This isn’t an option for me but I totally encourage all the males reading this to go ahead and make the easy cash by doing this. I can’t because my future wife is probably a toddler right now or not born yet, so if I ever grace a sperm bank with my seed, I would only have 19 years from that date to freely date younger girls without having to check if she’s my daughter or not. It extra sucks too since the world definitely deserves more Richard. I wish there was a way to make a lot of offspring with multiple gene-worthy partners without the deal-breakers of:
1) anonymous donation equating to possible daughter being released into the wild for me to unintentionally prey upon.
2) societal stigma of having a different baby momma for each of my 13 babies.
3) the possibility of said future child rising to defeat me.
But like I said: for the rest of you, you should totally do it, especially if you’re a Viking. It’s not QUITE as easy as dropping off a vile of baby batter into a Blockbuster drop-box though…
It’s not free money, says Scott Brown, head of communications. Donors must be at least 5 feet 9 inches tall and enrolled in — or have a degree from — a four-year university. Plus, they have to pass an assortment of genetic and medical tests, screenings, not to mention an investigation into their family’s medical history to look for the early onset of heart disease, cancer, etc.
“We joke that it’s easier to get into Harvard than to get accepted in our program,” says Brown. That’s funny because it’s true — Brown estimates that only 1% of all the applications are accepted. Harvard’s acceptance rate this year was 6.9%.
Most of California Cryobank’s donors stick with it for about a year and a half, donating once or twice per week, according to Brown. Each time they donate, they’re asked to abstain from sex for 48 hours beforehand and they get $100 per donation. The sperm bank mostly recruits at colleges, and many of its donors are students at Stanford University, Harvard University, University of California at Los Angeles and so on.
Earlier this week, a YouTube video surfaced from The World of Dance competition in which a group of young — and we mean really young — girls wearing midriff-baring tops, short skirts and black stockings dance to Beyonce’s ‘Single Ladies.’ The dance troupe, called Precision Dance, hails from Orange County, and definitely “put a ring on it” during the competition in Pomona on April 10.
I clicked on this expecting a horrifying and heart breaking sexualization of children that will seriously mess with their heads, send horrible messages to the rest of society and generally add another block to a counter-culture wall that can only end badly. then it started and I was like “oh, its not that bad”. then i got a better look at the stripper outfits and went back to the “this is awful” position. but then when you see that there’s actual talent here – and there is – you just get confused. these kids are friggin not, playing. dayum.
so then my position on it becomes annoyance that the parents responsible for this allowed the controversy to happen at all. who the fuck thought these costumes were a good idea? you ruined it. fail. stupid. wtf moron. you have kids who can rock a dance move to a contemporary song that ya, might get some scrutiny over the bumping and gyrating but its not overt and there isnt anything clearly with sexual intent so fine – but why.the.fuck. did you put them in Vegas showgirl costumes? why did you turn an otherwise awesome and adorable performance into a pedophile spank session? you are an idiot.
Looking for answers, I found that the parents had in fact responded to the controversy over the video:
Melissa Presch, the mom of one little dancer and Cory Miller, the father of another child in the group spoke to Inside Edition about the controversy. “I’m shocked, quite frankly, that people would suggest such things and say such things about 8 and 9 year old girls,” said Melissa Presch claiming the girls got their moves from the ‘Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel’ movie — not Beyonce’s music video.
Then why did you allow them to be dressed like whores? Wtf? First: just because the dance moves were allegedly in a PG kids movie doesnt mean they are automatically appropriate, but in this case she’s right. the dance moves aren’t inherently suggestive. but the costumes are, you dumb whore. when you’re wearing tassels and short shorts and tops, ANY hip movement in any direction is going to have sexual connotations.
The stupidity of this woman in her super-serious pseudo-SHOCK that others “would say such things about 8 and 9 year old girls” is a dosage of obnoxious that could produce enough vomit to feed a dozen dogs for a dozen days. The idiot father who similarly brushes off the charges of sexualization as “nah, when you look at it as a father, you’re just proud of your kids” is a level of WTF that would make even Japan say WTF – and Japan is the epicenter of WTF.
