eyes.  Big-ass bottle.  Now, Washington Parent isn't littered with formula ads and they aren't filled with bottle-fed baby pictures.  That doesn't mean, however, that they don't get their prevailing opinion across one way or another.  If you didn't think that the picture was enough, the very wording of the article itself makes sure that you get their point.  And then they hammer it home, starting the article with:

"Breast is best, but as more mothers are breastfeeding, the risk for vitamin D deficiency rickets has increased for all children."

Oh really?  That's a fact, eh?  And where exactly are they getting that information?  Thing is, they don't actually say!  WP cites two individual studies, "Prevention of Rickets and Vitamin D Deficiency in Infants, Children, and Adolescents" and "Vitamin D: importance in the prevention of cancers, type 1 diabetes, heart disease and osteoporosis."  The second article doesn't even mention breastfeeding, and the first one doesn't, in any way shape or form, blame breastfeeding for increased cases of rickets.  But I'll get to that in a minute.  The article continues:

"Human breast milk is another source of vitamin D; however the amount of vitamin D in human milk is extremely low"

Well, sort of.  What the study actually says is:

"Although corollary maternal serum concentrations were not measured, on the basis of vitamin D pharmacokinetics, maternal vitamin D status is assumed to have been abnormally low, thereby preventing adequate transfer of vitamin D in human milk."

In other words, the theory is that, when the mom is deficient in vitamin D, an exclusively breastfed baby will not be able to absorb enough vitamin D to prevent rickets.  Which means that, if a mother is deficient, she will not be able to provide enough vitamin D to the child through breastfeeding alone, but no studies have been done to determine if supplementing the mother will provide enough for the baby through the breastmilk.  Now, the debate comes into play when deciding whether or not a child would actually need a supplement versus merely needing more exposure to the sun, but that's another post altogether.  And we're still not even to the section that ticks me off the most.  Here's the next part:

"Recently, there has been an emphasis on the vitamin D intake of exclusively breastfed infants.  As more infants are being exclusively breastfed, the chances of developing infantile rickets has increased, especially in infants with darker pigmentation."

Where to begin with this?  Let's see...  The specific studies that WP is referencing?  The first is from 2008, the second is from 2004.  That is not "recent."  Mostly, though, the absurd part of this is the statement that the chances of developing infantile rickets increases due to exclusive breastfeeding.  That is, at best, a blatant exaggeration deliberately intended to mislead the readers.  What does the study actually say?

"Rickets attributable to vitamin D deficiency is known to be a condition that is preventable with adequate nutritional intake of vitamin D.  Despite this knowledge, cases of rickets in infants attributable to inadequate vitamin D intake and decreased exposure to sunlight continue to be reported in the United States and other Western countries, particularly with exclusively breastfed infants and infants with darker skin pigmentation." 

In other words, rickets is preventable with enough vitamin D intake.  However, rates of rickets are increasing because children still aren't getting enough vitamin D through both nutrition and sun exposure.  When taken *in context* with the rest of the study, the meaning is a bit clearer: children who are exclusively breastfed by mothers who are deficient in vitamin D are more likely to develop rickets if they are not absorbing enough vitamin D through sunlight exposure (which is more likely when the child has darker skin).  However, if a child is receiving food fortified with vitamin D (e.g. formula), they are not as likely to be deficient, excluding sunlight absorption.  Even that isn't what upset me the most, though.  It was this:

"Breastfeeding puts all infants at risk for vitamin D deficincy due to the poor vitamin D status of most lactating mothers and the inadequate amounts of vitamin D that is transmitted via breastmilk(1)." (My emphasis.)

Wow.  Just wow.  They actually put a footnote with that, linking it to the first study.  This claim seemed unbelievable to me.  So I tracked down the study.  Read it.  Tried to find the supporting claim.  And you know why it seemed unbelievable to me?  Because it is unbelievable.  Because the study doesn't say any such thing.  The topic of the study is the increase of the recommended supplemented dosage from 200 IU/day to 400 IU/day.  (Assuming, of course, that the child needs supplements in the first place!)  Nowhere does it say that exclusive breastfeeding puts an infant at risk for a vitamin D deficiency; rather that if you are already vitamin D deficient, you cannot gain enough vitamin D through exclusive breastfeeding alone.  That's not the same thing at all.

This article has to be one of the most irresponsible and misleading pieces of garbage that I've ever read.  I don't know what kind of anti-breastfeeding agenda that author "Christi Hay, M.D. MPH" has, but it's clear that she has one.  Given her inability to understand even the most basic concepts outlined in a scientific study, her poor patient ratings aren't much of a surprise.

Love your son??? Don't fuck with his dick!!!

