Month: December 2011

A reader writes:

I don't manscape to make it "look bigger". It doesn't make much of a difference anyway. I do it to make the area look and feel cleaner, and as a courtesy to anyone who might find their way down there. I look at it as kind of a "do unto others" type of thing; I appreciate when a woman keeps things neat, so why not return the favor?

Another writes:

Regarding the man-scaping phenomenon, allow me to explain the single most important reason for man-scaping: It is an important solicitation signal for oral sex.

The best explanation I have found is from the recent and under-appreciated movie, She's Out Of My League, in which the protagonist's friend explains to him why man-scaping is critical. As he says, man-scaping conveys to the woman "This space is clean and well maintained. You can put your mouth here."

Now, as a 43-year-old who started man-scaping when I was in early puberty, I can also convey a certain anecdotal bonus. It is my sentiment that sensitivity in the periphery (i.e., everything that's not the penis itself) is enhanced with the removal of hair. Pubic hair is constantly pulled, pushed, pressed, and otherwise moved around as I walk. The result of all this unintended movement, I believe, is loss of sensitivity as one's body shuts out the feeling associated with the multitudinous ways that clothing touches our genital area. One's scrotum alone becomes a nice pouch of twittering, sensitive nerves, which is quite nice to experience if you've been hiding in a bear-suit down there all your life.

Another:

Manscaping  was made necessary when the ladies starting to shave or wax their area. If a guy is having sex with a woman who has had most or all of her hair removed but he still has his, it is like a brillo pad rubbing up against her most sensitive area for some extended period of time. She ends up getting scratched and chafed and raw and isn't going to be so enthusiastic the next time. So there are two options: either let hers grow back in or do something about his. Since most guys don't like the big bush, manscaping was born. It has just become stylish and a trend after it was born of necessity.

Another notes:

I’m not sure why you singled out straight guys in your post as having "lost it," since the article clearly stated that gay men have been manscaping longer and in higher numbers than their straight counter parts.

It's just that I long revered straight men for resisting this gay nonsense. Sigh.

St. Thomas, Barbados, 12 pm

The historical reason for the choice:

Before 1972, the Iowa caucuses received little attention. They occured in the middle of the nominating process and didn’t elect many delegates. After the chaotic 1968 election, new national party rules led Democrats in Iowa to implement a proportional representation system, giving more candidates room to compete in the state. The caucuses were moved up January not as a power play, but because the state party chairman was determined to give every delegate a copy of the rules and platform proposals. Officials determined that they would need four months to print the materials on their mimeograph machine.

A reader sounds off:

I couldn't help but notice Michael Crowley's tired piece on the irrelevance of Iowa. Any state in the union is capable of provoking criticism and scorn for not being "representative" of the nation and having their own unique interests. Any state.

The common rebuttal to the anti-Iowa crowd (and one I happen to agree with) is that a smaller, less dense, less media-saturated state allows for lower tier candidates to compete on the ground in ways that would be impossible in larger markets. So why isn't Rick Santorum and his Iowa efforts being rewarded? He's not very likeable or charming. Give Iowans some credit for not blindly rewarding the candidates who spend the most time in the state.

It's useful to remember that it was Iowa voters who launched Barack Obama to the presidency against the conventional wisdom of political journalists. This year, it appears that Ron Paul is likely to do the same despite hollow threats from political pundits and players.

Until Michael Crowley, Steven Taylor, and Stephen Bloom (whose superior attitude appeared recently in The Atlantic) offer up an alternative state and/or system to begin our political process, their perspectives only reveal their own unique detachment from reality and consequence.  History is full of illogical traditions, habits, and processes. Such is life. It's a shame so many journalists can't embrace the unique positives of having our massive political process of money, power, and manipulation, try to first gain traction in a frozen prairie of Middle America.

All recipes should come like this:

The Washington Times sees Tehran's desperate bid to close the Straits of Hormuz if sanctions intensify as an opportunity:

Iran would be branded an international aggressor state and be subject to a variety of tougher sanctions and military actions. A theaterwide response to the strait closure would involve airstrikes on military and leadership targets throughout the country, and the crisis could be a useful pretext for international action against Iran’s nuclear program. The precedent was established with Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait, after which the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 687, which, among other things, established a mechanism for robust enforcement of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and led to the dismantling of Saddam Hussein’s original nuclear program. If the Islamic Republic wants to commit suicide, then by all means, close the Strait of Hormuz right away.

That’s the view not of some crank Santorum volunteer in Iowa, but of Cardinal George of Chicago. He was referring to the fact that next year’s Gay Pride Parade in Chicago would have passed by a Catholic church during services. For some reason, he seems to believe that this is an attack on the church:

“You don’t want the gay liberation movement to morph into something like the Ku Klux Klan, demonstrating in the streets against Catholicism … The rhetoric of the Ku Klux Klan, the rhetoric of some of the gay liberation people. Who is the enemy? Who is the enemy? The Catholic Church.”

