635 – White Smoke Mountain • 04

The Friday Blog

One day It cornered a buddy of mine and made him explain the mechanics of gay sex to me. I already knew what went where, (or I thought I did) but I didn’t understand why all the other guys mooned over his new boyfriend just because the guy had a huge pecker. (Big around as a Coke can.) It seemed to me that a big penis would be a liability in gay sex, since generally speaking, that hole should be smaller. (So much I didn’t understand.)

My friend, between giggles and hiding his face, (absolutely the the most shameless dude in the world… when not explaining sex to a straight guy) clued me in on the whole prostate/male G-spot deal. See, unlike a woman, when a guy gets poked he almost always has an orgasm without any special effort. Objectively, it seems quite unfair. In the missionary position, a guy is likely to completely miss a woman’s most orgasm-producing area, since he’s aiming towards the back and the spot in question is up and in front. But guys on guys practically can’t help but hit the right place. (It has long been my opinion that the missionary position became the officially church-sanctioned way of doin’ it specifically because it’s the least likely to produce any female satisfaction.)

So naturally that got me thinking about god. Making the jump and saying that god made man in his own image, (and faked the whole evolution thing to throw us off the scent) we know a few things about god. One thing we know is that god is built to enjoy gay lovin’. Another is that he’d rather watch TV than work, but that’s for another discussion. When god makes the world he makes all these crazy-assed animals and “natural” systems that work perfectly together and all serve a purpose, because the way the world operates is part of god’s plan. If god made it that way, that’s the way it ought to be and we stupid humans ought not go mucking about with it.

So… what’s up with the butt sex? God is rather infamously down on butt sex… so why did he make it an even more efficient pleasure-producer than the vaginal variety? And if he made it that way, shouldn’t we respect that? Evolutionarily speaking, butt sex makes a certain amount of sense. Bang a dude when you just want to get off, and bang a chick when you want to make some babies. Bring the tribe close. The family that comes together sticks together. I would go so far as to suggest my own sexual prejudice in favor of women is entirely cultural in nature, and is likely the opposite of god’s original intention.

Which points up what most likely happened. God made man thinking “Hey, this dude can fuck anybody he wants. I made him, I want him to have fun.” But then some point later god changed his mind and thought, “Y’know, this ‘man’ thing is starting to piss me off. To hell with you. You want satisfaction? Fine. You have to be able to get women now! See how you like that!” (We all know that god hates women. Man and woman have sex, he gets an orgasm, she gets pregnant. Duh.) Now god, being omniscient, knew he was going to change his mind and knew he shouldn’t have made the butt sex so attractive, but since god is a bit of a prick himself and can never admit it when he’s wrong, he just let the whole thing slide all these years and pretended to be off golfing or snorkeling in Aruba or whatever it is god’s doing when he isn’t making little images of his kid on someone’s toast.

My friend eventually stopped going out with the guy with the giant pecker. I think he still drinks Coke though.

39 Responses to 635 – White Smoke Mountain • 04

  1. First comment I think, hopefully in before the dogmatics on all sides.
    Seriously, dude, I had one ex-girlfriend who loved cowboy position and as far as I know she’s still a Christian virgin. No prostate there, really, no chance. I think that this proves that what a person enjoys from sex depends more on what they think about it and feel about it than how the anatomy works.

    • Wellll… I’m gonna say nay on that one. Sure, anyone can overcome obstacles, and different people get different things out of different experiences. But the anatomy is there, and in general, it does dictate what you’re going to get out of it.

      P.S. Butt sex for wimmins is MUCH less painful in the “missionary” position than from behind. Everything points the right way from that angle.

  2. and what about the fact that female orgasm is supposedly far more pleasurable then male? in duration intensity and location (whole body not just the groin)

    also Kevin sorry about that website I directed you to the other day, I found a better one more suitable to our tastes tell me what you think about it? (wont post link in case that gets me in trouble again so just google it)
    “uncyclopedia” waaaaay better trust me! =D

  3. Wow Kevin. Even though I don’t subscribe to it, I’m pretty sure you’re goin to hell for that one. You know the one thing that gets God really pissy is criticism. That and butt sex. Ok, that’s two things. And doubting his invention of evolution too… so that’s three. Um, yeah, so it’s hell for you buddy. Or maybe he’ll put you to work putting his kid’s image on toast as punishment.

    • I have always been tremendously reassured by the fact that no matter how badly god wants to put me in his eternal choir singing his praises… forever… he can’t do it without my say-so.

  4. The family that comes together sticks together.

    With corrected spelling, that’s a very deep line.