A penis is designed for maximum functionality and maximum pleasure. That means that WITH A FORESKIN the penis is at its most functional and most pleasurable. So tell me why some moron would look at their perfect baby boy and decide to hack off a completely healthy piece of skin? One filled with nerve endings, designed exactly the way it's supposed to be? Because they wanna "look like dad"? THAT's a great reason, ain't it? I mean, all kids are clones, right?  Because THEY think that a normal, healthy penis "looks funny"? Why the hell are they judging the attractiveness of their son's penis?  Are they really worried about what some potential girlfriend MIGHT think about their kids' penis?  How fucking sick can you get?

When a woman's labia and vulva is hacked up, we call it what it is: Mutilation.  When we perform an unnecessary surgery, on a newborn, WITHOUT ANESTHETIC, we call it "normal"??? Where the fuck did THAT idea come from? Even practicing Jews are turning away from the surgery, although in fairness to the religion, the procedure is NOT done the way it is in the hospital. By a god damned OB??? Why would someone think that an OB would know what to do with a baby's penis? Even a pediatrician isn't a surgeon!

If you can't reduce, then reuse and recycle -- the ultimate conservationist use for breastmilk...

What  do you do when you have more breastmilk than you know what to do with?  Well, first choice is to donate it, but that is a long process, and in the meantime, it's easy to run out of space for it all.  Throwing it away is one of the most horrifying things that someone could possibly do to the most nutritious food on the planet.  One couple, who seem like some of the coolest people on the planet, have found an awesome use for it.  Daniel Angerer is making cheese out of his wife's extra milk.  Too bad it's not available for sale.

Yeah, I know this grosses people out.  But when I say that it's the most nutritious food, I mean it.  There is nothing better for the human body than human milk.  It is designed to give a person everything they can possibly need for their health (it's just usually not in sufficient quantities for an adult).  And while the cooking process will remove a lot of those nutrients, just the way cooking any food will, it's still an amazing way to help a growing boy or girl to stay healthy long past weaning!  Especially if you never breastfed at all.  And more so if your child has extreme allergies and will react to dairy products.  Which happens a lot.  'Cause, you know, COW MILK IS MEANT FOR BABY COWS, not baby humans, and it's almost amazing that humans can drink it at all.  It's from a different SPECIES, people.  That would be like suckling directly off a dog.  And yes, I use dairy.  I have no moral or ethical problems with it.  But I do resent the fact that breastfeeding is treated as a privilege, not the right it is, but forced milking of a cow is big business.

Why would we not flinch at eating cheese made from cow's milk, but hesitate to eat cheese made from human milk?  I'd rather something be MEANT for a human, rather than yanking the milk out of an ANIMAL and calling that "food."  Wouldn't you?  If you're like most people, no.  But there are some of us who find the whole process of eating cow's milk to be a little gross -- even if we still do it.

And besides, this can support a family!  No extra costs to house and feed the animals.  Just a gourmet dish made from the healthiest stuff on the planet.  I'd buy it!  Right now, breastfeeding has little public support pushing for its use.  There's no money in it, since it's provided to children for free. THIS however, may provide a way for making money -- and thus allow for breastfeeding lobbying and support.  And maybe will encourage others to use the milk that they were built to use, rather than the animal milk that some company sells us with the lies that it's as good as human milk -- or even close.

So KUDOS, Mr. and Mrs. Angerer.  For what it's worth, you have my support and my respect.  Good for both of you!  And yay for little Arabella/Caroline for getting the nutrition she needs and deserves.

And, just 'cause it's me: To anyone who thinks there's something wrong with this: Screw you.  As the name says, if you disagree with me, you're wrong.

The lips are connected to the clit, and the fingers are connected to the moneymaker...

So, if you can believe this...  Uncle Walter picked up a couple of old Penthouse magazines the other day.  I know!  I couldn't believe it either!  Anyway, I was thumbing through one from January 2007.  I won't give you the old BS about only reading it for the articles.  I mean, I DO read the articles, but the pictures are still nice.  In this particular issue, like others, the articles are all sex themed.

The first article is titled "Five Ways to Supersize Your Sex Drive," which primarily involves food.  There is advice such as to get sweaty during sex so that your skin will be more receptive to sensation.  This is followed up with the brilliant realization "don't overdo it -- if you get too hot, you'll feel burned out instead of turned on."  Uhhhhh.... duh.

This article is on the left page.  The right page has "Top 10 First Date Conversation Killers."  Like don't talk about death.  Again, shockingly obvious!  Really, don't bum out your first date?  Then again, you're not supposed to talk about your family or the weather, either.  Or Religion.  Or Politics.  Or your childhood.  Or your health history.  Or Money.  Or Sex.  So... um... what ARE you supposed to talk about?  Quite frankly, I disagree with every single one of these things.  These are some pretty heavy deal breakers (well, except for the weather, unless you find the temperature offensive).  I think you SHOULD talk about these things, or at least touch on the topics, so that you can find out if you're compatible at all.  But I tend to be a bit more realistic than most.  At least theoretically.