Dude: its about presentation. ya, thats great that you’re not getting a boner over your daughters stripper routine – we’re all very proud of you – but why are you not the least bit concerned about her being pedophile bait? Not “jailbait” – which is a post-puberty young adult below the age of 18 – PED-O-PHILE-BAAAIT. god you’re so gross.
“doesn’t really know what shes doing” is not a justification any more than the guy who told Cartman he could get a ton of free Sea Monkeys if he just closed his eyes and sucked through a tube. he goes on to say “even certain parts of the dance weren’t even choreographed to be [soft core porn]“. thanks dad. great to know.
Such a waste.
Final Thought: as frighteningly nutballs it is that that parents are this willfully blind and as unfortunate it is that these talented kids had to have an otherwise kick-ass performance get ruined by the taint of skankdom – at least it is a safe bet that the ones that grow up to be hot in 7-10 years will be preconditioned to have low inhibitions and will be unprotected by watchful parents. so. at least there’s that…
16 and Pregnant on MTV remains awesomely hilarious, but I’m not cold to the tragic aspects of teen pregnancy. People say it’s not like they were TRYING to get pregnant but really they’re all “trying” through carelessness. several times i have used an actual hammer to beat out sore back muscles, hit too hard and bruised myself. do i deserve sympathy because i wasnt TRYING to get hurt? all i wanted was to feel good. what, is there another, safer way to do it or something?
I dont know why sex is so poorly taught to young people. teens will always err on the side of danger if it most benefits them and we know this. thats why they bring in mangled cars and pictures of splattered brains caused by drunk drivers into high schools – to illustrate the whole “hey, i know you were told not to do this, but.. now im gonna make it real since youre young/stupid and punchdrunk with chemical changes”. why do we go through such lengths to get teens to not drink and do drugs but the approach on sex is “hey now, its not good y’knowz. but if you’re gonna do it, here’s how i can make it really easy for you”? a good “this is what happens and this is what life is like” edu-talk in every school would do wonders and isnt even controversial. wtf america.
the end result of “if theyre gonna do it, we want them to do it safely” is best approached by not phrasing it that way. we dont talk like that with any other behavior we want to detour outside of drugs[/alch] & sex. we dont say “dont cut your arms when you fight with your parents, BUT IF YOU DO… slice horizontal, not vertical”. teens arent ignorant about how sex works. aside from the health and biology aspects, they all know what goes where just like they understand that cars go fast when you press on the gas and people who are drunk have impaired reaction skills. instead of trying to teach young adults out of bad decisions by oddly and falsely assuming that the more they know about the mechanics of the “car” (in this case, their body) the less likely they’ll do things they’re told not to, we should be teaching them into the reality of those decisions, like the likelihood and the actual details of the risk if you lose the gamble, since ignorance on THOSE – not ovulation and seaman production – are the real problem.
I wish my girlfriend could comment on this but she’s grounded from the internet for another week. ill ask her later though when i pick her up from cheer practice.
Cigarettes are the only drug type substance people get hooked on that starts with a horrible experience. You do heroine or wine coolers and anything in between and you’re like “dude, this is AWESOME” or at least “ya, this is giving me what I want enough to keep doing this”, but with smoking it’s horrible for everyone. You cough, it hurts – everyone reports bad first try’s, yet they are stupid enough to force themselves to get hooked and dependent on this expensive life shortening and quality-of-life decreasing product. Good one…idiots.
According to the investigators, 28 percent of the study participants smoked at least one cigarette a day, around 3 percent said they were ex-smokers, and 68 percent had never smoked.
The smokers had significantly lower intelligence test scores than non-smokers, and this remained true even after the researchers accounted for socioeconomic status as measured by how many years of formal education a recruit’s father had completed.
The average IQ for non-smokers was about 101, while it was 94 for men who had started smoking before entering the military. IQ steadily dropped as the number of cigarettes smoked increased, from 98 for people who smoked one to five cigarettes daily to 90 for those who smoked more than a pack a day. IQ scores from 84 to 116 are considered to indicate average intelligence.
Recruits aren’t allowed to smoke while intelligence tests are administered, the researchers note, so it’s possible that withdrawal symptoms might affect smokers’ scores. To address this issue, they also looked at IQ scores for men who were non-smokers when they were 18 but started smoking during their military service. These men also scored lower than never-smokers (97 points, on average), “indicating that nicotine withdrawal was probably not the cause of the difference,” the researchers say.
