Be Prepared: I’m Slaying Dirty Tonight
If you don’t like my posts where I get a little nasty, go down to the last section called Bubbleheads. That be clean, son.
Premarin Vaginal Cream:
Judging by their television commercials you would think that the only use of this medication is for older women who have “dried up” between the legs but still want a little lovin’. And, for some reason, they parade close-ups of women’s faces who, while also in their 50’s, look like they have just been subjected to a two month vacation in Tunisia. They look freeze dried. I know quite a few people, men and women, in this age bracket and beyond, but I’ve never seen people in real life this dry looking outside of a mummy movie. I get it, you’re dry. But try a little facial cream first or you’re going to strike out anyway.
And because the commercial only mentions uncomfortable to painful intercourse, one is really shocked to hear the possible side effects. Stroke, heart attack… dementia… well, shit I’ll cut and paste it for you…
For Healthcare Professionals
Applies to conjugated estrogens: injectable powder for injection, oral tablet, vaginal cream
Oncologic side effects have included increased risks of endometrial carcinoma, ovarian cancer, and breast cancer.[Ref]
Cardiovascular side effects have included deep and superficial venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, thrombophlebitis, increase in blood pressure, and myocardial infarction.[Ref]
The manufacturer recommends close observation if conjugated estrogens must be used in patients who may be particularly sensitive to fluid retention because of underlying asthma, epilepsy, migraine, heart disease, and renal dysfunction.[Ref]
Genitourinary side effects have included breakthrough bleeding, spotting, changes in vaginal bleeding pattern, abnormal withdrawal bleeding or flow, dysmenorrhea, increase the size of preexisting uterine leiomyomata, vaginitis, including vaginal candidiasis, change in cervical erosion and in degree of cervical secretion, cystitis-like syndrome, application site reactions of vulvovaginal discomfort including burning and irritation, genital pruritus, ovarian cancer, endometrial hyperplasia, and precocious puberty.[Ref]
Metabolic side effects have included increased serum triglyceride levels and reduced carbohydrate tolerance. Aggravation of porphyria has been reported.[Ref]
General side effects have included reports of fluid retention and increase or decrease in weight.[Ref]
Gastrointestinal side effects have included nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, bloating, cholestatic jaundice, pancreatitis, ischemic colitis, and increased incidence of gallbladder disease.[Ref]
Cases of oral pigmentation and ischemic colitis have been reported rarely.[Ref]
Hematologic side effects have included hypercoagulability. Several cases of the hemolytic uremic syndrome have also been associated with conjugated estrogen therapy.[Ref]
Hepatic side effects have included enlargement of hepatic hemangiomas and rare cases of focal nodular hyperplasia, liver cell adenomas, hepatic hemangiomas and well-differentiated hepatocellular carcinomas.[Ref]
Hepatic side effects have also included many reports of hepatic tumors in women taking long-term oral contraceptives. However, some tumors have been reported in women taking isolated estrogen therapy.[Ref]
Nervous system side effects have included headache, migraine, dizziness, stroke, chorea, nervousness, exacerbation of epilepsy, dementia, and mental depression. Possible growth potentiation of benign meningioma has been reported.[Ref]
Other side effects have included breast tenderness, pain, enlargement, secretion, and fibrocystic breast changes.[Ref]
Psychiatric side effects have included case reports of rapid mood cycling in patients with severe depression.[Ref]
Respiratory side effects have included pulmonary embolism, exacerbation of asthma, and rare cases of exacerbations of pulmonary lymphangioleiomyomatosis. In addition, combinations of high-dose conjugated estrogens (the active ingredient contained in Premarin) and progestin have been reported to increase ventilation and increase the hypoxic ventilatory response.[Ref]
Dermatologic side effects have included chloasma or melasma, which did not always resolve following discontinuation of estrogen therapy, scalp hair loss, hirsutism, rash, erythema multiforme, erythema nodosum, and hemorrhagic eruptions.[Ref]
Hypersensitivity side effects have included anaphylactoid/anaphylaxis reactions including urticaria and angioedema.[Ref]
Endocrine side effects have included reports of increased levels of thyroxin-binding globulin, leading to an increase in total thyroid serum levels and a decrease in resin uptake of T3. Free thyroid hormone levels remained unchanged. Other endocrine effects have included decreased fasting plasma glucose.[Ref]
Ocular side effects have included retinal vascular thrombosis and intolerance to contact lenses.[Ref]
Local side effects have included phlebitis at the injection site and injection site pain and edema.[Ref]
Now I can understand taking it for prevention or treatment of osteoporosis (which is the weakening and brittling of the bones due to loss of bone density, this is a common malady for meno- to post menopausal women). But the commercial isn’t focused on that. Perhaps preventing brittle bones isn’t enough to sell the merchandise, but getting to use your monkeyhole into your 60’s and 70’s is!
Hell yes it is! It is worth dementia, stroke, several forms of cancer (well, that list I provided above). The fleeting pleasures of the NOW are worth everything because it is the only thing. F – the future! someone put a penis in me, I’m slick as a lubed chassis and I can no longer reproduce! No strings!