The next article of note is about that mythical event (for others -- Uncle Walter is a pro!): Foreplay. and the fabled Manly "Moan Zone."  Yes, this is as absurd as it sounds.  Especially with the androgynous diagrams that Penthouse includes.  You should also... get this... listen carefully because it's a big secret... HUG!  GET OUT OF HERE!  Really?  Nah!  Really?!  And some men like nipple stimulation.  But some men don't.  But you won't know which until you try.  But he might not like it.  You just can't tell.  They even delve into the (shhhh!) naughty, by indicating that some light slapping may be in order.  What a daring magazine Penthouse is!

And finally, there is "Surprisingly Sexy."  Where we discover "unusual" things that are erotic.  Like the missionary position.  Or fingers.  Or...  ding ding, we have a weiner!  "Teeny Weenies," those poor, misunderstood miniscule manroots.  Do you know why men with tiny penises are good?  Because they try harder at things like oral sex.  Hmmmm...  This is some pretty hard-hitting discoveries there, dear Penthouse.  I can't imagine the research that must have gone into this. 

Overall I rate the educational value of this magazine at a D-.  It's not clever.  There's nothing new to be told.  And the illustrations are poor.  If you need some real information, let me know and I'll give you some.  I don't need to sugar coat sex to make it more palatable.

When a man is a woman he can do no wrong...

When I was pregnant with my daughter, I had an irrational fear.  A deep and frightening worry that my little girl would be born with something called "Ambiguous Genitalia." There was nothing or no one who could convince me that she would be born healthy and "normal" until her actual birth and I could see for myself that she was healthy, whole and completely female. 

But 1 out of every 15,000 live births results in an intersexed child, also known as a "pseudo hermaphrodite" and while I was one of the lucky ones, not everyone is.  Those children are born with parts that don't automatically indicate whether they're a boy or a girl.  They either have a very large clitoris, or a very small penis (photos after jump)

Rode hard and put away wet...

To steal yet another idea from Uncle Walter (I can do that, I'm his wife), I decided to give an history lesson, but on something a bit more risque than tissue paper.  Have you ever heard phrases that are used sexually, but you just don't know why they came about?  Here are some of my favorite "misunderstood" terms.

"Rode Hard and Put Away Wet"
Does this REALLY have to do with sex?  Nope.  This has to do with horses.  When a horse is ridden fast and for long periods of time, it must be cared for properly before it's bedded down. You rub it down, removing sweat, to cool it down after a rough ride.  In reality, it doesn't signify that the horse is well satisfied, it means that it has been mistreated and needs extra tender loving care. From a sexual standpoint, the finish up is the same, though.  When you've ridden your partner hard, do take care to rub them down and clean them off.  It's just courtesy.

"Knockin' Boots"
Think this is another cowboy reference?  Nope.  This one actually is a sexual term, but I bet it's not what you think -- since it has nothing at all to do with your feet.  A "boot" is another term for a trunk.  And a "trunk" is another term for one's rear end -- in this case the rear end of the person on the receiving end of penetration.  So when you're "knockin' boots" you are actually referring to the sound (knocking) that is made when one is having sexual intercourse with rear penetration; ie the slapping of one body against another body's butt.  "Junk in the Trunk" is also be related to this (not just big butts, people!), in the sense that a man's genitalia can be referred to as junk -- junk in the trunk then being anal sex.

"Yanking the Crank" or "Crank Yanking"
In modern nomenclature, this refers to a hand job, either given by someone else, or performed on oneself.  In reality it has to do with cars.  Specifically with the crankshaft, and specifically with the motion of the pistons into the cylinders, pushed in and out by the crankshaft.  You can see where I'm going with this, right?  But now you can feel free to use this term in mixed company -- just be ready to explain yourself when said company is quite shocked.  I have to do that a lot.

"Diddle Your Dipstick"
Another car reference here.  A dipstick is a device to measure the amount of oil in a car's engine.  When checking the oil in your car it is important for your dipstick to be as clean as possible so that you can accurately measure, since the motions and vibrations from the road can splash the oil onto it higher than it actually is.  When a rag isn't handy, you can "diddle" your dipstick, by moving it rapidly back and forth, to remove the excess oil.  Next time you're at a dinner party, you can entertain your guests by discussing how much trouble you had the last time you diddled your dipstick.