The researchers also compared IQs for 70 pairs of brothers in the group in which one brother smoked and the other did not. Again, average IQs for the non-smoking sibling were higher than for the smokers.
This French anti-smoking ad campaign (whats next? German anti-bratwurst commercials?) says the message nicely.. (more…)
Dennis Prager, best-selling author and nationally syndicated radio talk show host, begins his discussion on male/female differences. The male preoccupation with the visual is the first topic raised.
The video reiterates a point I have been trying to cram into dumb girls dense skulls since 8th grade: What you think is “looking pretty” is in fact, to a guy, “advertising your sex”. When you wear short, low cut, tight things, no male is looking at you and thinking “gosh, she sure is pretty” and more than he thinks “gosh, that sure is an artistically looking cut of beef” when he see’s a thick medium-rare Ribeye being sliced on a commercial for Outback Steakhouse. Dennis says this effect on men is impossible for women to understand. He’s probably right.
He also briefly mentions strip clubs vs male strip clubs, which is the biggest “duh” ever, that it shows how illogical a females thinking is when I hear the two compared as if they were equal. Please… Male strip clubs are for gay guys and bachelorette party jokes. It’s hilarious for young women to see men strip for their entertainment and its mentally satisfying for middle aged (and older) women to see the younger men that used to be chasing them strip – neither goes out with the girls to see dudes dance as a turn-on and no female goes to these places alone because, like i said, its a gag. It’s the reason Girls Gone Wild is a billion dollar industry and Guys Gone Wild is a one-tape humor-based parody. Open your eyes people… The only reason anyone is dumb enough to equate male and female sexual nature is that college professors are dumb enough to believe it, and America has a hard time understanding how educated people can believe stupidly obvious untruths.
Prager has many more of these 5 minute condensed semesters over at PragerU.com
Deep in the jungles, 2 BBC nature reporters find the rare kakapo, which you’ll all recognize as of course “the old night parrot of New Zealand”, whatever the hell that means. At first I read that as the “only night parrot” and that appeared to make sense. but. nope. its the “old” one.
Old or not, the dude likes rough sex, complete with clawing and face slapping. hot.
Fry and zoologist Mark Carwardine have been tracking down some of the most endangered animals on the planet in a six-part series.
Men and Women alike often have a hard time understanding that females are not visually stimulated, sexually. I blame this mostly on the brainwash of college and culture that lies to kids and tells them there are no differences between the sexes and teaches them a black-and-white idiotic philosophy against generalizations (things that are generally true).
The David Letterman “I know you had sex with employee’s” blackmail attempt illustrates this as one of the girls, a former intern named Holly Hester comes forward about her affair with the Late Nite host.
“I was madly in love with him at the time,” said Hester. “I would have married him. He was hilarious.” It all started in 1990 when Letterman asked her out on a date to see a movie and the secret romance (/affair? he’s been with the mother of his child since 1989. no word on if they had gone on a “break” the year of 1990), until the funnyman called it off because of their age difference (chicks half your age are only good for one thing, and that thing isn’t “long term relationship that ends in marriage”).
So she was “madly in love” with him… because “he was hilarious”… Can you imagine for a second a man saying that about a woman? of course not, Captain Rhetorical. Not in a comparable circumstance (obviously). If the woman is Sarah Silverman, then that’s not quite the same as a 62 year old David Letterman, now is it.
30 something years ago, a Hollywood director named after an Italian empire allegedly started having sex with a 13 year old girl he was hot for. Some time after that, he drugged her and then had sex with her at Jack Nichelsons house while Jack was away on vacation or something – he got prosecuted for it somehow and he plead guilty to rape. This was supposed to be not THAT big a deal since she allegedly had the consensual sex with him before the rape, and also because he directed Chinatown, which was a good movie, so he should probably not get a heavy sentence. He got 40something days in prison and then fled the country before serving (or even officially receiving) his sentence and has been living abroad all this time. When he arrived in Switzerland to receive an award, the Swiss police, armed with cheese and army knives, seized him at the airport at American authority’s request and now theres a big clusterfuck on what to do with him.