Hell, grandma, ditch that old husband of yours, come down to the local bar, and get your Puma on! (Puma is what you are called after you have passed the age at which people would refer to you as a Cougar. After you pass Puma age, you move on to Panther. I think the names get more impressive as you get older because these are the animals people would rather get mauled by than seeing grandma on the make.)
Why waste that artificial new love machine on your old husband? He’s done his part, let him wonder around in the garage, while you go get pounded by some young stud with 6-pack beer goggles (or 12 pack or 18 pack according to the cat species you currently belong to). Heck, double your pleasure, steal some of your old husband’s Viagra, grab a bottle of Trojan’s lube and invite the young stud’s friends along for the ride. Ah, retirement!
Now, seriously. Would anyone really risk such effects merely to continue sexual activity?
Fear not, I have some words for the men as well.
What about that husband? His wife has dried up, but he still feels a roiling in his loins when the girls from the local high school walk home by his front yard. In fact if the Mrs. isn’t home at the time… Or if he is wealthy and of a certain amount of self-satisfation and pride, he’ll strut to the bar and do what the Mrs. could do but without the risk of dementia. And after jacking up on the appropriate male sexual enhancers he can chant in his mind as he reaches climax, “I’m still a man, I’m still a man.”
So what about the husband? Suck it up, buddy. There is more to life than your little buddy below (although you may have spent a few decades convinced otherwise).
There’s a Post Shredded Wheat commercial where an elderly couple (they are both past Panther stage) are eating breakfast and on the television they are watching a lady reporter is saying that women’s sex drive increases at the age of 80 (not exactly true). The old lady reads the cereal box and sees that it says “reduces the risk of heart disease” (which I think you may have to start worrying about a little earlier…). So she starts woofing it down and tells her husband to “eat up”.
First, it is the amount or level of orgasmic satisfaction that was reported in the study, not the sex drive. 80 is not the new 18.
Second, yuck. Has anyone ever seen a woman in her 80’s? For that matter, and to be fair, anyone seen a man in his 80’s?
Now, perhaps it is true that a couple that ages together stays attracted together. But I can only imagine that working up to a certain point. At a certain point we’re all just a little gross even with the lights out. She’s lying on her back and her boobs are both resting on the bed to either side, probably looking like a couple of murdered sock puppets. And the man has severe scrotitis because they keep knocking up against his Patellas. And seen from behind his buttocks looks like some stapled a pair of oblong pancakes to his lower back.
[Man, this is one offensive post…]
Power to the V
Now imagine a viagra commercial that said Power to the P, or power to the C. Or had such statements on their website like “ID the P: To know it is to love it.”
Power to the V is a retarded ad campaign, or slogan, or whatever, by Summer’s Eve. I suppose since they are only a hygiene company the reference is not too terribly offensive. But then it is also dumb. “Hey, my V don’t smell like Pike Place Market anymore! Power to me!”
I suppose having a fresh smelling and tasting V does endow you with a certain power when you sit on someone’s face. I mean I’d be less rapid in throwing you off me than if you resembled Pike Place Market. Perhaps I’d feign temporary paralysis, “help me, someone! The power of the V is upon me and I can’t get up!” Maybe I’d try to click my imaginary Life Alert clicker.
Can I hear a Power to the A? That would be power to the armpit every time I apply deodorant.
Is anyone old enough to remember the 70’s? That is, the 1970’s? Does anyone recall the hairy, tacky, macho male that is the subject of much comedic ridicule now – or ten years ago?
That is the modern female. You’re that hairy guy from the 70’s.
Do I live in reality or did I go insane some time ago and this is just a make-believe world? You couldn’t have made this shit up even 20 years ago.
Strange Notions has an article here that I didn’t read, but scanned the comments section. To be fair they have a share of Catholic bubbleheads there (although they don’t usually stay long), but the atheist bubbleheads there are the best. Check out a few of these gems:
“Secular” means only concern with worldly affairs. It does not mean either “atheist,” “agnostic,” or “humanist,” for which we have perfectly serviceable words. Catholic priests who are not in monastic orders are called “secular priests,” which often startles those who have invented new meanings for old words.
I’m fine with that statement. To my knowledge that is correct. But check out the response:
The etymology of the word may all be very interesting from the viewpoint of a purist or someone obsessed with semantics such as yourself.
Well, count me as one of those people, I care to know what my words mean and where they come from. Then defends his statement by using a different word. Note, adding -ism to a word changes it, and sometimes completely. In fact that is the main function of suffixes (and prefixes), modification of the root word.
Secularism: indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations. Secularism: is the principle of the separation of government institutions and religion.
If I were discussing tendons and you disagreed with me and started using the term tendinitis, you would only be correct if I were talking about the inflammation of tendons.
But notice that the imbecile (and I’ve read enough of his comments to know he is certainly that) doesn’t even realize that he hasn’t disagreed with the commenter at all.
Then there is the usual exchanges of people with little to no reading of history or philosophy past the last five minute wikipedia look-up.