"Dip Your Wick"
But wait, you're saying... this one is way too easy.  And it is, kind of.  The obvious explanation is that the wick is a penis, and you're dipping it into a vagina.  But its HISTORY is in candle making.  Before mass production, candles were made by hand, either from tallow or wax (with tallow being cheaper since beef fat was easier to come by).  When making a tallow candle you had to dip the wick, merely a cord or string, into warmed and liquid tallow, then allow it to dry, usually by hanging it on a beam or rod.  To make the work quicker and easier, the maker would often dip both ends of the wick.  After a drying period, the wick was dipped again, then dried.  This was repeated until the candle was of a desired thickness.  (Wax candles were usually made of beeswax and thus rolled into a candle with the wick at the center.)  Quite frankly, making candles has never really interested me.  But dipping wicks always manages to grasp my attention.

What are your favorite euphemisms for sex?  And do you know what they REALLY mean?

Sex Education For Girls...

As a follow up to yesterday's post, we now bring you sex education for girls.  Okay, guys, we mean it!  No cheating!  This is for girls only!

First, we must show the ideal woman:

Yes, the ideal woman has very little hair, a near monoboob, and a bush that you could use for topiary.  Isn't she gorgeous?   Of course she is.  This is the beauty you should always strive for.  Ignore her despondant, far off, tortured expression.

I know what you're really asking, though.  What does a woman look like on *whisper* the inside??

 Notice the blood just oozing out of her. That, dear girls, is menstruation.  And that is all you need to know.  Really, there's not much else about it.

But not to be unfair to the girls, here is what boys look like:

If you have any questions, please feel free to do just this -- stare enraptured at your younger brother's crotch while he's in the tub.  It won't make him feel uncomfortable or anything.  And your mom won't get mad.  Who would find this disturbing??

And that is all you REALLY need to know.  You don't think so?  Well... okay, you're right.  There is just a little more you need to know.

This is how you have sex.  That's right.  There's nothing more to it.  You will get smooshed, have a transparant leg, and no feet or head.  You will, unfortunately, enjoy this about as much as it looks like you will.  Especially with a guy that poorly endowed.  I'm not sure what happened to the rest of her internal organs, but this is all the important bits.  Please take note of the random boob.  This is so you know which is the man and which is the woman.  I'm sure it helps.

Any questions?  No?  Good.  Because I have some more things to cover, you see.  Eventually you will experience the wonders of your first crush.  This picture explains it all.  A crush is when a weird older woman teacher has the hots for you.

Don't worry about  your friends.  They may be jealous, but the cougar will soon move on to other prey.

Does this make you question your sexuality?  It might, but don't worry, I have some information for you on just that topic! 

How do you know if you're gay?  It's simple to tell, really.

If you are more interested in the boob that the little girl is pointing at, than the ice cream that the Fonzi look alike is bringing you?  Yeah, then you're gay.

If that's the case, don't worry about birth control, cause you can't make a baby with a matching set.

If, however, you find that you are NOT gay, you must use birth control before having sex.  Here are the devices available:

Through tube socks, toothpaste and doughnuts, of course!  Now, we're not going to actually tell you what to DO with the tube sock, toothpaste and doughnut.  We'll leave that up to the boys to teach you.  Because we all know how eager a boy will be to use protection.  And we're only teaching it to them.

What, that's not helpful??? Okay, we'll let you in on a few more secrets.  That thing that looks like a plate?  That's a sperm trampoline.  And that thing that looks like a clam eating some tic-tacs?  That is your standard pack of birth control pills.

This is all self-explanatory, isn't it?  Good.  I knew it would be.

We're almost done!  I'm sure you want to knw what to do when the babies eventually come.  As they will when you realize that toothpaste, tube socks, trampolines, doughnuts and clams don't REALLY stop babies.

Instead, this is what you'll face:

Pay no attention to how stretched out and bulbous your vagina will become.  I'm sure it will bounce right back into a tight, virginal opening again.

 First, the doctor will perform the necessary surgery of leg amputation.  How else will he be able to see the baby coming out?  I'm sure he'll be able to sew that leg right back on when he's done.

Then you will expell the baby from your body.  This will not hurt at all.  Surely if it hurt there would be SOME expression on this woman's face.  We all know that pictures don't lie.

Since the labor will be painless and easy, and all that swelling will go down, you will, of course, find yourself pregnant many more times.

Ultimately you will have to find something to do with your children, but don't worry.  We have an answer to that as well.

What will you do, then, you might ask?

Pimp them out, of course!  You'll dress them smartly, and hang out on the steps to haggle the prices for their favors.

That's what a good parent would do.  And after all, they have to earn their keep somehow, don't they? Selfish little buggers thinking that they can mooch off of you indefinitely!

Don't be a pushover.  They'll come to like it in time.  Don't even ask what they plan on doing with the dog.  You REALLY don't want to know that.