Category Archives: Joking and Degrading

“If I Lost a Finger…”

If I lost a finger
Due to some misfortune
If I had four fingers and not five
I would surely do well and survive

I’d identify as Mickey Mouse
Because Mickey Mouse has four fingers

Oh, if my skin was green
Due to some misfortune
If my skin was green and not pale pink
I would probably do well, I think

I’d identify as a lizard
Because all lizards have greenish skin

Oh, if I lost a leg
Due to some misfortune
If I had one leg and not two
I would have the same life that I knew

I’d identify as a pogo stick
Because pogo sticks have just one leg

If I lost both my legs
Due to some misfortune
If I had no more legs, none at all
It may not really be my downfall

I’d identify as a flatworm
Because flatworms have no legs at all

If I lost all my hair
Due to some misfortune
If I was totally shiny bald
I would not be specially appalled

I’d identify as a black hole
Because black holes have no hair at all

If I lost my penis
Due to some misfortune
If I was cleanly, neatly dickless
I would not then be anything less

I’d identify as a woman
Because women don’t have a penis

So you see, the lesson here is that
Biology is shite, science is subjective
You are what you identify as.

“Sorry sir, but we only sell zorgles here.”

Customer enters the store and walks up to the counter.

CUSTOMER: ‘ello guv, I’d like some cheese.
WORKER: Sorry sir, but we only sell zorgles here.
CUSTOMER: Ey? What’s a zorgle?
WORKER: A zorgle is, well, whatever you think is a zorgle, sir.
CUSTOMER: I have not the faintest idea what is or is not a zorgle.
WORKER: It’s quite simple: whatever you think is a zorgle, is a zorgle.
CUSTOMER: So it’s a thing…
WORKER: Quite so.
CUSTOMER: … but what kind of thing?
WORKER: Whatever kind of thing you think it is.
CUSTOMER: Now listen here. How can I know what you sell if you won’t tell me what it is?
WORKER: But I told you what it is, sir. It is what you think it is. If you think something is a zorgle, it’s a zorgle.
CUSTOMER: Well, I think cheese is a zorgle.
WORKER: That is your prerogative, sir.
CUSTOMER: Then give me some cheese.
WORKER: Ah, I’m afraid that’s not possible, sir. You see, the store doesn’t think cheese is a zorgle. So we don’t keep that in stock.
CUSTOMER: What? But you said a zorgle was whatever I thought was a zorgle.
WORKER: Quite, quite, but the same is true for us too. Whatever we think is a zorgle, is a zorgle, nothing more nothing less. So we keep in stock what we define as a zorgle.
CUSTOMER: And what do you define as a zorgle?
WORKER: Why, what we think is a zorgle, of course.
CUSTOMER: But that doesn’t tell me what you actually sell.
WORKER: Why sir, we sell zorgles. This is a zorgle store. Didn’t you see the sign?
CUSTOMER: But that’s not… what… this is… you can’t define something by using itself! That’s circular!
WORKER: Circular, sir? No, zorgles are not circular at all, at least in my mind, sir.
CUSTOMER: That’s not what I-
WORKER: (interrupting) But the shape actually has nothing to do with it at all. You see, whatever we think is a zorgle, is a zorgle, regardless of shape. It’s really that simple.
CUSTOMER: Who would open such a preposterous store? A store that sells whatever you think about! That’s the most ridiculous idea I’ve ever heard of!
WORKER: (icily) I surely do not appreciate your tone of voice. We provide a great service to the community, sir. I would rather you didn’t speak ill of our illustrious owner.
CUSTOMER: And who is this moronic owner?
WORKER: Why, it’s you, of course!
CUSTOMER: Me? ME? I’m afraid you are quite insane.
WORKER: Not at all, sir. The zorgle is a part of all of us. And you are the owner just as much as anyone else.
CUSTOMER: What is this, Eastern philosophy for dummies? You are quite raving mad.
WORKER: I assure you not, sir. I am quite sane.
CUSTOMER: Well, I’ve had quite enough of this nonsense. Goodbye.
WORKER: Sir! Wait!
CUSTOMER: What is it now?
WORKER: Didn’t you come here to buy something?
CUSTOMER: Yes. I wanted cheese.
WORKER: Oh, we don’t have that, sir. But try something else.
CUSTOMER: (sighs) Fine. Do you have any cigarettes?
WORKER: No, no cigarettes.
CUSTOMER: A rabbit?
WORKER: I’m afraid that’s for the pet shop, sir.
CUSTOMER: Raincoat?
WORKER: No windbreakers, no.
CUSTOMER: Windshield wipers?
WORKER: Let me look… oh no, it’s Tuesday, so we don’t have any.
CUSTOMER: Calipers?
WORKER: What did you say?
CUSTOMER: Calipers.
WORKER: Oh no, we don’t have that.
CUSTOMER: Mangerators?
WORKER: Yes, we have those.
CUSTOMER: But I just made it up!
WORKER: Ah. I see, sir. Well then in that case we don’t have any.
CUSTOMER: Well what DO you have?
WORKER: Zorgles, sir.
CUSTOMER: But what are zorgles?
WORKER: We’ve already been through that, sir.
CUSTOMER: Aaaaaaaaaargh!
WORKER: Your frustration is rather offensive, sir. I’m going to have to ask you to leave.
CUSTOMER: Why should I leave? You’re the one who’s being unhelpful! You are the most unhelpful man I’ve ever had to deal with!
WORKER: You’re assuming I identify as a man, sir. You are actually incorrect. I identify as a zorglist. It’s a new gender promoted by the LGBTQIAPK2SAA community.
CUSTOMER: What’s a zorglist?
WORKER: A zorglist is someone who sells zorgles.
CUSTOMER: Aaaaaaaaaaaargh!!! *Customer starts to trash the store*

Liberal Relationship Advice Column

Welcome to the Liberal Relationship Advice Column by sex-positive guru and relationship expert Reefer Myst. People of all genders are welcome.


I am a 36 year old woman and I’ve been married to my husband for ten years. These past few years, he’s become violent towards me. At first, it started with telling me how much of a fuckup I am. More recently, he’s started to hit me. Mostly with open hand, but also with his fist, whenever he’s really, really angry and drunk. I want to leave him, but he’s isolated me from all my friends and I don’t have anyone to turn to. What should I do?

Black Eyes in Tuscaloosa

I’m sorry to hear that, Black Eyes. But like it or not, you’ve made a lifelong commitment to this man. You’ve known him for a long time, so think about his feelings. Your message was all about your feelings, and not about his feelings. How does it make him feel? There must be a reason for this escalation. What I am saying is, if you look into it, you’ll find out why he’s being violent and you can resolve this issue together, as a couple. You need to confront your role as an enabler in this situation, okay? It takes two to tango.

For you to stay with him for ten whole years must mean he’s a good person, at least most of the time, otherwise you’d have left a long time ago. Right? If he was that way before, he can be that way again. Also, the fact that there are even better husbands out there means that he too could be like that. All you gotta do is work with him. You can bring about gradual improvements in his character by constantly pestering him until he becomes the man you’ve always wanted. You could nag him to stop drinking, for example.

Divorce is the easy and messy solution. You’re better than that.



My best friend joined some group called Landmark Education. When he came back from his first seminar, which lasted a whole weekend, he told me he was a new man, and was using many words in a different and weird way. I didn’t think there was any harm to it. But after two more seminars, it seems it’s the only thing he can talk about. But what’s more, he left his wife (he’s been with her for 15 years) and their two children, spent all his money on a new car, and is hooked up with a woman from Landmark. He’s telling me he wants to become a trainer himself and tried to recruit me. Help!

Concerned in Cincinnati

Concerned, I don’t understand why you’re being so melodramatic. Sure, your friend may be annoying right now, but don’t you tell your friends when you discover a new cool thing? And this sounds really important to him, so you should try to be nice and at least indulge him. Just be a good friend.

Now, you didn’t mention anything about how the relationship was going, apart from the length (15 years is a long time to be with someone else), so I can’t judge that situation. However, I did notice something while reading your question: everything you told me has been your friend’s personal choice. He chose to attend the seminars, he chose to leave his family, he chose to buy the car. If he really is your best friend, then you should stand behind his choices. Trust them to know what’s best for themselves, like you’d want them to trust you in your own choices. The best and fastest way to lose your friend’s trust would be to deny his agency.

Besides, I see nothing wrong with what he’s doing. More education is always good, and you should be happy that he’s still educating himself. After all, education is what determines a person’s worth in our society, as well as the merit and standard of living they deserve. Without education, we’d be no better than your average neoconservative redneck.



I am a 24 year old straight woman who’s looking for a stable partner. The dating scene in my city has been pretty difficult to deal with. There’s not a lot of eligible bachelors, and the ones I’ve dated have been… works in progress. They don’t know how to talk to women, they have personal hygiene problems, or they’re a little crazy. I don’t know what to do! I’ve heard bad things about online dating, so I don’t really want to have to go there.

Lonely in a Small Town

Lonely? More like bossy! Listen, your attitude really stinks. You can’t just decide you’re never going to date someone who doesn’t fulfill some arbitrary criterion. If, for example, you were white and said you only wanted to date white men, that would be racism. Not wanting to date people because they have hygiene problems or don’t fit your ideal of a “normal” person (way to be neuronormative with that “crazy” comment, by the way) is just as prejudiced. Have you thought about talking to them about it, or are you just using it as an excuse to discriminate against certain men?

What if a man is unable to be decent? Should he be punished for his failings by being unable to be attractive to women? Having a coffee now and then with a man you most likely won’t find attractive is a small price to pay to make the online dating world a less shitty place for men. It’s what a good woman would do. Also, check your privilege, lady. There are many people who’d kill to get as many dates as you do. You should thank your lucky stars.



I am a mother of one boy, Ira, who’s 12 years old. He is such a smart child! But recently he’s started giving me some trouble. At first it was just whining about having to mow the lawn for his allowance, calling it “wage slavery.” But now he just flat out refuses to do his homework, because he says doing his homework “means giving into the indoctrination system which provides a skilled labor force for the capitalist democratic imperialist hegemony and fractures the working class into largely hereditary economic castes,” whatever THAT means. I have no idea where he gets this stuff. How can I get him to do his homework?

Perplexed in Pittsburgh

Perplexed, you probably don’t read my column very often, because I say it all the time: disagreements always stem from ignorance. That is the reason why everyone who disagrees with me is an ignorant fool. So the answer is to educate your child. Clearly he’s been reading too much political stuff on the Internet and needs to be brought back to the real world. You have to sit your child down and calmly and politely explain to him that education is what determines a person’s worth in our society, and that if he wants to live a good life he needs to study and do his homework so he can get good grades. It’s really that simple! Maybe show him some hobos that live in Pittsburgh or take him to a soup kitchen or something. That’ll scare him straight.

If he still refuses to do his homework, then that’s perfectly normal. Children are not yet cooked, and their brains can’t really cope with the long term. They’re kinda dumb that way. So what you have to do it invoke things that he does understand, like guilt. Tell him that if he doesn’t do his homework, then you’ll be really disappointed in him and everyone will think you’re a bad parent. If that doesn’t work, then blackmail him by threatening to take away something he likes. There doesn’t have to be any clear relation between the task and the thing you threaten to take away. That’s why it’s blackmail and not something that makes actual sense.

But don’t ever use physical violence on your child. Violence doesn’t solve anything. Only education (and guilt, and blackmail) does. Always remember that and keep it close to your heart, or at least the part that goes pat pat pat.



I am a 25 years old woman and I have a new boyfriend. I really love him, but recently I caught him watching a pornographic video. I was rather offended by this, but he said it was no big deal and that all men do it. I kept asking him questions and finally he admitted that he’s been watching them all this time we’ve been together. How can he truly respect me if he gets off on videos of women getting called “whores” and getting gagged by penises? Is that really how men see sex, as a violent act done against women, instead of a loving act?

Sad in Singapore

I get these kinds of questions sometimes and it really irks me. You have got to get rid of your backwards, conservative attitude towards porn. Porn is just fantasy, okay? It’s not real. They’re acting. When you watch an action movie, do you complain when a character is captured and tortured for information? It’s all movie magic.

And reality check, Sad: men need porn in order to masturbate. That’s how we get off! Men are visual creatures. So, yes, your boyfriend uses porn. That’s not a big deal at all. All men do it. And access to porn is a basic human right. So basically, you’re saying that you’re against your boyfriend’s human rights. And you say you love him? Really?

If you don’t want to be with someone who looks at porn, if you can’t handle it, then get a woman, get a dog, or get a blind guy. I’m sorry if you think that’s insensitive… no, wait, I’m actually not sorry.



Hi Reefer, I’m a big fan of your advice column! Thank you in advance for answering my question. I am a 32 year old straight woman and I am having trouble with my relationship. My boss at work keeps asking me to do overtime and I have to do it because of a possible promotion coming up. I want to make a good impression. But I work so much now that when I come home, I’m just too tired for sex, even though my husband keeps asking me for it over and over. He says that his sex drive is too high and that he can’t stay with me if I don’t put out. What should I do?

Tired in Toronto

Well Tired, it seems to me, just from your message, that you’re setting yourself up to be the victim. I’m not going to validate your feelings of victimhood, especially since you choose to work late for your own benefit. Your husband is the victim here, not you. This is why it’s important to do the right thing and talk about sexual expectations at the beginning of your relationship, not in the middle of it. You should have known this would happen if you started to work late.

What you need to do is stop pitying yourself and use your hardship to your own advantage. You’re too tired to have sex? Then start roleplaying with your boyfriend: for example, you could be a patient and he could be a doctor, or you could be a corpse and he could be a necrophiliac. Basically, anything that involves you lying down and being limp would work. That way, you can both preserve your choices and satisfy your boyfriend sexually.



I am a 35 year old man. A year ago, I was stabbed in a dispute with a (former) friend. While the physical wounds have healed, the wound to my ego is still painful. I am still traumatized and this has affected my relationship with my friends and family. I can’t trust anyone right now. I need help to deal with my fears.

Slashed in Sarasota

Slashed, this is a delicate psychological issue. One method that’s been very successful in dealing with trauma of that sort is re-enactment. It’s perfectly safe and will help you deal with your feelings. Join a local APRS (Active/Passive Re-enactment Scenes) club and get to know the members. Eventually you’ll be able to participate in one of the Scenes. In order to deal with your stabbing trauma, you would, for example, be stabbed by another person, in a manner similar to what happened to you, but in a safe environment with medical kits available on hand. The stabbing, of course, would be done on areas of your body that are not dangerous.

Now, I know what you’re thinking, getting actually stabbed would not be a good idea, but it’s just play-acting. I mean, yea, the stabbing is real, but it’s within a Scene, which makes it all right. You get comforted afterwards and it helps you. Many people swear by it. It’s definitely more cutting-edge than anything else you might want to try, like therapy or Scientology. I strongly invite you to look into it. You’ll thank me for it later.



NOTE: the “having a coffee now and then” and “If you don’t want to be with someone who looks at porn” parts were lifted pretty much directly from things Dan Savage has said (but with better grammar). This entry was partially inspired by his unqualified, laughable “advice”.

“I’m so thirsty right now.”

I’ve done one of these before, but this one is more about epistemology than ethics. It was also inspired by a Doug Stanhope skit. I’ve posted the video of it before on this blog.


A: “I’m so thirsty right now.”
B: “There is a glass of water right over there.”
A: “Ah, thank you for telling me about it. *takes the cup and pours it in their ear* Hmm, I’m still thirsty. It’s all your fault.”

B: “There is a glass of water right over there.”
A: “That’s what you believe. I believe that it’s orange juice. And it’s my belief against your belief, so none of us have the absolute truth in the matter.”

B: “There is a glass of water right over there.”
A: “But there is a probability that it’s not actually water, right? You don’t know with absolute certainty that it is actually a cup of water. So you should remain agnostic on the matter and not go around spreading misinformation.”

B: “There is a glass of water right over there.”
A: “You don’t have any scientific studies proving that it’s water, though. It could be gasoline or even strychnine. Until you can show me actual scientific proof that it’s water, I have no reason to accept your claim.”

B: “There is a glass of water right over there.”
A: “So you’re saying someone, you have no idea who, pouted water into that cup and put it on that table, waiting for me to drink it? What are you, some kind of conspiracy nut?”

B: “There is a glass of water right over there.”
A: “You’re pointing at it, but your finger is dirty. Therefore, I don’t believe you.”

B: “There is a glass of water right over there.”
A: “I said I was thirsty, and right away you showed me a glass of water. Clearly, the sound of my voice saying that sentence must have materialized the water out of thin air.”

B: “There is a glass of water right over there.”
A: “Will the water heal my cancer, though? Either the water is all good, or it’s all bad. If it can’t cure my cancer, then it’s all bad, and it shouldn’t be drunk by anyone.”

B: “There is a glass of water right over there.”
A: “Can you drink one molecule of water? Clearly not. And if one molecule of water is undrinkable, than how can any number of molecules of water be drinkable? Therefore, no one can drink water.”

B: “There is a glass of water right over there.”
A: “That’s just one person’s opinion. It’s not a fact just because you state it.”

B: “There is a glass of water right over there.”
A: “But the glass is not really made of water, otherwise it would melt immediately. So your statement is irrational.”

B: “There is a glass of water right over there.”
A: “How would you know that? Are you seeing molecules composed of hydrogen and oxygen with your naked eye, or are you just assuming it’s water?”

B: “There is a glass of water right over there.”
A: “My basic premises entail that there cannot be a glass of water where you are pointing. Therefore, there is no glass of water. You are simply mistaken.”

B: “There is a glass of water right over there.”
A: “The world would be simpler to understand if there were no glasses of water. Therefore I classify the existence of glasses of water as an irrelevant detail.”

B: “There is a glass of water right over there.”
A: “You say that only because you have a pro-water bias. You believe the lies the media tells us about cups of water lying around everywhere.”

B: “There is a glass of water right over there.”
A: “What is a glass of water? The definition of a glass of water is anything I believe is a glass of water. I don’t believe that’s a glass of water, but I believe that you are a glass of water.” A then tries to drink B.

B: “There is a glass of water right over there.”
A: “I disagree. It is written on its surface, ‘BEST GRANDMA EVER.’ Clearly, this is actually a grandmother, not a glass. You’re cruelly objectifying this delicate, short, cylindrical woman with a handle on her back.”

B: “There is a glass of water right over there.”
A: “Am I a butterfly dreaming I’m a man… Or a bowling ball dreaming I’m a plate of sashimi? Either way, neither butterflies or bowling balls drink water, so I can’t drink that water.”

B: “There is a glass of water right over there.”
A: “The glass and the water I perceive are part of the illusion of physical reality. Actually, there is nothing but atoms in movement, always changing, in an eternal dance. Reference to stable constructs such as a glass or water comes from ignorance.”

B: “There is a glass of water right over there.”
A: “How do I know you exist? How do I know anything exists outside of my consciousness? I know my thirst exists, because I perceive it directly, but I don’t perceive you, or the glass of water, directly.”

B: “There is a glass of water right over there.”
A: “Sure, but what does that have to do with my thirst? We believe there is a cause and effect relationship between drinking water and being less thirsty, but that doesn’t mean one will always follow from the other. Some people have drunk water and died from it. I would rather not risk it.”

B: “There is a glass of water right over there.”
A: “I choose to believe that I am already quenched. You’re trying to give me self-doubt by saying that I need to drink anything to be quenched. I need to cut negative people like you from my life.”

B: “There is a glass of water right over there.”
A: “You see the glass as half empty, I see the glass as half full. That just goes to show you that your outlook in life can change everything.” A then looks at B with a smug, self-satisfied expression.

B: “There is a glass of water right over there.”
A: “That is really a reflection of what’s in your heart, nothing more. You believe that you need water to live, and so you see water there. If your heart was pure, you wouldn’t see water around every corner.”

B: “There is a glass of water right over there.”
A: “I can’t drink that water. Tap water is a Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.”

B: “There is a glass of water right over there.”
A: “I interpret this Bible verse here to mean that God said that water cannot be contained in glasses. Therefore, you are going to Hell.”

B: “There is a glass of water right over there.”
A: “The only nourishment I need is God’s holy words. I hope that someday you will allow Jesus into your heart.”

B: “There is a glass of water right over there.”
A: “Well, we don’t know who put the glass there. Science can’t prove it one way or the other. Therefore, God did it.”

B: “There is a glass of water right over there.”
A punches B.

B: “There is a glass of water right over there.”
A takes out a police baton and starts beating on B.

The adventures of female innovators.

We have heard about various women who have invented or discovered various things while men took all the credit for their hard work. However, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Historians have listed many more such instances which are not generally known. Here are some of them.

1. Invention of the phonograph
Events: Emily Forsythe was always interested in the reproduction of sound. Because she was not allowed to have an education, she educated herself with books and by tinkering with tuning forks and wax cylinders. While pregnant with her eleventh child, which was stillborn, she passed the time designing blueprints for the first phonograph. After ejecting the corpse from her body, she finished her design and presented it to her husband, Nathaniel Forsythe, saying that she intended to register a patent for it. He replied: “Oh dear, it’s so nice that you’ve been distracting yourself while doing your womanly duties… but I will submit this piece of flummery so you’re not embarassed in public and lose face in front of all these learned men. They might give us a twopence for it.”
Result: Nathaniel Forsythe is regarded as the inventor of the phonograph.

2. Invention of the battery
Events: Madelaine Winger, an unmarried woman, worked for years on the idea of storing electricity within a metallic container. After decades of painstaking trial and error, she settled on alternating layers of zinc and copper. As she completed her first trial with a lightbulb, her son, Maximilian Winger, saw it and was enraptured. Madelaine told him he could bring the apparatus to his class for show and tell the next day.
Result: Maximilian Winger is regarded as the inventor of the battery.

3. Discovery of the pizeoelectric effect.
Events: A group of inventors and materials experts, all women with no husbands, no children, and no family, worked in a laboratory on the electric properties of various metals. They discovered the pizeoelectric effect and called in some investors to take a look at possible applications. The investors came in early and no one was ready for the presentation. The janitor, who was a man named Aleksy Sosnowski, entered the office where the presentation was set up and was holding up one of the machines so he could clean the floor underneath, when the investors happened to enter the room.
Result: Aleksy Sosnowski is regarded as the discoverer of the piezoelectric effect.

4. Invention of the photocopier.
Events: Three female engineers, all women with no husbands, no children, and no family, labored in a workshop for years with no janitors and no man within a five mile radius. They perfected their invention and applied for a patent. On the day the application was received by the patent office, Chad “No Glasses” Chanowitz got in by accident, thinking he was entering his lawyer’s office, and signed what he thought was his contract with a local metalworking firm. It was the patent for the photocopier.
Result: Chad Chanowitz is regarded as the inventor of the photocopier.

Genderist “menstruation” fact sheet.

from: Miriam Lafferty
subject: Fact sheet revision 10/14

TW for old incorrect terms

Here is the new version of our “menstruation” (old term) fact sheet based on the new S302.1 gender standards written in accordance with the Anti-Misgendering Act. I feel that this new version is quite longer but much clearer and less offensive in general. Please send to Reginald for final approval after you’re done editing. Thanks.

NOTE: one salient problem has been the reformulation of the word “woman” (old term). As you know, a “woman” is a person who identifies as a woman. However, this is a circular definition which needed to be clarified. After much brainstorming and workshopping, we decided to go with “person who identifies as a person who identifies as a dress-wearer,” or in short, PIAPIADW. We feel that this new term both encompasses the old definition as well as its living meaning in people’s lives. After all, wearing a dress is the most commonly accepted sign of “femininity” (old term), which is the same as “womanhood” (old term, replaced by PIAPIADWhood). By that token, we’ve also replaced “man” (old term) with PIAPIADH (person who identifies as a person who identifies as a default human). Hope this helps.


What is PIAPIADHstruation?

PIAPIADHstruation (piya-piya-th-STRAY-shuhn) is a person’s monthly bleeding. When you PIAPIADHstruate, your body sheds the lining of the egg-cave (or “woowoo”). PIAPIADHstrual blood flows from the egg-cave through the small opening in the ladystick-blocker and passes out of the body through the front hole (or “vajayjay”). Most PIAPIADHstrual gender-neutral-periods last from 3 to 5 days.

What happens during the PIAPIADHstrual cycle?

In the first half of the cycle, levels of pinkstrogen (the “PIAPIADWist hormone”) start to rise. Pinkstrogen plays an important role in keeping you healthy, especially by helping you to build density-normative1 bones and to help keep them density-normative as you get youth-challenged. Pinkstrogen also makes the lining of the egg-cave (or “woowoo”) grow and thicken. This lining of the egg-cave (or “woowoo”) is a place that will nourish the potential future human if a gender-neutral-impregnation occurs. At the same time the lining of the egg-cave (or “woowoo”) is growing, an egg (or “vroom vroom”) in one of the inside balls starts to mature. At about day 14 of an average 28-day cycle, the egg leaves the inside ball. This is called ballulation.

After the egg has left the inside ball, it travels through the phallupian tube to the uterus. Hormone levels rise and help prepare the egg-cave’s lining for gender-neutral-impregnation. A person is most likely to get gender-neutral-impregnated during the 3 days before or on the day of ballulation. Keep in mind, people with cycles that are shorter or longer than average may ballulate before or after day 14.

A person becomes gender-neutral-impregnated if the egg is fertilized by a wriggler cell and attaches to the egg-cave wall. Either a PIAPIADW or a PIAPIADH can become gender-neutral impregnated. Either party can donate the vroom-vroom or the wriggler cell that must combine for fertilization. If the egg is not fertilized, it will break apart. Then, hormone levels drop, and the thickened lining of the egg-cave is shed during the PIAPIADHstrual gender-neutral-period.

1 Use the word “strong” here was seen to be ableist against physically challenged people.

What is a typical PIAPIADHstrual gender-neutral-period like?

During your gender-neutral-period, you shed the thickened egg-cave lining and extra blood through the front hole. Your gender-neutral-period may not be the same every month. It may also be different than other people’s gender-neutral-periods. Gender-neutral-periods can be light, moderate, or heavy in terms of how much blood comes out of the front hole. This is called PIAPIADHstrual flow. PIAPIADHstrual flow can be experienced by both PIAPIADHs and PIAPIADWs. If you are a PIAPIADH, it is perfectly normal to experience a gender-neutral-period. Consult a doctor who is not biologically-prejudiced for valid medical help.

When does a person usually get his/her first gender-neutral-period?

In the United States, the average age for a person to get his/her first gender-neutral-period is 12. This does not mean that all people start at the same age. A person can start his/her gender-neutral-period anytime between the ages of 8 and 15. Most of the time, the first gender-neutral-period starts about 2 years after dirty pillows (or “tatas”) first start to develop.

Being sexually attracted to people who are 13 years old or older is called ephebophilia and is perfectly normal. If you are an adolescent person, click on this link to learn how to have safe relationships with ephebophiles and how to be more attractive to adults.

(text modified from

A new MRA tract: Befeministed!

Through a watch blog which will remain unnamed, I’ve learned that MRAs are planning to release their own line of Chick Tracts. The first, Befeministed!, concerns the Evil Matriarchal Conspiracy and its attempts to corrupt the world, and seems to be heavily based on the Chick Tract Bewitched!. I’ve managed to find my way to a draft of the script. Enjoy.



Panel 1: Andrea Dworkin is sitting on a throne covered in yonis and fire. She is laughing and watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer on a television embedded in the back wall. Behind her is a yoni on fire on a stick.
1. DWORKIN: Wonderful! Such a successful show! Such an effective vehicle for our message!

Panel 2: A demon speaks to Dworkin from behind the flames of the throne.
2. DEMON: Why are those old re-runs so important, Mistress?
3. DWORKIN: Because, you dumbass bitch, that show made the “strong woman” archetype more popular than ever, pushing forward our agenda that women are superior to men!

Panel 3: Dworkin is sitting at the end of a long glass table. On each side, her lieutenants are sitting, wearing dark cloaks.
4. DWORKIN: Now, I want a status report from all branches of the Matriarchy!

Panel 4: Cloaked lieutenant #1 speaks, with drawings of men crying all around her.
5. LIEUTENANT #1: False Rape Accusations have gone up 27%! The media is stirring more and more trouble against men for rapes they didn’t commit! Soon women will believe that all men are potential rapists!
6. DWORKIN (OFF): Exccccellent.

Panel 5: Cloaked lieutenant #2 speaks, with drawings of dresses and lipstick all around her.
7. LIEUTENANT #2: The sissification of males is proceeding at an accelerated pace, thanks to the trans lobby! All opposition has been crushed! Very soon now, men will be completely emasculated!

Panel 6: Cloaked lieutenant #3 speaks, standing in front of a graph connecting handsome men with fat, unkempt women.
8. LIEUTENANT #3: Thanks to the sexual revolution and the fall of the family, the cock carousel is in full operation! Fat acceptance has led to even the ugliest of women being able to have sex with alpha males, leaving a large proportion of men sexually dissatisfied!

Panel 7: Cloaked lieutenant #3 is laughing.
9. DWORKIN (OFF): And this has led to an increase in male violence?
10. LIEUTENANT #3: Absolutely. Frustrated men are performing more and more mass shootings, which are then blamed in men instead of the women who unjustly refuse them sex! Men will soon be completely discredited!
11. LIEUTENANT (OFF): Brilliant!
12. LIEUTENANT (OFF): Great strategy!

Panel 8: Cloaked lieutenant #4 speaks, with drawings of notes and books all around her.
13. DWORKIN (OFF): What about our Cultural Marxism division?
14. LIEUTENANT #4: Sales of romance novels, which give women false expectations, are on the rise! We’ve also gotten Kathleen Hanna to start another band. Her music will spread more radical feminism amongst women!

Panel 9: Cloaked lieutenant #5 speaks.
15. DWORKIN (OFF): Last but not least, the abortions department!
16. LIEUTENANT #5: Abortions are on the rise! Women have the freedom to kill their babies, making them no longer dependent on men!

Panel 10: Dworkin sits at the head of the table, overlooking her lieutenants.
17. DWORKIN: It seems like everything is a resounding success. Are there any issues that need to be resolved?
18. LIEUTENANT #3: Yes, mistress! I have a serious case!

Panel 11: We see lieutenant #3’s face, speaking.
19. LIEUTENANT #3: I have a teenage girl named Ashley. She wants to get married and have children!

Panel 12: We see Dworkin’s face, speaking.
20. DWORKIN: We need to make an example out of her! Does she have a strong divorced mother who denigrates her father at every opportunity?

Panel 13: We see lieutenant #3’s face, speaking.
21. LIEUTENANT #3: Yes, but it’s not enough! She still clings to old ideas. We need a show of force!
22. DWORKIN (OFF): Deploy our best agents! We must nip this in the bud.

Panel 14: Ashley is lying on her bed, holding herself up by her elbows, reading a magazine. Her bedroom looks like a typical teenage girl’s room. How the fuck should I know what that’s like? Lots of pink and posters of horses, I guess.
23. ASHLEY: He’s so dreamy… I hope I can marry a guy like that some day. A cute guy with washboard abs…

Panel 15: Two demons appear in the bedroom, to the side of her bed. They whisper to her while she reads the magazine.
24. DEMON #1: Ashley… the penis is evil, the gun is good!
25. DEMON #2: Ashley… get a boyfriend and falsely accuse him of rape so you can receive money and admiration from our corrupt society!

Panel 16: Ashley perks to attention, throwing the magazine aside.
26. ASHLEY: I see the truth now… All sex is rape! Men are just disposable containers for sperm… all men must die, but not before we steal their precious fluids!

Panel 17: Ashley gets off her bed, standing with her arms raised.
27. ASHLEY: I’ve come a long way baby! All sex is rape! Rosie the Riveter killed modern democracy and I can do it too!

Panel 18: Paul Elam and Stefan Molyneux, both wearing fedoras, heroically crash through the bedroom window and roll on the floor towards Ashley, who is startled.

Panel 19: The two MRAs are now standing in a heroic pose. Light rays shine from their head (see maoposter1.jpg). The cowardly cow Ashley cowers in front of these two intellectual giants.
29. PAUL ELAM: We got a Matriarchy Alert on our cell phone!
30. STEFAN MOLYNEUX: There’s an app for that now, bitch! The free market rules!

Panel 20: Focus on the heads of the two MRAs, with the light rays still shining. They are happy to propagate the correct beliefs to adopt against the Matriarchy’s evil grip.
31. PAUL ELAM: You’re a stupid cunt and you deserve to die! Stop withholding sex from worthy men! But if you have sex, you’re a whore! Stop being a whore, cunt!
32. STEFAN MOLYNEUX: It’s stupid girls like you who grow up to be the mothers who turn an entire generation of boys into criminals, moochers and statists! Abandon your family now, you FOO-L!

Panel 21: Focus on the eyes of the MRAs. Their pupils now form hypnotizing spirals.

Panel 22: Ashley is relaxed and happy. The two MRAs are red-faced from exertion and look unhappy from being exposed to a female human being for this long.
34. ASHLEY: You’re so right! I get it now! It’s in my class interest to fight against feminism, because feminism is oppressing men, who are responsible for everything good in society!

Panel 23: The two MRAs are scrabbling their way back out of the window.
35: PAUL ELAM: You finally got it, bitch! You might be one of the smart ones! Most feminazis will never get it.
36: STEFAN MOLYNEUX: It’s a universally preferable behavior to do whatever the fuck I say, you irrational woman!

Panel 24: Ashley is standing and looking at the reader.
37: ASHLEY: Thank you, noble MRAs, for showing me the error of my ways! I’m a worthless cunt! From now on, I will always attack women as a class in the name of extreme individualism and a non-existing matriarchy!

Panel 25: Our standard tract ending.
If we let feminists win, Arabs will rape all the women and destroy our rights!
Is that what YOU want?
If you trust Men’s Rights as the salvation of the Western world, you have just taken the Red Pill and begun to see the Truth ™. Now:
1. Knock yourself upside the head to lower your IQ as close to mental retardation as possible.
2. Harass women on the Internet, in the streets, at home, anywhere you can!
3. Go on Reddit and whine with your fellow MRAs about how evil the feminazis are, but don’t do any actual activism to resolve the problems men are having!
4. Argle bargle!
Here’s help to grow as a new MRA! Read Why Women Are Such Evil Cunts, by Paul Elam, available at all decrepit/morally bankrupt bookstores. Also read the fictional series MRA, by W.F. Prissy, for a scathing exposé of life in our modern matriarchies.

Welcome to our new research assistants!

from: Bolger Green <>
date: Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 12:57 AM
subject: Welcome to the Institute- please read

Greetings, new hires, and welcome to the Institute of Baraminology! I wish I could meet you in person, but I have unfortunately been detained in the Congo (DRC) due to some diplomatic mishap while doing the Lord’s work. With the continued prayers of everyone at the Institute, the Lord will no doubt grant my safe return whenever He wills it. But in the meantime, as a substitute for my presence, I am sending you this welcome email (or as Shirley in Accounting calls emails, little parcels of joy from the Baby Jesus). I look forward to speaking to you in person.

While you work at the Institute, you may need to use mathematics, so keep your trigonometry lessons in mind. Remember that Jesus died for your SINs! Ha ha ha. A little joke there. This job is very serious, but we do allow ourselves a little levity from time to time. But please do not laugh out loud when you read this, for it disturbs Jebediah the intern. He’s not quite right in the head, the poor lad, but he walks in the Lord’s Grace all the same. Do try to only tell jokes when he is not present.

First, let me thank you for choosing the Institute of Baraminology to pursue your career in Creation Science. We are the premier Creationist research institution in the United States. As you may know, we are most famous for inventing the “squinting standard,” widely used by Creation Scientists who work in baraminology today. The standard consists of the following: place a number of animals together, stand at a certain specific distance (our viewing chambers are designed for this purpose, and you will no doubt start using them soon), and squint your eyes precisely so. If the animals all look the same, then they are all of the same Biblical kind (or to use the technical term, they are all monobaramins). If they do not, then they are not part of the same Biblical kind (polybaramins).

Praise the Lord who made the animals alike enough to be not confusing (except for those animals designed by Satan to confuse us, like the duck-billed platypus, the yeti crab, and the star-nosed mole).

As you can imagine, the squinting standard has opened a fertile avenue of research. We have been hard at work these past years re-classifying all animal species from the pseudo-scientific “tree of life” pushed by secular naturalism to the more accurate “mansions of life” model, named after John 14:2 (“In my Father’s house are many mansions”), which clearly refers to the structure of Creation. We call this discontinuity taxonomy, as opposed to the secular taxonomy which is based on an unproven and unscientific belief in the continuity of life through time.

There have been some issues with our use of the standard. Due to their size and/or ferocity, certain animals have been hard to get into a viewing chamber (and they have an unfortunate propensity to eat each other while in the chamber, due to their sinful nature), and our attempts at perfecting a marine chamber have failed so far (the disaster that happened when we tried to visualize a great white shark and a beluga whale together took three weeks to clean up). In an exciting development, however, we have been working on a HTC VIVE-based 3D visualization system to overcome these difficulties.

Dr. Boldwhittle is our resident specialist in the squinting standard. His squinting acumen is beyond reproach, and he will teach you the optimal amount of squinting to obtain satisfactory results using our standard viewing chambers. It is a finely-honed technique, and we find that those who already agree with our statement of faith tend to be better at it than those who don’t.

Talking about that, I hope you remembered to sign your statement of faith before you started your first day. If not, please do it now.

You may think it strange that we have all our researchers sign a statement of faith, even though we do scientific work. But science can only exist because of the uniformity of nature which is the result of God’s orderly plan. We cannot allow anyone who supports the bankrupt naturalistic worldview motivating the modern attacks against God to taint our research with the arrogance of the unsaved. In order to do the work in an open-minded spirit, we ask that you profess your belief in premillennialism, non-triclavianism, and complementarianism (please note that if you bring your saved wife or female family member to the workplace, they will not be allowed in the research areas). We also ask that you profess that Genesis 1 and 2 are not contradictory. If you still see Genesis 1 and 2 as contradictory, please tell Dr. Boldwhittle so he may help you use the squinting standard on these two pieces of scripture (a new and exciting use of the standard he has recently developed to counter the so-called “contradictions” and “paradoxes” in the Holy Bible).

But the research in discontinuity taxonomy is not, by far, the only research we do here at the Institute. We are always working on groundbreaking experiments intelligently designed (as guided by the Holy Spirit) to confirm the truth of Creation and disprove the belief system of Evolutionism. To bring you up to speed on these experiments, here is a short list of the most important ones we’ve conducted so far. If you have any questions about the procedures of results of any experiment, please ask the lead researcher attached to it.

Experiment: Rock-to-croc
Lead researcher: Dr. Gayweather
Objective: Falsification of the Evolutionary belief that crocodiles evolved directly from rocks, a belief which was exposed by our esteemed colleague Dr. Hovind (who will be out of prison soon, God willing).
Procedure: Subject was a river rock (limestome, 1.2 lb), placed in an airtight transparent container equipped with a temperature sensor (Snapware I-3), on a digital scale (EatSmart, grey), on the table in Observation Room B. Subject was observed in daily ten minute sessions for a month, monitored for weight, temperature, and movement.
Result: Weight and temperature did not change for the duration of the experiment. No signs of movement were reported.
Conclusion: See rock-to-croc in water experiment.

Experiment: Rock-to-croc in water
Lead researcher: Dr. Gayweather
Objective: A flaw was identified by the rock-to-croc experiment report: the rock may be evolving microscopic crocodiles which died immediately because they were not in water. It was decided to repeat the experiment, but by filling the container in water first.
Procedure: Subject was a river rock (limestome, 1.2 lb), placed in an airtight transparent container filled with river water (from nearby Missouri River) and equipped with a temperature sensor (Snapware I-3), on a digital scale (EatSmart, grey), on the table in Observation Room B. Subject was observed in daily ten minute sessions for a month, monitored for weight, temperature, and movement.
Result: Weight and temperature did not change for the duration of the experiment. Movement was reported on day 5: after careful examination, it was revealed that a tadpole was present. Since this was not a crocodile, it was discarded and the experiment was continued. No more movement was reported.
Conclusion: This experiment provides an important disproof of a major tenet of the Evolutionary religion, that life can arise from non-life, such as crocodiles from rocks. While it is possible that the tadpole was generated by the rock, it seems more likely that it came from the river water (which was gathered by Jeremiah the intern), and the Evolutionary religion does not claim any rock-to-tadpole transition. Detailed results will be published in the Journal of Creation (March issue).

Experiment: Rib-to-woman
Lead researcher: Dr. Sexsmith
Objective: Demonstration of the Genesis account of a woman being created from a male rib.
Procedure: No human rib could be acquired, so one pork rib was acquired from the local grocery store (Dan’s SuperMarket) and stripped of meat (the meat was subsequently placed in the break room with a sign saying “free food!” on it). Subject was placed in an open transparent container (Snapware M-1) on the alter in the Prayer Room. Subject was prayed upon by no less than two (2) researchers on a daily basis for three months, in accordance with Mt 18:19. A picture of a naked woman taken from a popular pornographic web site ( was printed and taped on the container to direct the researchers’ prayers.
Result: There was no change in the rib’s status for the duration of the experiment. A translucent white substance was found on one of the sides of the container on day 23, near the printed image, and was cleaned.
Conclusion: It is assumed that the experiment failed due to the porcine nature of the rib.

Experiment: McRib-to-woman
Lead researcher: Dr. Sexsmith
Objective: To further the research done in the rib-to-woman experiment.
Procedure: Thanks to a promotion, we were able to acquire a McRib from the local McDonalds. Subject was placed in an open transparent container (Snapware M-1) on the alter in the Prayer Room. Subject was prayed upon by no less than two (2) researchers on a daily basis for three months, in accordance with Mt 18:19.
Result: There was no change in the McRib’s status for the first three (3) days. On day 4, researchers found that the McRib had been removed from its container. No culprit has been found for this interference with a scientific experiment, although Jeremiah the intern was briefly seen with barbecue sauce on his mouth before he ducked into the men’s bathroom.
Conclusion: The experiment was aborted due to the unavailability of further McRibs.

Experiment: Flood fossil pattern
Lead researcher: Dr. Cogdiss
Objective: Demonstrating that the pattern of fossils found by Evolutionists is the result of bone sorting during the Flood.
Procedure: The bones from the skeletons of various animals of varying size and density were acquired from an Internet auction site ( Subjects were placed randomly in a large airtight transparent container (Snapware I-4). The container was then filled with mud (acquired from the nearby Missouri River) and shaken vigorously by four strong male researchers for a period of two (2) minutes. The contained was opened and subjects were extracted one by one, with their source noted.
Result: The subjects were roughly ordered by density, in accordance with Archimedes’ principle.
Conclusion: We praise the Lord that He made the laws of the world are so simple that even Archimedes (a heathen who ran around naked like some kind of savage) could discover them.

I hope this gives you a good running start on the research we’ve been doing at the Institute. Remember that experiments are nothing less than the expression of saved mankind grasping the workings of the divine will. You now share this heavy responsibility with all of us. The fate of our country, and perhaps the world, is at stake. Don’t fuck up.

Walk in Christ,

Dr. Green, CEO and Founder of the Institute of Baraminology
See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. Col 2:8