The very essence of philosophy is that is does not accept any presuppositions (it is “voraussetzungslos”). Aquinas’ presupposition is that faith is necessarily true. Philosophy can only help to proof it. He would never accept proof to the contrary.
What would be contrary proof to the presupposition that faith is necessarily true? And what does that even mean? It is not faith itself that is a presupposition, but what that faith is in.
Every philosopher brings something to the table. The very essence of philosophy is that it doesn’t not accept any presuppositions? Philosophy is done by philosophers, philosophy is not done by philosophy. You cannot philosophize without some presuppositions.
Try it. Start philosophizing right now. But with no presuppositions. Not a one. I guarantee I can cut every single attempt down by this supposed rule.
The question is not whether a philosopher brings presuppositions to the table. He surely does because he only starts to philosophize as a man long, long after accumulating a host of very fundamental presuppositions. The question is: does the philosopher recognize his presuppositions and address them, consider them, argue their counter? If one has read Aquinas, one knows that was the essence of his philosophical approach. So, particularly in the case of Aquinas that charge falls flat.
He goes on later:
Aquinas is a theologian first. As a (great) philosopher he does not go all the way; but then of course for him there would be no other conclusion than that God exists – which is a presupposition.
Can anyone spot the presupposition here?
A similar presupposition is here in the same article but a different conversation:
Sure. I am looking for a good and historical biography of Galileo. I am finding this surprisingly difficult. I detect some bias in most that I have looked up.
You may be able to contact Dr. Kenneth Howell at the chnetwork.org. He as written a few books on the history of science and math. I remember one of his books was on the Galileo affair.
To which is responded:
So, did you really think that the “coming home” network would suggest a lack of bias to me?
The presupposition here is that such a person cannot offer a non-biased biography. I don’t know if he could or not, or did or not, but would one assume merely from this that must be the case? What would we say to the same such person who would not read a book about Galileo if it did not come from a Catholic author? We’d be all over his ass, right? Ah, well, it is written by an atheist (for instance) is that supposed to suggest to a lack of bias?
And that wasn’t even what the original offer was:
I remember one of his books was on the Galileo affair. He might be helpful in tracking down the resource you are looking for.
So eager to pounce is the new religion of atheism, it doesn’t look both ways before it crosses the street. The old atheists were so much better.
But do we further assume that since the guy in question is from the Coming Home Network that even his resource references have to be biased? Do we shun not only what he has written but also what he has read?
Of course, it was never a presupposition on this guy’s part, but policy:
I appreciate your thoughts, but I am honestly astonished, that in the context of discussions between atheists and theists and a specific request for an unbiased historic account, you would send me to a theologian.
Can a theologian give an unbiased account of the Galileo affair? He doesn’t need the Imprimatur on it.
A fellow atheist comes to his rescue:
Have you tried John Heilbron: Galileo ? I haven’t read it but it looks promising
To which the original requester is wholly thankful after reading the amazon book blurb:
Looks great thanks!
I have to note that the man’s search couldn’t have been too thorough. This book is rather well known. But let’s look at the blurb real quick.
In 1610, Galileo published the Siderius nuncius, or Starry Messenger, a “hurried little masterpiece” in John Heilbron’s words. Presenting to the world his remarkable observations using the recently invented telescope–the craters of the moon, the satellites of Jupiter–Galileo dramatically challenged our idea of the perfection of the heavens and the centrality of the Earth in the universe. Indeed, the appearance of the little book is regarded as one of the great moments in the history of science.
Planned to coincide with the 400th anniversary of the publication of the Starry Messenger, this is a major new biography of Galileo, a fresh and much more rounded view of the great scientist than found in earlier works. Unlike previous biographers, Heilbron shows us that Galileo was far more than a mathematician: he was deeply knowledgeable in the arts, an expert on the epic poet Ariosto, a fine lutenist. More important, Heilbron notes that years of reading the poets and experimenting with literary forms were not mere sidebars–they enabled Galileo to write clearly and plausibly about the most implausible things. Indeed, Galileo changed the world not simply because he revolutionized astronomy, but because he conveyed his discoveries so clearly and crisply that they could not be avoided or denied. If ever a discoverer was perfectly prepared to make and exploit his discovery, it was the dexterous humanist Galileo aiming his first telescope at the sky.
In Galileo, John Heilbron captures not only the great scientist, but also the creative, artistic younger man who would ultimately become the champion of Copernicus, the bête-noire of the Jesuits, and the best-known of all martyrs to academic freedom.
This reads to the man’s presuppositions (last paragraph) and will probably be the only book on Galileo he will ever read. Remember what I have said before about sources. If I wanted to read about Galileo I would want something just like this book (after a bit more snooping) and something just like what the theologian would probably offer (again, after a bit of snooping). After all, historically the life of Galileo falls between him and the Catholic Church. If one wanted an rounded view, one would consider more than one presentation. More than one perspective.
This is atheism becoming exactly what they claim to despise, closed, cloistered, dogmatic. And since they are products of progressive education, sloppy and illogical to boot!