Recreational hunting and DMGD - A new hypothesis

123 posts / 0 new
Last post
martin dufresne
Recreational hunting and DMGD - A new hypothesis

DMGD may go a long way explaining recreational hunting by men who have no real use for venison.

 

Snert Snert's picture

A pretend "scientific" web site registered by Bob Chorush, who seems to be some kind of animal rights kook. And he's claiming that men who like to hunt must have small weeners.

 

Isn't that HILARIOUS?!!! Small weeners!!! LOLZ!! I bet they smell like dookies!!!!

 

Bob is evidently 10 years old.

 

The site is cohosted with www.dwgd.com, a garden design company. I wonder if they share the belief that HUNTERS MUST HAVE SMALL WEENERS!!?!!?`11

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

martin dufresne wrote:

DMGD may go a long way explaining recreational hunting by men who have no real use for venison.

 

That must be why I used to deer hunt.  Penis envy.  Had nothing at all to do with culture or familial bonding at all. 

Honestly, martin, this is so completely jerky that I wouldn't have even expected it from you.  Thanks for letting me know I can lower my expectations even further.

 

 

 

martin dufresne

Challenging recreational hunting by men is a high-risk activity... but I am up to it as long as my Corvette is at the shop.

 

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

This 'news' is from March 29, 2005.

C'mon, Martin - that's awfully weak, even coming from you.

martin dufresne

You are the one using the word 'news': no mention of that in the OP.

 

Sineed

ROFL!  Thanks for this, Martin - you made my day!

Reminds me of that bumper sticker: "Nice Hummer!  Shame about your penis."

martin dufresne

he's claiming that men who like to hunt must have small weeners

Shouldn't that read "wieners"? Unless it's really wee.

 

From the site: Dr. Upchurch reports, "The first step in the treatment of a disorder is to understand its origins. We are pleased to have crossed that important threshold."

 

Snert Snert's picture

Ya, I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're not a vegan and you're not an animal-rights activist, but you oppose men hunting on the grounds that it could lead to pride or male bonding or some other "manly" thing too manly to mention.   

martin dufresne

Look, there's a Snert out on a limb, quick, take aim...

 

Snert Snert's picture

Huh.  Two shooting "jokes" in one day.  Have you been dreaming of guns lately? 

yarg

I started hunting when I was around 10, and yes I had a smaller wiener then, what a revalation, then again i'm all growed up now..I still like to hunt..woe is me.

As an anti hunter, do you ever stop to think that maybe you're the one with some sort of defficiency?  Nah, you're a progressive and a feminist, you couldn't be wrong..perfection must be a terrible burden.

Prissykitty Prissykitty's picture

Aaaahhhhhhhhh, just blow it off...huh? Maybe you should spend some time trying to learn how to read and write instead of shootin´your long rifle around

yarg

We have entered the intelligence zone...

canuquetoo

Even the DMGD site only disparaged deer hunters who did not hunt for meat. This topic quickly derailed into attacking all hunters, even for their spelling.

Another manifestation of the insecurity that lurks just beneath the surface of those who need to stoop to sexual stereotyping in order to appear superior.

All hunters are not assholes, the bad ones just make it appear so.

CMOT Dibbler

 

Martin, are you trying to be funny?  

There  are  very few people in  this  society  who  need to hunt  for  food,  but wild  meat is  just  about  the best  meat  you  can  eat(besides  organic lamb  and  beef  that  is).  Should someone be condemned simply for seeking the most  natural source of  animal fat there is? What does this guy say about fishing?

Erik Redburn

I think this whole theory is a insult to men born with unusually small penises.  A much more likely connection is to those with deep seated control issues... 

remind remind's picture

There are men born with unusually small penises? :shocked:

 

I agree with timebandit, I hunt, always have.

 

And not because I have an enlarged clitoris. Because I don't.

Erik Redburn

There's nothing wrong with hunting, as long as it isn't just done "for sport".  Or done in a totally un-sporting manner.  Or done to an endangered species. 

Erik Redburn

And for those who just enjoy the hunt, I'm sure there are other possible reasons as well.  Some grown men might just prefer spending time out in the woods with their buddies rather than at home with their wives or girlfriends or big screen tvs.  Sport hunters shouldn't be so defensive.... 

torontoprofessor

The article reads like something from "The Onion". I can't tell whether it's a clever piece of satire, or a genuine but dishonest attempt to get people to believe that there's a link between small penis size and hunting.

Just out of curiosity, I did a google search on "pubis innyus" and got exactly eighteen hits (there at first appear to be lots of pages, but it all ends at the second page). Every hit was either to the article cited, or to pages citing that article. I might also note that "innyus" is not a word in English, Latin, Greek or any other language as far as I know: I suspect it was just made up by the the writer.

 

Unionist

Erik Redburn wrote:

There's nothing wrong with hunting, as long as it isn't just done "for sport".

I know lots of hunters (from work). Every single one of them does it just for sport. Now, I know there are many hunters (FN, Inuit, etc.) who hunt for food. I'm quite sure they must constitute a tiny minority. I'm not saying that my friends who hunt for sport don't also eat their victims. All I'm saying is that's not why they hunt.

martin dufresne

Plese don't say "tiny", Unionist.

 

Unionist

I didn't say there was anything wrong with eating what we kill.

What I find non-human is to kill for pleasure.

 

Erik Redburn

If we eat what we kill we can still make it to heaven, Unionist, even if we do get an atavistic rush out of the chase.  Even the Prince of Peace ate a little lamb now and then, and I'm pretty sure what we do counts for more than what we think.   I learned that one when I accidently cut off a couple Hells Angels...sticks and stones and all that.     

Self defence is ok too I suppose, though I doubt even rural Canada has many lions, tigers and bears left....   :)  

 

 

Erik Redburn

All I'm saying is that hunting just for trophies or the sheer fun of removing the light from the eyes of one of Nature's creations is wrong.  Killing for food or clothing or economic necessity is...well, sometimes necessary even today.  Need is never greed.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Unionist wrote:

I know lots of hunters (from work). Every single one of them does it just for sport. Now, I know there are many hunters (FN, Inuit, etc.) who hunt for food. I'm quite sure they must constitute a tiny minority. I'm not saying that my friends who hunt for sport don't also eat their victims. All I'm saying is that's not why they hunt.

That's exactly the opposite of my experience. Many in the family, including my father, are hunters. For them, it is mainly because of the meat; I always hope they are successful, because I know I'll get a taste of the moose or venison or partridge.

Do they need to hunt? Is it economic necessity? 

No, but they enjoy the outdoors, and the results. And I can tell you that having these people out in the bush keeps the local gravel pits from expanding beyond their boundaries, and the logging companies from stripping too much of the land boarding their operations. Without their eyes, ears, and concern, nature is at much greater risk.

yarg

I am not a fan of sport hunting, eat what you kill.

Bookish Agrarian

I have a rifle because of an animal that kills for sport.  Coyotees.  In the past few years we have lost calves and several hundred chickens.  The chickens were chased killed and left uneaten.  The calves may have been too, but it was hard to tell with scavengers having found them before me.

 

Nature is not bucolic.

 

Most of the hunters I know do it to be closer to their food.  They enjoy the atmosphere, but then I enjoy caring for my cattle.  Does that mean all livestock farmers are evil too.  At some point such arguments just get downright silly.

 

Michelle

Just stepping in to remind folks about personal attacks before I start getting complaints...attack the argument, not Martin...you know the drill.

Snert Snert's picture

Clarification requsest:  if I made the suggestion that people who support the abolition of prostitution suffer from tiny, tiny genitals, would that be considered some kind of attack?  Or would it just be in keeping with the hilarity of the opening post?

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

Unionist wrote:

I know lots of hunters (from work). Every single one of them does it just for sport. Now, I know there are many hunters (FN, Inuit, etc.) who hunt for food. I'm quite sure they must constitute a tiny minority. I'm not saying that my friends who hunt for sport don't also eat their victims. All I'm saying is that's not why they hunt.

That's exactly the opposite of my experience. Many in the family, including my father, are hunters. For them, it is mainly because of the meat; I always hope they are successful, because I know I'll get a taste of the moose or venison or partridge.

Do they need to hunt? Is it economic necessity? 

No, but they enjoy the outdoors, and the results. And I can tell you that having these people out in the bush keeps the local gravel pits from expanding beyond their boundaries, and the logging companies from stripping too much of the land boarding their operations. Without their eyes, ears, and concern, nature is at much greater risk.

Yes.  Thanks for posting this.  Most of the hunters I know - the ones I grew up around, my uncles both blood and chosen - are ardent conservationists who put a lot of time and money into preserving habitat.  Even preserves they're not allowed to hunt on.  Go figure.

I actually got to use a skill that I learned hunting last fall.  We were shooting footage out near an eco-village and we knew there were deer in the trees.  The cameraman and I both started thinking that it would be nice to see some deer bounding across the foreground with the village in the back, so we set him up in a good spot with a nice panorama, and I looped around behind where the deer were, then "pushed bush" to flush them out in the right place.  Worked beautifully, got a gorgeous shot out of it.

Ghislaine

martin, your opening thread premise is also sexist. What would you call women who hunt? My roomate in university in Nfld. hunted one moose per year, which she was kind enough to share with me on a regular basis. We had stews, steaks, bottled moose meat - you name it. It was not an absolute economic necessity (she could have taken out a larger student loan to bought more grocery store meat of lesser nutritional value), and she did enjoy it. She definitely did not have penis envy or wish she were a well-endowned man.

Quite a large percentage of Newfies hunt and fish (and enjoy it) and I don't think they are not known for smaller penis size.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Ghislaine wrote:

Quite a large percentage of Newfies hunt and fish (and enjoy it) and I don't think they are not known for smaller penis size.

Wink

...that's quite the use of the double negative there.

Unionist

Timebandit wrote:

Most of the hunters I know - the ones I grew up around, my uncles both blood and chosen - are ardent conservationists who put a lot of time and money into preserving habitat.  Even preserves they're not allowed to hunt on.  Go figure.

Why do they hunt? Why do you hunt?

 

KenS

I've been a vegetarian for almost 40 years now. I grew up hunting. And one of the many things I have done, was to be a hunting guide.

It is true that when it comes down to it, most people any of us are around do not hunt simply to put meat on the table.

So its fair to call it sport.

But is absolutely reductionist to call it 'killing for pleasure'.

Unionist

KenS wrote:
It is true that when it comes down to it, most people any of us are around do not hunt simply to put meat on the table.

Thanks - I was starting to wonder whether I was imagining things when I said that of the many many hunters I know, not one of them hunts for the main purpose of eating.

Ken, do you think it's humane and proper to kill animals for sport?

 

CMOT Dibbler

My apologies...

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

One doesn't absolutely "need" to eat a hamburger.   But if you happen to be a meat eater, it's nice to have one every now and then.

Though the thing is, someone else killed that cow...for profit...and usually some mega multinational food processing conglomerate.

If you hunt or fish, you kill the animal you're about to eat yourself.    Also, if a hunter kills something big like a deer or a moose, they usually have more meat than they can consume on their own, and end up sharing it with others.    I tend to think sharing is a good thing.

I've never hunted in my life.  Just not into it.   But, I don't condemn others who engage in the practice...or question their penis size.   As long as hunters act in a safe and responsible way, consume what they kill, don't hunt endangered species, hunt "in season" and play by the rules I have no real problem with it.

 

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Unionist wrote:

do you think it's humane and proper to kill animals for sport?

Do you think hiking in the wilderness is a sport?

Is it more or less of a sport if it involves carrying a 15 lbs. weight into the bush, and possibly a hundred or more lbs. back out?

Unionist

From the Greenland video:

Quote:
"Boys still only become men after their first kill."

Different people have different cultures. We only have the right to pronounce upon our own. That's why nothing I say about hunting, for example, applies to Aboriginal nations and people.

But I hope you'll agree with me that the quote above would not be appropriate for "our" culture. We don't privilege boys, and we don't need to individually kill animals as a right of passage. Do we?

 

Unionist

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

Unionist wrote:

do you think it's humane and proper to kill animals for sport?

Do you think hiking in the wilderness is a sport?

Is it more or less of a sport if it involves carrying a 15 lbs. weight into the bush, and possibly a hundred or more lbs. back out?

LTJ, I asked my question first. If you answer it, I will readily and happily answer yours.

 

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

We are omnivores by nature. I think it's hypocritical to eat meat and condemn those who kill it.

Finally, I think it unfair to accuse all of those who hunt of finding their satisfaction with the sport in the killing itself. I have hunted - rather unsuccessfully - and greatly enjoyed my time in the woods, regardless of having not pulled the trigger on most excursions.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Unionist wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

Most of the hunters I know - the ones I grew up around, my uncles both blood and chosen - are ardent conservationists who put a lot of time and money into preserving habitat.  Even preserves they're not allowed to hunt on.  Go figure.

Why do they hunt? Why do you hunt?

 

I don't anymore.  No time, for one thing, and I never liked dressing what I kill, so I switched to cameras in my late teens so and tagged along.  And now that my dad is gone, hunting would be a bittersweet experience for me because hunting was a way to spend a day rambling around the countryside with Dad, appreciating nature and doing something together.  Sometimes we didn't even shoot, just watch the wildlife.  Figure out where it was, see the beauty of the landscape.  Drink cocoa out of a thermos and laugh our heads off.  A reason to go down a road you wouldn't otherwise take.  In my current life, I still like to go for a ramble.

For my father and his friends, hunting was something cultural.  Growing up in rural or semi-rural Saskatchewan, it was something that a lot of men did.  Fewer women in their generation, although some women did hunt.  A rarity, though.  Anyway, yes there was some working-class male bonding, but a lot of them came from families who did hunt to eat in the '30s and '40s.  Even into the '50s, some of them.  Food-gathering sort of became ingrained - we picked saskatoon berries in the spring, looked for fiddleheads in the early spring in the valley, too.  Fished in the summer.  There's something satisfying in going out and getting what you put on your table yourself.  The same reason some people garden, I suppose.  We did that, too.

I think the thing that bothers me most about the OP and martin's position is the idea that men who hunt must be losers.  The men I grew up around, that were part of my childhood hunted game, but they also put their efforts into conservation, into raising families on working-class jobs and wages, and still made time to raise money for charity through groups like Kinsmen.  They were good guys. It's pretty shallow to denigrate them as men because they pursue an activity you don't approve of.

Ghislaine

Unionist wrote:

From the Greenland video:

Quote:
"Boys still only become men after their first kill."

Different people have different cultures. We only have the right to pronounce upon our own. That's why nothing I say about hunting, for example, applies to Aboriginal nations and people.

But I hope you'll agree with me that the quote above would not be appropriate for "our" culture. We don't privilege boys, and we don't need to individually kill animals as a right of passage. Do we?

 

Well as long as we are talking about culture - perhaps we can discuss the huge differences between rural and urban culture?

Hunting is most definitely a part of Newfie culture (a lot less so here on the Island). Although I have never heard of it from anyone I know in Canada using it as a "right of passage" for turning boys to men. Most often, it has been used as a way to bond as family and teach useful survival skills. What is it about the culture that takes pleasure in purchasing pre-packaged hormone-laden meat from factory farms that makes them feel superior to other cultural practices within Canada? Is it because they aren't present or taking part in the trigger being pulled when the animal is killed? It is because it is all hidden behind closed doors?

Here on PEI, coyotes are hunted and none at all are eaten. This is for wildlife conservation reasons. Coyotes have no predators here (other than the human-managed cull) and their number would quickly balloon out of control. They are much less likely to attack humans if they have a fear of humans and if they are not fed human food.

They also eat cows and chickens prior to them being ready to be packaged up for grocery stores.  Hunters and trappers here founded and are the member of the local wildlife conservation organization. They are most committed to maintaining a healthy environment and rules around quotas, seasons, etc.

remind remind's picture

Thanks Timebandit and LTJ.

 

Still crying over your post Timebandit, brought back some huge memories.

martin dufresne

The OP is satire for those who doubted it, and I introduced it with a specific focus on recreational shooting and the specific fixation many males seem to have about it -- a cultural, not biological trait, thankfully.

I too have spent the most luminous moments of my youth enjoying long walks and reveries in the bush... without guns, past the first thrill/sadness of killing a living being. I have also stopped fishing, figuring the fish (and worms) don't need any abuse for me - and I don't really need their meat.

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

martin, I get that it's satire.  Do you get that it's a shallow criticism of me and mine?

martin dufresne

I did not read in your post any identification with the "values" that Streams and Upchurch were lampooning.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

That's because Streams and Upchurch lack a basic understanding of what those values are.  They're riffing on a stereotype, and so are you.  I find that offensive.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

I can understand the moral imperative of not eating meat because you think it's wrong to kill another living thing, although I don't share it. But unless I misunderstand Unionist, he's objecting to the "thrill" hunters get by shooting and eating their own kill. If you object to that but still think it's okay to eat meat, then you are suffering an ethical disconnect. There is first, of course, the mistake that the thrill comes from killing and not hunting. Second, it is distressing that one would prefer to do our killing in sterilized, commodifed environment rather than one of camaraderie, geographical connection and continuity, where we see the trajectory of animal-carcass-plate. I don't see how buying pork chops that weigh exactly 300g, wrapped in styrofoam and plastic, is somehow more humane. Third, criticizing male homosocial activity simply because  it is male homosocial activity, is petty, small minded and clumsy. I'm all for levelling a robust criticism at hunting and male-bonding, if your argument is rooted in specifics and social theory. As it is, though, the OP is baiting, hostile and without merit.

Pages

Topic locked