    And actually, most of the “can’t” from the early church were established to start humanity on a course of hygeine so that we would live longer. Since that hole is normally an exit and not an entrance, the stuff that exits can cause some really nasty disease (even pre-AIDS, those E.coli bacteria can really mess you up). Since people back then didn’t have hand-sanitizer and didn’t wash as much, the chances of getting sick from that activity was much higher. In comes the church with that magic hash tag #SIN and now, instantly they get throngs of people to quit doing it. People get healthier (and thus the church gets richer, the ultimate motivation behind it all). After enough years, it has been established as a taboo without anyone ever knowing why. If you look at Greek and Roman societies, they regularly practiced it….until the church got a foothold there. Those societies were pretty clean (public baths!), but the #SIN tag came along and squashed it anyway.

    Same goes for why certain foods were outlawed. Trichinosis was a bad parasite you could get from certain meats (pork in particular). Slap that #SIN bad boy on there and BAM, people living longer giving more money to the church. There are plenty of other examples. Almost all of the centered (directly or indirectly) around keeping the church coffers full.

    • I REALLY doubt anyone in the church had any firmer a grasp on sanitation than anyone else of the day, and probably a lot less than the scientists that they not just ignored, but denounced as heretics.

      As for the foods, it’s a pretty simple observation that anyone that eats undercooked pig has a tendency to get sick. And from that a simple jump to “god doesn’t want you to eat that”. However, I have a harder time imagining that anyone was running around yelling “I had butt-sex and got sick!”

      We know from the literature of the time that the church believed a big part of man’s purpose on earth was specifically to suffer, and that things that were fun for fun’s sake were frowned upon, if not actually punishable. While this notion has sort of taken a back seat in most of today’s Christian faiths, it isn’t gone, and that’s still when all the rules were made. (And it is SO hard to overturn a religious law without the implication that at some point the church was “wrong” about something.)

      • Now that’s just unfair, Kevin.

        The scientists of the day WERE part of the church. The most educated persons were involved with religious institutions.

        Mendel, who figured out genetics? With nothing more than paper, pens, and pea plants? Christian monk.

        Much, much later than the original founding of the christian traditions, once the enlightenment and renaissance came about, THAT is when the church was not the leader in technological and scientific advancements. Until then, they held a stranglehold on the educated population by virtue of logistics.

        • I may have been conflating the two time periods but that doesn’t refute my point. Phenomena (do-doo-de-doodoo) with unobservable causes have always been attributed to the supernatural by religious people. Sometimes they happened to get a preventative measure right even though they were clueless as to the real cause… but mostly they got it wrong. For every Mendel who simply made observations, there were 10,000 human sheep thinking the best way to ensure good crops was to burn the single women.

          • I disagree still.

            It’s as I said: for hundreds of years, the only people with an education were priests and monks. Everyone else was a dirt poor serf / peasant, slave, soldier, or king / noble.

            And it wasn’t very often the nobles got their kids educated, not for a few hundred years. And when they did, most of them went off and became a priest anyways. Go figure.

            • The church is one of the few place that would provide what is currently labelled passive income. Perhaps that’s why ursury is such an evil Sin (it allows people to get a foothold of competing with the corporate church).

              But religion was the old science.
              And most of it fits, once you take out the corporate/marketing bits the church has added in.
              Eat fish on friday – because God said so – “God” said so because there’s an excellent chance that if you’re not ever eating fish then you won’t get Iodine into your diet and “God Says” if you don’t get iodine you’re likely get thyroid problems.

              “God said” be purified and cleansed or evil corruption that is all around you in the material world, unseen and invisible, will enter you soul and destroy you. So they made special waters in special bowls and annointed themselves ritually and taboos were placed around the dead, effluent, cooking (basically anything that smelt bad) and all those things smelling pleasant (bread, flowers, beer) were considered cleansed and blessed by “God”. Thus those who righteously followed “Gods” word tended to stay health. Those who didn’t, especially those of poorer classes were smited by “God” who made them sick or dead. Obviously those who were rich, clean, and with healthy immune systems were appropriately “blessed by God”. And amusingly enough failure to believe this tended to result in the evolutionary effect of dropping dead of illness!

              • Since when do you get much iodine from fresh-water fish? Like iodine from plants, it depends if the water or soil contains enough potassium iodate, potassium iodide, sodium iodate, and sodium iodide. If it doesn’t, then in times past you either had to supplement your diet with sea salt or kelp, or develop goitre.

