Jack-ass Dean Tyler

The BBQ Pit
141

This won’t compare at all to what’s gone before, but it got stuck in my brain while I was making coffee…

I am the very model of a mad non-circumcisionist
My information’s sketchy and my history’s revisionist
I will not post my sources and I can’t confirm the factual
But I’m a penis expert and I know from homosaxual

I’m very well acquainted too with the female anatomy
And I don’t like full penetration; people say that’s bad of me
And many people come to me for help, and I their problems fix
I teach them not to leave behind a wet spot, 'cause it don’t exist!

That having been said…
As we all know, I’m a slut. And, were I male, I would do Esprix in a heartbeat, as well as a very decent proportion of others around here.

I wouldn’t do JDT, though…not even if both of us were blindfolded and he bathed in Lysol immediately before.
The largest erogenous zone is the brain, and though his penis is apparently hyper-sensitive, his brain is sorely lacking.

142

::golf clap::

Well done, I say. Well done!

143

Brava, indeed.

By the way, Jack, I’m hoping you’re going to recant your inaccurate descriptions of me. (Hoping, but not expecting, of course.)

Esprix

144

The “Uncle Ernie” crack is right out of line, JDT. Esprix is about as an upstanding a poster here as you could think of. He is a fiercely moral man (as well as a diplomat). Uncle Ernie was a molester of disabled children in Tommy. To compare the two is an unforgiveable slur. Withdraw it AND get out of here, fuckhead. Before this I might have suggested you get help.

145

Isn’t slander enough to get one banned around here, even if it is the Pit?

Mods? Call on this one?

Esprix

146

DNFTT

147

This is a response to Kimtsu’s response to the Circ thread in Great Debates http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=45330&pagenumber=lastpage. I put it here 'cause I didn’t want it to get edited.

Kim, Kim, Kim, you sweet naive, you.

::cue funky disco music::
“He’s a brick…(oww!)… wall; he’s flighty, flighty, just lettin’ it all hang out” (woops, he’s circ’d- can’t do that)

148

My call is “foul”. I’ve actually seen Tommy, but the reference was lot on me until other posters pointed it out.

Listen up, Jackie. We all know about your circumcision obsession. It’s a one trick pony, and you ride that pony hard. But I’d advise you to retract the skin on your eyelids for a minute so you can read this carefully:

I recommend that you withdraw your completely baseless implication that Esprix is a child molester as soon as possible. It feels silly to have to notify you that we consider that kind of libelous crap over the line here at the SDMB, even in the Pit.

I’m sorry someone took a knife to your dick, JDT. But regardless of your trauma, you need to seriously think before you post.

Watch your step.

149

Alphagene,

> My call is “foul”. I’ve actually seen Tommy, but the reference was lot on me until other posters pointed it out. <

Wow, I'm really sorry for saying anything that could have even remotely been construed as implying that Esprix was a "child molester" (my apologies to any pedophiles who may be lurking since Uncle Ernie was actually a child-mutilating pedophile which is much worse than any pedophile or even a child rapist).
    As I recall, what happened was that Esprix made a comment that he couldn't wait to have a boy so that Esprix could cut the little boy's foreskin off (I have to assume that Esprix wasn't joking since adults are doing this to children all over the place within his society). Then some other person posted something to the affect that she/he had a child that she/he wanted to leave with Esprix. Then she/he referred to Esprix as "Uncle Esprix." And, well, I'm a big fan of musicals and I just happened to think how much Uncle Esprix rhymed with Uncle Ernie. I din't mean no implication by it. I wonder why ever'body's jumpin' to that conclusion. Do you think that it's possible that I made some kind of subconscious association? Why would I do that?
150

ahem I said:

Where in there did I say I have a kid? I’m 18 ferchrissakes.

Yeah, it rhymes in a way where it doesn’t at all. You could take a few lessons from Dr. Seuss… or even the schmuck who writes lyrics for the Backstreet Boys.

Well, if YOU’RE the one making the association, it sure says something about you.

