It's that old joke
When we say we're thinking about nothing, we really are
Really it's just another dangly wobbly bit - to go with all the other dangly wobbly bits - sadly there are more of those each year
are certainly not on good terms with their bodies
well my penis is fine but my bloody calves won't behave like they used to
Size does matter for guys: in any group situation it usually doesn't take long to sort out who the big swinging dicks are and a sort of hierarchy is established.
Really? As a straight male I've never experienced that group dynamic.
Also never experienced that - not even as a nudist where it was clear to all
circumcised / natural
...lets take this piece of skin with lots of nerve running to it and ... well ... cut it off because like it will easier for mummy to keep baby boy clean and later in life when he is in the desert corp he won't get sand stuck there I'm sure he won't miss the fact he will have less sensitivity in his sexual organs cause that's not important to boys at all...
and don't even start with doing the same to girls damn but we humans are barabaric
pulling on it to hard.
was that a typo or not?
When my brothers were 7 and 8 they were playing doctors and nurses with a couple of neighbourhood girls in a tent in our back yard. My parents discovered them in the act and thought "this is silly".
They promptly joined a nudist club (did I mention that some of my parents logical connections were - er unusual). As a result from age 3 I have seen a large number of penises and boobs and bums. Of all ages and sizes.
The thing that strikes me is just how variable they are. Yes there was Fred the horse, but the average was probably something under 10 cm. But beyond simple length there is a huge variety of bends and girths. Basically if you were a boy and had a penis it was normal whatever it looked like.
I never saw them as anything other than normal bits of the body as a child. And as a teenager it was a comfort to know I was "normal".
But I do have to disagree with Emma. In the end there is something inherently silly about penises in a way that isn't silly about breasts, especially when playing sports in the nude.
But English isn't flat out lying - he's bullshitting. Inflation IS low. Real after tax wages ARE higher.
Danyl please read the OP again.
What you have missed is that English stated wages are higher. What a journalist should have done was note that English has used average wages which are distorted and the better measure is median wages. When both numbers are shown it is obvious that average wages are only higher because low wage earners have lost their jobs.
It should not require a blogger/columnist/opinionist to point this out. ANY journalist should understand the data. It is a simple and clear fact that a journalist should consider part of their job to identify and report. Instead what you seem to support and what we have now is people who forward on the PR e-mails to the public.
She has great taste
Someone is angling for special cuddles
is it such a bad thing if we're slowly (and painfully) getting off the debt-fuelled consumption crack?
Agreed. The issue though is has the patient stopped using because of a conscious life-style choice for the better
did they simply die?
And if I stood up in front of a Great Blend crowd and was an offensive twatcock -- or even just pissed people off by being rubbish and boring -- I wouldn't see Orcon coming back with its sponsor's chequebook next time.
To extend that analogy,
if you had no idea that what you said was offensive
and if your sponsor had no idea that what you said was offensive,
then feedback to both the speaker and the sponsor is relevant and part of the free speech process.
And as always the sponsor is free to assess the validity and relevance of the feedback. That is essentially what folks did by complaining to PHs employers and the advertisers and the BSA.
And for what it's worth I haven't heard Russell be either a twatcock or boring. I wonder which is worse...
If we really start holding advertisers to account for the content of programmes or channels on which their ads appear, then they will be more circumspect about placing ads, and some voices may be lost.
... it will be bad for free speech.
Um I think I have trouble with this. Ultimately the advertisers pay Paul Henry's salary. A little indirectly true but certainly the argument has been used by TVNZ that the have to have certain programs to get ratings in order to get advertising dollars.
If you provide the money that pays the salary of someone who speaks publicly, using your money to get a broadcast audience, then I believe you have some responsibility for the content of what is said. You may not have control but you have responsibility.
So yes if Paul Henry is deeply offensive then it is appropriate to communicate that to both his employers TVNZ and to the advertisers who provide the money to employ him.
You seem to be arguing that the advertisers should be immune from responsibility for what gets done with the money. If you provide money to allow someone to speak freely you still have responsibility for what they say. Or at least that's what I believe.