                Not to mention you’d have to eat the fish’s head, where its thyroid gland and most of the iodine is, too. And boiling, grilling, or frying reduces iodine contest, sometimes sugnificantly, according to this study.
                http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/17/2/73.pdf
                But eating raw fish, even when it’s fresh or cured, is a sure-fire way of getting infected with fish tapeworm. It’s endemic in Japan.

                Not to mention the Church declared the beaver a fish, so it could be eaten on Fridays (it was tasty!). When it swims in water, the logic went, it’s a fish, don’t argue with us. Doesn’t matter if it’s also covered in fur and walks around on land eating bark.

                Seriously, the Jewish Jewish dietary laws and the medieval Church commandments about food and food preparation contain so much nonsense, it’s not surprising there’s some positive hits in there, too. Don’t give them too much credit. Their goal was not general health, they arrived at their ideas using magical thinking… a plant that has kidney shaped leaves must be good against kidney stones, that sort of thing. That’s not saying that poeple didn’t notice if something worked and wrote it down (if they could write that is), and used it from then on.

        • TSED wrote:
          “The scientists of the day WERE part of the church. The most educated persons were involved with religious institutions.
          Mendel, who figured out genetics? With nothing more than paper, pens, and pea plants? Christian monk.”

          I’m sorry, that’s complete bullsh*t, TSED.

          Gregor Mendel lived from 1822-1884, which was in the middle of the Enlightenment era and a LONG way from the Middle Ages or the Renaissance.

          Secondly, Mendel didnt discover genetic because he was a monk. He was part of the Augustinian priesthood, yes, but he wasn’t a practising church cleric. He was a physics teacher who also studied astronomy and meteorology. He gardened, and kept bees. Back in those days, before formal scientific education split up into the many different, distinct areas and specialisations we have today, the universities mostly taught The Humanities (Latin and Greek literature, history, medicine, philosophy, natural philosophy, rhetorics, logic, geography etc).

          Anyone who pursued a higher education was advised to take Orders and become a layman priest or monk. Heck, Charles Darwin did! (The your Darwin originally followed the wishes of his father and started studying medicine, until he decided that he didn’t have the stomach for cutting people open and took the chance to hop on a ship voyage to the tropics as a zoologist/botanist with the job of collecting and recording new species along the way.)

          Unless you were a gentleman of independent means, being a monk meant you had the time to read books, teach and do silly little things like breed hybrid plants and bees while other people had to work with their hands for a living.

          And please note that The Church did not understand what Mendel had stumbled about in his breeding experiments. Instead, his findings, although published, were largely forgotten and not rediscovered until the early 20th century. Neither Darwin nor Wallace knew about Mendelian “genetics”. (The word “gene” was not invented until 1909 by the Danish botanist Wilhelm Johannsen.) Not to mention that Mendel fudged his own figures to create more pleasing statistics. *cough* The body of his work is still correct.

  5. “It has long been my opinion that the missionary position became the officially church-sanctioned way of doin’ it specifically because it’s the least likely to produce any female satisfaction.”
    Of course as in religious circles it’s believe that if the woman doesn’t get any enjoyment out of the sexual act she will be a lot less likely to committ infidelity. It’s a lot easier to blame someone else then realise it’s your own damn fault for not taking the time to learn what the hell your doing.

    But the Christian way is still alot better then the Muslim way where they start cutting off female bits.

    • LOL.

      “It’s a lot easier to blame someone else then realise it’s your own damn fault for not taking the time to learn what the hell your doing.”

    • The “Muslim” way is actually a (a) tribal practice that has grown and (b) apparantly effective.

      But the reason for the reply is your complete non-sequitor. Just because you know what you’re doing doesn’t mean their is no case of infidelity.

      From my examination of the customs in that area, a large part of the reason for the operation is not related directly to infidelity (it appears that’s one of those “Post hoc, ergo propter hoc” cases) although I’m sure given most peoples’ sexual insecurities (and the disease vector factor) that it’s a very popular reasoning given.

      It seems to relate a lot to trying to keep women focussed on other things apart from their own selves and appetites and make it easier to direct them onto Family/family-business (being the same thing over there) goals and greater community activities. Again it seems to be quite effective and the other striking fact is that it’s a female custom, handed down the female line by females (and not enforced or put in place by males as often assumed – see infidelity)

      • Well, female circumcision is sadly enforced by mothers unto their daughters, but only because it has become a social custom, and the mothers are more afraid of the idea that an uncircumcised daughter might not be successfully married off than of the actual act of mutilating her daughter – along with the nerve damage, the risk of severe infection which might render her sterile, and the fact that at least in those cases where all labiae are cut off and the woman is sewn closed, she can neither have proper sex afterwards nor bear children unless you cut her open again beforehand.