There are a lot of stupid people saying really stupid things in response to this, but the most important cliffnotes of this story are: 1) passage of time doesn’t negate a crime 2) the crime was not just a technicality (unless the victim was really hot. which im gonna say, no. she wasnt) and was pretty wrong 3) prosecution is appropriate and 4) that prosecution should be reasonable since attacking this too hard just isn’t a good investment of law enforcement recourses.
The common Hollywood sentiment is Polanski’s crime is inexcusable but let me make excuses for him anyway. lame. especially since its so unnecessary. There are legit reasons why Polanski shouldn’t be drilled into the ground no matter what the expense and spectacle; there are no legit reasons (including his age, the gap since the crime or fact that his mother died in Auschwitz – wtf?) to just leave him alone completely.
I think we call agree that the real and most heinous and unforgivable sin Polanski committed was the tarnishing the record of male sexual nature, setting the jailbait movement back countless years (well, not TOO many years cuz then you circle back to it being moral, legal and all around hunky dorey) with his “Everyone wants to f*ck young girls!” (Polanski 1979) declaration – which is true – and then going way TOO young, and living the dream via rape for Christ sake. ug.
Closing item for consideration: I guess this girl at the end is the victim(?)
This Shake Weight exercise for women infomercial has gone viral because there are apparently thousands of morons and 13 year olds that see literally any clasped hand gesture to have a clear association with jerking off. I don’t get it at all. At no point in this video do any of the girls make a single motion that resembles penis stimulation in the slightest way, yet that exact imagery is obvious enough to a lot of people.
What? No one handles a penis like this. Not dudes, not girls, not your doctor or uncle when they tell you to keep it your little secret – no one. I dont understand it… It’s like how people call the Washington monument a phallic symbol. Huh? Whose dick is a cube with a pyramid head? Why are there supposed penises in everything these days?
In the recent episode of South Park, titled The Ring, Kenny takes his new girlfriend to a Jonas Brothers’ concert where they each get purity rings. Somehow this turns into harsh criticism of Disney that went completely over my head, which makes me think it was bullshit since not much goes over my head besides hats and maybe a fez on a Sunday afternoon.
I thought the episode was misplaced satire, even though I don’t know very much about the band. The thesis appeared to be that Disney is a big hypocritical fraud by promoting a band whose members don’t have sex, yet are sexually appealing. Huh? Where exactly is the hypocrisy beef? Did I miss something? They don’t prance around without a shirt (like I do) or have suggestive lyrics in their songs and I’ve never seen the brothers hump the air or pump around suggestively like the South Park versions of them did.
So wtf? The South Park guys seem to just really hate the idea of teenagers not having sex whenever they feel like it. I’d get it if the Band appealed primarily to 17-23 year olds cuz then I’d be all duh – screw the purity ring and screw me. But aren’t the Jonas Bros 10 to 14 year old territory primarily? And eh… Isn’t this a group that maybe should probably not be encouraged to banging? Why is role modeling a no-sex policy to kids and young teens such a bad thing to deserve scorn and ridicule? The South Park kids are in 4th grade.
Combined with what I said earlier about the secondary charge against the Disney Corporation who peddles these sexy no-sex boyzes not making any more sense to me than targeting kids who aren’t having sex – wtf was with this episode? If it was all just an excuse to show Mickey Mouse beating the fuck out of someone and cursing then okay, fine, but we’ve come to expect a little more depth and meaning behind the crudeness of South Park gags.
This episode seemed 8 years too late and should have been about Britney Spears. She was much more obviously marketed on a foundation of sex from her outfits to her music videos to her orgasm moans in every other song. But the Jonas Brothers? really? It seemed like South Park was just attacking them simply because young girls like them. Therefore something sinister is going on behind the scenes? Maybe I’m missing something but it didn’t make any sense to me.
This isn’t an option for me but I totally encourage all the males reading this to go ahead and make the easy cash by doing this. I can’t because my future wife is probably a toddler right now or not born yet, so if I ever grace a sperm bank with my seed, I would only have 19 years from that date to freely date younger girls without having to check if she’s my daughter or not. It extra sucks too since the world definitely deserves more Richard. I wish there was a way to make a lot of offspring with multiple gene-worthy partners without the deal-breakers of:
Actually it just showed that 
