Recreational hunting and DMGD - A new hypothesis

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.

This 'news' is from March 29, 2005.

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

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

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

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 [i]men[/i] hunting on the grounds that it could lead to pride or male bonding or some other "manly" thing too manly to mention.   

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

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

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.

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... 

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. 

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.

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....   :)  

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.