  6. Speaking as a butt-sex lover, I don’t find huge penises all that attractive, to tell you the truth.
    I know lots/most gays like the feeling/sight of a huge penis down there, but the “pleasure center” is right past the entrence, so even a small one can do the job, and it won’t get you, err…sore.

    I’d never let a guy as hung as you described get near me.

  7. The question I have always wanted to know is what is the appeal of oral sex for the giving party. 😐

    • For me there have always been two reasons to go down on someone. Either I just want to make her happy, (and it’s a fairly failsafe means of doing so) or I am trying to look good so as to ensure future sex. I assume that for the most part that holds true across gender preference.

      However, I do think that some people are very turned on by giving oral sex… even more than normal. I think for these individuals that the act is an end unto itself, and I have known guys and girls that fit into this category. I imagine that there’s a bit of “Look what I can do!” about it, as well as a feeling of being in control of another person. Altogether it makes a heady mix. (heh heh)

      • Yeah, I enjoyed the being-in-control and the instant gratification (do: anything, get: reaction).

        Been FOREVER since I had a chick to go down on though.

    • There is probable truth to the whisper of psychology that says it can be an infantile oral fixation. Which could account for that deep down obsessive-compulsive desire which seems to make it have unreasoning interest/curiousity (or for other people the complete lack thereof).

      Partly it’s the full sensual thing.
      Sometimes it’s a mental image/involvement thing.

      And with all sexual acts there seems to be a strong link between the desired activities and the relationship/environment of the participants. (For some folks if they’re having a bad month, they find release by being submissive. Others who like things straight and predictable would have difficulty adjusting themselves to non-mainstream sexuality. Whereas others who must keep a veneer of modesty, find a variety of ways to express both the suppression and the release of it.) Which considering it’s a need based on inner pressures, between consenting informed adults, is ridiculous for outsiders to attempt to control/legislate.

      It really does need the other partner to be enjoying it (IMO), at least in some fashion (even at certain times they might be trying to ignore it)

      • I just like to try and drive a woman crazy. Watch her squirm hear, her scream.

        (even at certain times they might be trying to ignore it)
        Hell that just makes it more fun and means you have to work harder.

  8. Well I also am a great lover of buttsex, and have even had the honor of seeing that “coke can” I had two words, NO WAY!!!
    Of course, when it comes to buttsex I have the christmas spirit, it is better to give that to receive. Strangely enough, I still always have an orgasm.

    • I wrote a response to this which was (in my opinion) sweet and sharing, but upon review I decided that if Lena read it she would murderize me and I’d never get to finish HOLE.

      So instead I simply say Good For You! You’ve found a perfect balance between giving and receiving.

  9. Friend of mine is gay and his boyfriend had (or has, I’m not sure if he’s still doing them) a video series on youtube where he answers questions people send him about being gay, marriage and his take on it, or just whatever you want to ask him. The one I watched was about the “first time” for gay sex. It was fascinating. Not something I’m willing to try, I’m just not into dudes, but interesting all the same.

  10. Excellent post, Kevin. Don’t forget that traditionally all angels are hermaphrodites with a male appearance, and you start to get some idea of who you’re dealing with. Our race was created to be love slaves for gay aliens. Now get down on your knees and pray for the spirit to come in, I mean into, you.

  11. A quick search revealed that healthy PC muscles can stimulate it too. Stimulating it externally seems more like a “back door” approach (please don’t kill me). There are hundreds of other things that feel good but may or not be good, from fun (good at times, bad when you should be working) to drugs. It’s not a matter of whether or not these things are good or bad (though they may be), it’s more a matter of people figuring out their own ways to force stimulation. You could apply “If this is bad, why does it feel so good” to thousands of things, both to bad and good things for that matter.

    Honestly, the “Hey, hey, what about this?” approach to “scientific” reasoning gets tiring and unscientific. The strong bias is obvious; they’re plainly waiting only for anything that might kinda sorta support their view. As is the fact that that’s not actually a scientific approach. I see people do it all the time from when they have their own religious/political views to when they have an idea from something “cool” and don’t understand why science doesn’t work that way.

    • “If this is bad, why does it feel so good”

      Paracelsus:
      German: Alle Ding’ sind Gift, und nichts ohn’ Gift; allein die Dosis macht, daß ein Ding kein Gift ist.
      “All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose permits something not to be poisonous.”