151

tiggeril- to be fair, Esprix pronounces his name “S-pree” so, yes, it does rhyme with Ernie. Note the date, it’s the first time JDT has gotten something right!

152

I think that was the least apologetic apology I’ve ever seen.

Ever have one of those days when your sigs seem extra appropriate?

153

[Emphasis mine]

This is honest-to-god JDT from the jack-the-ripper thread. This confirms my long-held suspision that JDT is, at heart, a misagynist. Women are substitures for the “real thing” of masterbation? Mind you, I don’t believe that any “thing” is “real”–we have a bunch of nerves, and however we stimulate them to achieve pleasure is “real”, and I for one know what the teological fallacy is, but this insinuation that sex with a woman is something a cut man settles for in a futile attempt to mimic his slain foreskin is just pathetic.

Near as I can tell, Jack hates to need women to get off, and figures that he could be completly independent and sexually satisfied if only he had his foreskin. Whereas women make demands, ask questions, need attention, etc, The Foreskin is always patient, always loving, always there for you. It’s better than a puppy, because it sucks back up its own excrement! Nature “designed” men to sit in a cave and have ultimite transcentdental pleasure over and over and over again, and all the men would still be back there in Eden if only someone hadn’t fucked up, lopped it off, and been too embarressed to admit their mistake. All that “tree of knowledge” BS is obviously a metaphor for the invention of circumcision.
I have another idea that dosn’t preclude the misagynist theory, but rather exists concurrently. In case you don’t know, Jack, all the intact men out there are not having orgasms like the guys in porn films. There is no extraordinary sexual experience you are missing out on. It is true that the media portrays men (and women) as having mind-blowing orgasms all the time, but that is to make ALL OF US feel inadequate and go buy more products, be they dockers or tug-a-hoys. It’s not just you that is getting left out here—it is all the real people. I think what may have happened to you is that when you were young you were told that orgasms were just the most incredible thing in the world, and then when you got old enough to have one you discovered, like the rest of us, that while they are great–would hate to give them up–they are not, you know, heroin. But where the rest of us recognized that perhaps the stories we heard were a bit exaggerated, you began looking for a reason why you weren’t flung headlong into the etheral plane, there to hang in a suspended state of unearthly bliss while choirs of Angels sang and your every nerve replied. For some reason you focused in on your cut state as the reason for this. it’s not–it’s just that you are human.

154

I think it’s evident that the association was quite conscious. Feel free to delude yourself into thinking it was just an odd coincidence, Jack. I’m telling you to keep all future “coincidences” to yourself.

I wouldn’t presume to comprehend your thought process, Deano.

155

Manda JO,

>This is honest-to-god JDT from the jack-the-ripper thread. This confirms my long-held suspision that JDT is, at heart, a misagynist. <

Well, maybe you think that Mother Nature is a misogynist.

> Women are substitures for the “real thing” of masterbation? <

Your misrepresenting my position. A circumcised man is just doing what comes naturally. He uses the woman like a foreskin because he doesn't know any better and because he has no choice.

> but this insinuation that sex with a woman is something a cut man settles for in a futile attempt to mimic his slain foreskin is just pathetic. <

I'm not sure what you mean by this statement. It's an established fact that intact men have sex differently than circumcised men. Either intact or circumcised will have sex with a woman. It's just that with the intact man there is a synergistic dance with various parts of the genitals. With a circumcised man, there is the attempt to make the woman become the action of a foreskin.

> Near as I can tell, Jack hates to need women to get off, and figures that he could be completely independent and sexually satisfied if only he had his foreskin. <

It is my opinion that circumcision does result in the man becoming what is commonly referred to pussywhipped. The circumcised man does become subservient to women.

> Whereas women make demands, ask questions, need attention, etc, The Foreskin is always patient, always loving, always there for you. <

Well . . . yeah.

> Nature “designed” men to sit in a cave and have ultimate transcendental pleasure over and over and over again, and all the men would still be back there in Eden if only someone hadn’t fucked up, lopped it off, and been too embarrassed to admit their mistake. <

Yeah. When men came out of their caves it would have been for some artistic or philosophical reasons instead of for the heroin-fix-pussy-hunt.

> In case you don’t know, Jack, all the intact men out there are not having orgasms like the guys in porn films. There is no extraordinary sexual experience you are missing out on. <

I'm here to tell you that there is an extraordinary difference between the sensations of intact and circumcised men.
     I do study porn films to some extent. All I see is women being slammed on like they are linebackers. It's pretty depressing and makes me kind of sick, actually.

> It is true that the media portrays men (and women) as having mind-blowing orgasms all the time, but that is to make ALL OF US feel inadequate and go buy more products, be they dockers or tug-a-hoys. It’s not just you that is getting left out here—it is all the real people. <

I've already identified this phenomenon earlier in one of these threads. You are quite incorrect. What you are seeing with all of this hoopla about sex is a lot of people who have the very fear that they are missing out, just like you are describing.

> I think what may have happened to you is that when you were young you were told that orgasms were just the most incredible thing in the world, and then when you got old enough to have one you discovered, like the rest of us, that while they are great–would hate to give them up–they are not, you know, heroin. <

    Isn't that exactly what all women envision sex to be before they have it. They're young and so full of hope. Then they get romped a couple of times by these crippled men and what do you have: goddamn, paranoid, low self-esteem, she-devils. Not all women are this way. I think that some of them just die inside. How sad. European women are so different than American women. This is the reason why, I believe.

> But where the rest of us recognized that perhaps the stories we heard were a bit exaggerated, you began looking for a reason why you weren’t flung headlong into the etheral plane, there to hang in a suspended state of unearthly bliss while choirs of Angels sang and your every nerve replied. <

    I think that a lot of women become more promiscuous than they otherwise would have to try and find these sensations that they are expecting.
Men circumcised as adults compare the difference to seeing in black-and-white instead of color. Other men circumcised as adults say that they have lost 60% of what they were before. The difference between the two states is indeed mind-blowing.

>For some reason you focused in on your cut state as the reason for this. it’s not–it’s just that you are human. <

Oh, c'mon. There must be some reason for all of those nerves. They must serve some purpose. Not only is the sex for the intact man mind-blowing, it's mind-blowing for the woman too. I have a question for you: what feels better, your vibrator or sex with an circumcised man? The intact man can exceed the vibrator if he knows what he is doing.
156

Nope, ain’t goin’ to do it…too easy.

157

Can we move this over to the Jack’s Sig thread?

158

Alphagene, Jack seems to have trouble with sarcasm and irony - but that’s no surprise.

Since your recommendation was for him to withdraw his attack, and he certainly didn’t do so (to my or anyone’s satisfaction), what’s next? Are we still sitting at a warning (or is it two, as I thought he got one in his original snip-snip thread)? Is there something I could or should do?

Guide us, O Wise One.

Esprix

159

Well, maybe you think there really IS a Mother Nature.

Established by whom? Other than your own, “infallible” self, I mean.

So, you are either uncut and you dominate women as nature “intended,” or you are cut and pussywhipped. Which is it?

I have a question for you: What feels better for a woman, a vibrator or sex with you? If it’s the former, then maybe it’s your own damn fault for not knowing what you’re doing?

160

Esprix, I’ve seen you post this morning in at least three related threads (including this one) seeking to stop feeding these discussions.

I for one (among many) am getting a great deal of amusement from these threads. The foreskin chaos is a welcome diversion from the election chaos.

As I have explained before (in the appropriate moderating in GD? thread) Jack Dean Tyler is not a troll. Vehement and deluded, perhaps, but not a troll. He has only started one thread (the original Comments on Cecil’s Columns thread, subsequent moved to GD), and has confined his discussions of foreskin issues to that thread and related threads started by others.

The circumscision threads are few in number and easily avoided. Many of us are finding these discussions interesting (though in a train wreck sort of way), and if you tire of them, you are free not to click on them. Jack is trying to make his point under the rules of the board, though like many newer posters needs some guidance.

There is no reason to cut these threads (or Jack Dean Tyler) off.