He subsequently appeared to back down, especially when a civil resolution of the question was achieved and the route altered a little. But then he issued a statement that made it all much worse:

“[T]he organizers invited an obvious comparison to other groups who have historically attempted to stifle the religious freedom of the Catholic Church. One such organization is the Ku Klux Klan which, well into the 1940’s, paraded through American cities not only to interfere with Catholic worship but also to demonstrate that Catholics stand outside of the American consensus.”

A couple of obvious points. Since when does a street march “stop us from worshipping God”? By that logic, no parades could be permitted. As Rex Wockner notes:

“The Chicago gay pride parade attracts 800,000 people. It proceeds through a heavily congested, dense urban cityscape. Absolutely positively everything in its wake is disrupted … No, cardinal, the gay pride committee is not targeting the Catholic church. ‘The gay liberation movement’ is not targeting the Catholic church either. Your church building is affected in no way any different from hundreds upon hundreds of buildings for miles in all directions (Lake Michigan notwithstanding). You really do need to get out more.”

And, of course, George is simply wrong that American Catholics stand outside the “American consensus” on gay civil rights. They are in the vanguard of the American consensus:

On the issue of marriage, the report [PDF], compiled by the Public Religion Research Institute using past polls and studies, showed “nearly three-quarters of Catholics favor either allowing gay and lesbian people to marry (43%) or allowing them to form civil unions (31%). Only 22% of Catholics say there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship.” The report also showed strong Catholic support for other gay rights issues with 73 percent supporting laws against workplace discrimination and 60 percent favoring adoption by gay and lesbian couples.

The body that stands outside the consensus of the entire developed world is the Vatican hierarchy, a tiny group that has so abetted and enabled the rape of so many children it beggars belief it dares utter a word about the alleged sins of others. George is supposed to submit his resignation next week, as he is now 75. My hunch is that Benedict may well ask him to stay on – to fight the “KKK.”

Among Republicans, there's a similar divide as among the public as a whole:

Looking at age, 38% of likely Republican caucus-goers under 30 years old and 22% of those 30 to 44 years old back Paul. Among those 45 to 59 years old, it’s Romney with 23% and Santorum and Paul who each receive 19%. Romney — 29% — does the best among those who are 60 and older.

I'm with Ezra Klein on this one from the NYT:

Kinda puts Glenn Reynolds' lies into even starker perspective.

Many thanks to everyone who voted. Without further ado …

Malkin Award: With 17% of the vote, the dishonor goes to Senator Rand Paul:

With regard to the idea of whether you have a right to health care, you have realize what that implies. It’s not an abstraction. I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery. It means that you’re going to enslave not only me, but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants who work in my office, the nurses. … You have a right to beat down my door with the police, escort me away and force me to take care of you? That’s ultimately what the right to free health care would be.

Mental Health Break Of The Year: Since the compilation of veterans returning home to their dogs was likely to be a shoo-in, we probably should have left it out of contention, as we did a similar video a few years ago, but here it is with 38% of the vote:

The runner-up, with 16% of the vote, is a beautiful and original video worth giving the spotlight:

Moore Award: Dan Savage's dogged campaign paid off big, as he blew away the competition with nearly 60% of the vote. His entry:

Religious conservatives loved the HPV virus because it killed women. Here was a potentially fatal STI that condoms couldn't protect you from. Abstinence educators pointed to HPV and jumped up and down—they loved to overstate HPV's seriousness and its deadliness—in their efforts to scare kids into saving themselves for marriage. And they fought the introduction of the HPV vaccine tooth-and-nail because vaccinating women against HPV would "undermine" the abstinence message. Given a choice between your wife, daughter, sister, or mom dying of cervical cancer or no longer being to scream "HPV IS GOING TO KILL YOU!" at classrooms full of terrified teenagers, socially conservative abstinence "educators" preferred the former.

Face Of The Year: The self-portrait of the crested black macaque monkey sealed the deal with 29% of the vote:

Yglesias Award: Chris Christie edged out Roy J. McDonald and David Frum for sticking behind his decision to appoint a Muslim-American to New Jersey's Superior Court Bench (video of Christie's full remarks here):

It's just crazy, and I'm tired of dealing with the crazies. It's just unnecessary to be accusing this guy of things just because of his religious background. I'm happy that he's willing to serve after all this baloney.

Hathos Alert Of The Year: Herman Cain's cringe-worthy and captivating performance of "Imagine There's No Pizza":

Von Hoffman Award: The neck-and-neck race between Jennifer Rubin and yours truly ended with a Rubin victory. Here she is again responding to the Christianist mass murder in Norway:

There is a specific jihadist connection here: "Just nine days ago, Norwegian authorities filed charges against Mullah Krekar, an infamous al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist who, with help from Osama bin Laden, founded Ansar al Islam – a branch of al Qaeda in northern Iraq – in late 2001." This is a sobering reminder for those who think it’s too expensive to wage a war against jihadists.

Chart Of The Year: A clear winner, with 28% of the vote: