Comments on: When the split hits the fan

When the split hits the fan

soyjoy — Tue, 13 May 2003 12:44:11 -0800

I thpeak with forked tongue - well, no, I don't, but then I refuse to even pierce my earlobes. So where exactly is the line that makes one a standard practice, and the other a travesty that needs to be banned? After all, putting holes in your ears doesn't make you a better kisser.

By: MiguelCardoso

MiguelCardoso — Tue, 13 May 2003 12:47:57 -0800

I can't stand that "Aren't I a clever Trevor?" look on his stupid face.

By: soyjoy

soyjoy — Tue, 13 May 2003 12:54:11 -0800

I keep wondering if I'd find the effect the least bit attractive if he didn't have that damn ring in his nose. But that's just me.

By: orange swan

orange swan — Tue, 13 May 2003 12:55:17 -0800

I can't get over how, um, natural it looks, as though he was born that way. Soyjoy, I find it revolting and can't understand why anyone would want to do it - but I don't see how anyone can call for it to be banned. Consenting adults making decisions that affect only them.

By: vraxoin

vraxoin — Tue, 13 May 2003 13:02:56 -0800

Don't state legislatures have anything better to do than to go around mucking around in peoples' private lives? Aside from the moron cutting his tongue in half, who is this hurting? State legislatures need to get back to doing what they do best: ruining healthcare and education.

By: Asparagirl

Asparagirl — Tue, 13 May 2003 13:14:02 -0800

So breast implants are legal, but this should be outlawed? It's your body. Do whatever you want to it.

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Tue, 13 May 2003 13:16:25 -0800

I bet it feels like being kissed by two tongues at once... I'd kiss Interesting enough to try making out with someone who's had it done, not interesting enough to consider doing it. Though that line of reasoning reveals a good reason _to_ have it done...

By: soyjoy

soyjoy — Tue, 13 May 2003 13:17:49 -0800

Just for the record, in case anyone thinks I'm advocating that this should be banned, I'm not. I just enjoy the handwringing over this "mutilation," while other forms are common currency. I find them all equally silly.

By: filmgoerjuan

filmgoerjuan — Tue, 13 May 2003 13:18:41 -0800

I will defend (up) to (but not including) the death, people's right to do this icky, icky thing to their body. That said, I'm still recovering from the *thought* of how this must feel to have done.

By: tomplus2

tomplus2 — Tue, 13 May 2003 13:22:55 -0800

now, where's my drill? No, not that one, this one used for trepanation.

By: carter

carter — Tue, 13 May 2003 13:24:11 -0800

I was wondering if, after splitting, both tongue halves still moved as one tongue, but flapped about a bit because they were not solidly joined, or whether you could learn to move both parts independently (give Vulcan greetings, etc.).

By: iconomy

iconomy — Tue, 13 May 2003 14:02:46 -0800

If you don't like forked tongues, then chances are pretty good that you won't like forked penises, either. Not safe for work, as if it needed saying. I don't mind the tongues, it's the honed teeth that give me the willies - all that nice protective tooth enamel being sanded off. But we do crazy things to our bodies every day. carter, from the link: "he demonstrates how both forks of his tongue can move independently"

By: soyjoy

soyjoy — Tue, 13 May 2003 14:09:12 -0800

Well, now that iconomy's broken the NSFW barrier, it occurred to me a few minutes ago that - um, well, if the two forks do work independently... there are uses other than kissing that they could be put to, if the partner was female. Somebody had to say it! Didn't they?

By: Ty Webb

Ty Webb — Tue, 13 May 2003 14:09:21 -0800

Way to go, kid. You're different, I'm impressed. Now, back to work!

By: UncleFes

UncleFes — Tue, 13 May 2003 14:11:26 -0800

Despite our philosophical differences, soyjoy is my new hero.

By: stoneegg21

stoneegg21 — Tue, 13 May 2003 14:37:35 -0800

I don't know about the forked penises, but the 'male nullification' picture on that has to be photoshopped. There aren't any holes for the guy to excrete from, and that's just not possible.

By: biscotti

biscotti — Tue, 13 May 2003 15:11:16 -0800

There aren't any holes for the guy to excrete from, and that's just not possible. "Not possible" and "incompatible with life" aren't the same thing. ;) But I agree. The bead implant looks cool, though.

By: Su

Su — Tue, 13 May 2003 15:12:38 -0800

Pointless. Tattoos are illegal in Oklahoma. Guess how many parlors there are within a mile of the border in any direction. Banning does nothing but increase the taboo factor, and make it only slightly more inconvenient to have done. Really. If someone has decided to do something this drastic to themselves, do you really think a ~3hour drive to the next state is going to stop them?

By: hippugeek

hippugeek — Tue, 13 May 2003 15:44:13 -0800

...chances are pretty good that you won't like forked penises, either. Not safe for work, as if it needed saying. Blood warning on iconomy's link, too. I am never getting within 100 yards of a stonemason's shop. EVER.

By: reality

reality — Tue, 13 May 2003 15:49:37 -0800

Can't wait to see how these imbeciles will out-shock each other when this new fad becomes common. I vote for a glass skullcap so you can see their (very shrunken) brains.

By: kavasa

kavasa — Tue, 13 May 2003 16:46:09 -0800

reality, supposing that because someone feels the need to freak out their fellow man is necessarily an imbecile is (dare I say it? I dare! I dare!) quite imbecilic. I mean hey, show me the correlation between "desire to be the same as everyone else" and "higher intelligence" please, I think that would be neat. Anyways. I was definitely squirmy reading about it, even if I'd hunted through the lizard man's website some while ago. It's freaky, but I'll toss a ditto on the "banning it is incomprehensibly wacky" pile.

By: iconomy

iconomy — Tue, 13 May 2003 16:46:11 -0800

I'm sorry for not warning about my link - there's gore and body modification in addition to the aforementioned forked penis. I should have mentioned the blood; apologies if anyone was sickened by that.

By: kindall

kindall — Tue, 13 May 2003 16:55:02 -0800

I mean hey, show me the correlation between "desire to be the same as everyone else" and "higher intelligence" please, I think that would be neat. The correlation is not between "higher intelligence" and "desire to be the same as everyone else." Obviously, nobody is the same as everyone else no matter what parts of our bodies we cut down the middle. It's a red herring. The correlation is between "higher intelligence" and "the lack of desire to fix what isn't broken."

By: mitchel

mitchel — Tue, 13 May 2003 17:59:57 -0800

it's totally weird though how few rock musicians have been into body mutilation. if tongue splitting was pioneered in the 70s instead of bisexuality, then for sure bowie would've been all over it. you'd think that that gonzo babe in glass candy would be wanting to try this, or axl rose or nashville pussy or friggin' marilyn manson would, but no, even the scuzziest bands in electroclash or retro thrash are so detached and play-acting.

By: kevspace

kevspace — Tue, 13 May 2003 18:38:33 -0800

Um. Won't they just go somewhere else? And then won't some of them come back?

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Tue, 13 May 2003 19:14:18 -0800

Witch-burnings to follow.

By: dg

dg — Tue, 13 May 2003 19:31:44 -0800

The things you see when you don't have a gun... While I would not want to carry these out myself, I cannot see why anyone should be banned from doing so. On the other hand, I can see how people are wanting to express their individuality by piercings and other body modifications, but cutting your own fingers and toes off? That is just plain fucking stupid. My opinion only, of course but I am pretty sure you have to be quite a few sandwiches short of a picnic to do that.

By: beth

beth — Tue, 13 May 2003 19:42:24 -0800

Yeah, the chopping off of perfectly good digits looks like serious self-harm in need of psychiatric treatment (and sounds like it would be reason for involuntary committal). I cannot for the life of me fathom what makes a person do that. Maybe I don't want to know.

By: soyjoy

soyjoy — Tue, 13 May 2003 20:50:38 -0800

Sure, the oddities in iconomy's link are all gross to some degree, and possibly indicative of psychological harm - definitely in the digit-removal scenario. But that only brings me back to my first question - where is the line between the rest of the stuff and say, putting a permanent hole in your ear lobe? Your ear proper? Your eyebrow? Eyelid? Nostril? Tongue? Nipples? Clitoris? Where does it switch from fashion to freakazoid? I'm asking in all sincerity, 'cause to me it all looks like pointless ("fashionable" or "self-actualizing") body mutilation, so I'm interested in how those who might indulge in one vilify the other.

By: biscotti

biscotti — Tue, 13 May 2003 21:26:30 -0800

where is the line It's hard to say. To my mind, when you directly affect function in a negative and permanent way, it crosses from cosmetic to potentially pathological. Piercing your ear doesn't affect your hearing (and most piercings aren't "permanent" in any real sense, ears hold the hole well, but most other places will close up if left without jewelry). Even piercing a clitoris or nipple seems fraught with enough danger to me that I'd never do it, but that is still a long way away from cutting off a finger. That said, I don't think it's anyone's business but the person involved. That said, hacking your finger off with a chisel probably warrants a visit to a shrink.

By: Witty

Witty — Tue, 13 May 2003 21:41:24 -0800

[from the article] ...tongue-splitting be done by a doctor or dentist, and only for medical reasons.. Can someone tell me what that might be? ...do you really think a ~3hour drive to the next state is going to stop them? Of course not. But I'm thinking it might actually be better that way... really give them time to think about it. {freaks}

By: dg

dg — Tue, 13 May 2003 21:49:39 -0800

where is the line For me, it would be at the point where something has an effect on the function of the body part concerned. Ear piercing is fine (I have one myself), tongue/nipple etc piercing perhaps, but when you start to actually remove body parts or modify them so as to permanently change the way they function, that is over the line. What comes next? Self-done Paraplegia? Deliberate vegetative states?

By: SisterHavana

SisterHavana — Tue, 13 May 2003 22:07:04 -0800

I didn't realize this was such a big problem that we needed a law against it. And I live in this state! I suppose I'm going to have to look closer at people's tongues.

By: soyjoy

soyjoy — Tue, 13 May 2003 22:40:58 -0800

dg, biscotti, I see I wasn't clear enough about omitting digit removal (by trying to specify "the rest of the stuff") from my question. Obviously there's a thick line being crossed there, when you're giving up basic biological functionality. At least in the case of fingers. Then again, how many toes do we really need? And my left little toe always seems to get a hangnail... And this morning it was giving me a really creepy look... Hey, didn't Jesus say, "If your toe offends thee...?" Hang on, I gotta find a chisel.

By: eddydamascene

eddydamascene — Wed, 14 May 2003 00:26:52 -0800

Yeah, the chopping off of perfectly good digits... I cannot for the life of me fathom what makes a person do that. Maybe I don't want to know. A good article on the subject is "A New Way to Be Mad", by Carl Elliott. It actually has a clinical name: apotemnophilia, the attraction to the idea of being an amputee.

By: biscotti

biscotti — Wed, 14 May 2003 03:28:18 -0800

I see I wasn't clear enough about omitting digit removal Most things short of that don't seem any weirder or more pathological than scarification, tattooing or piercing to me. Tooth sharpening is pretty darned close to that line, though (but at least you can get caps when your lovely Aleister Crowley smile starts to rot), tongue splitting is right on it and penile bifurcation is over it as far as I'm concerned. Mr. Wiggly is not coming back from that if you change your mind in a few years, that Red Sea is parted for good.

By: mitchel

mitchel — Wed, 14 May 2003 10:37:16 -0800

I'm interested in how those who might indulge in one vilify the other. well how is this continuum any different from those who eat french fries cooked in animal fat "vilifying" those who eat head cheese and pig feet or raw eggs and wild mushrooms? the more atypical a body mod is, the more likely it is to be "gross", and the more likely it is to have a significant chance of complications / health issues. you needn't "draw the line" anywhere. as with porn, seduction and compensation, beginning of life, etc. it's perfectly reasonable for someone who eats french fries to say don't eat raw eggs, you'll get salmonella. and it's a bit hypocritcal too if you want to look at it that way, cos mr. french fries will get hardened arteries. and it's quite naive to be calling the more extreme forms of body modification "crazy". these people get plenty of positive feedback for their acts, from their social circle as well as from their own increased feeling of control over their body. it's not like running marathons are particularly healthy for your body [though the training part usually is].

By: titboy

titboy — Wed, 14 May 2003 11:42:05 -0800

I'm surprised no one's mentionned circumcision yet. Necessary? Cosmetic? Religious? Medical? Biological improvement?

By: soyjoy

soyjoy — Wed, 14 May 2003 12:54:31 -0800

heh. Even I was staying away from that one, titboy. But no, I don't see much difference, other than the fact that the circumcisee is usually an unwilling participant.

By: mdn

mdn — Wed, 14 May 2003 14:09:43 -0800

well said, mitchel. where is the line between the rest of the stuff and say, putting a permanent hole in your ear lobe? ... I'm interested in how those who might indulge in one vilify the other. Most people "modify" their bodies to one degree or another - by working out, by dieting, by getting their hair cut or wearing make-up - the difference seems to be the permanence some people are willing to take on, and, like asparagirl noted above, whether or not the modification in in keeping with current cultural norms (breast implants=yes, tongue splitting=no). Ear piercings don't have a great impact on your life; if you stop wearing earrings, it's unlikely anyone would ever notice whether or not you had your ears pierced - basically, if you change your mind, it's not like you've really affected anything. Other piercings may be slightly more noticable if you stop wearing them, and may have a greater likelihood of negative side effects (I wouldn't want any extra scar tissue in certain naturally sensitive areas, e.g.). CHopping off bits of your body or inserting sacs of latex will decrease utility (even your little toes help you balance; extra weight is a strain on your back) so your counter-reason for choosing to do so would have to be pretty strong. But if you were convinced that it would make you happier to not have a toe or to have giant boobs, it really does seem like that's your choice.

By: ikalliom

ikalliom — Wed, 14 May 2003 14:45:31 -0800

where is the line between the rest of the stuff and say, putting a permanent hole in your ear lobe? -------------- Your ear proper? Your eyebrow? Eyelid? Nostril? Tongue? Nipples? Clitoris? It's quite easy to draw the line, really. It's probably just me, but in my opinion most piercings are just plain ugly to look at. You've been fooled, kids, they're not cool, edgy, not even nice. Ugly! Now go and get yourself a haircut.

By: dg

dg — Wed, 14 May 2003 16:15:50 -0800

I'm surprised no one's mentioned circumcision yet. Done to death already. There are many more threads touching on the subject, also.

By: mitchel

mitchel — Wed, 14 May 2003 20:52:15 -0800

dg, where do you get off "fixing" someone else's spelling? couldn't resist clipping it could you? sico. and ikalliom, i usually have to actually scrutinize a nipple ring in situ before i can decide whether it's cool, edgy and nice. it is only with great temerity that i would dare request, "put your shirt back on." for we do live in an age where boob asymmetry is valued more than in past eras.

By: dg

dg — Wed, 14 May 2003 23:00:19 -0800

Well, I am so very sorry mitchel, that I allowed the spell-checker to "correct" an incorrectly spelled word. Sheesh. sico?

By: Witty

Witty — Wed, 14 May 2003 23:54:55 -0800

Sector Interface Control Officer - that's me! "Drop your weapon. You have 10 seconds to comply."

By: pots

pots — Thu, 15 May 2003 01:52:05 -0800

Ryan and Dave

By: dabitch

dabitch — Thu, 15 May 2003 05:42:12 -0800

....both forks of his tongue can move independently that sentence hypnotized me. he can? wow. c'mere dude, lemme see that.....

By: soyjoy

soyjoy — Thu, 15 May 2003 07:29:49 -0800

pots - cute, but it was a hoax, of course.

By: mitchel

mitchel — Thu, 15 May 2003 09:56:37 -0800

sorry, stupid pun, sic-o as in [sic]. i didn't consider that you might have spellchecked, and thought it was cute that you excised a typo on a subthread about circumcision. i guess i'm the type that doesn't just see faces in clouds, but thinks it's funny to pretend to get angry at them.