++ Real Men Do It Standing Up - SouthernWolf.net

Real Men Do It Standing Up

Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2008 @ 15:03:10 EST in Cognation
by Southern

Real Men Do It Standing Up

By Cassandra

Hilali’s recent programme (see: Big Brother, Eat Your Heart Out) exposed something shocking about Islam. No, not that it’s a totalitarian, violent, supremacist, misogynist, homophobic ideology – intelligent aware people already know that.

The ex-mufti let the cat’s meat out of the bag by revealing that Muslim men pee sitting down.

Imagine that! Just like a woman!

In most mixed sex households, the toilet seat up or down dilemma is often a subject of controversy.

Most often a male urinates while standing. Frequently, the male is expected by the female member to ensure the seat is always lowered after use, and criticize him if he forgets. There are generally two justifications:

1.    The seat is used in the lowered position ¾ of the time anyway

2.    The female will fall into the bowl while trying to sit down

There is debate over whether each justification is fair or reasonable.

Women do it sitting down

Shock: Muslim men pee sitting down!!

Anand Venkataraman even conducted an academic study of the subject:

Is leaving the toilet seat down after use an obligation or an act of kindness on the part of men? For my part, I would be inclined to see it as an act of kindness… I fail to see a single reason why it should be construed as an obligation unless maybe one could somehow prove that the sight of a raised toilet seat upsets the aesthetic equilibrium around it… I strongly suspect that this is not the reasoning behind most women's insistence that seats be left down…and that the motivation has more to do with convenience than with aesthetics.

Where does this added convenience for women not having to lower the seat before use come from? A little thought shows that it actually comes from the added inconvenience of men having to lower the seat after use. In other words, it comes from the effort that men put in out of kindness to their partners. However, being kind is not the same as being efficient. Often times, it in fact translates directly into being grossly inefficient besides being unfair. There are very strong arguments indeed, that men should definitely not leave toilet seats down after use.

So lets now be scientific about the whole issue. Which is better? I mean, better for the whole system: The man, woman and the toilet - all together. For the sake of convenience we will initially assume that the whole system consists of one man, one woman and one toilet. The best case is described as the situation in which the sum total of work done by all the parties is kept to a minimum, which also happens to be the situation in which the seat hinge suffers the least wear. The worst case is the opposite - when the system ends up doing maximum work and the seat hinge suffers most wear.

Now consider the two possible extreme solutions. In Scheme 1, the man raises the seat before using the toilet, and lowers it back when he is done. In this case, the woman does no work at all. In Scheme 2, the man raises the seat before using the toilet if it isn't raised already and the woman lowers it if it isn't lowered already. Neither changes the seat position after using the toilet.

As we shall see, Scheme 2 is by far the best one for the system. In all other schemes, including Scheme 1 which is in fact the worst, the system will end up doing more work. To see why, consider this: In Scheme 1, the man always raises the seat before using the toilet and lowers it afterwards. So we count two units of work every time a man visits the toilet and none at all when a woman visits it. So the total amount of work the system does is twice the number of times the man visits the toilet. This number doesn't change regardless of how often the woman visits the toilet or how they interleave their visits.

In contrast, with Scheme 2, we need only count one unit of work each time the sex of the toilet visitor is different from that of its immediately previous visitor. The worst case scenario with this scheme is if the toilet visitors strictly alternate their visits to the toilet, i.e. every male visit is followed only by a female visit and vice-versa. In this case only, the work done by the system is roughly equal to that under Scheme 1. However, the advantage is that while this amount of work is fixed in Scheme 1 regardless of how the man and the woman interleave their visits, it can only get better and better in Scheme 2.

act of kindness

Now, let's be reasonable here!

I ran a computer simulation of the situation for a million toilet visits, with the sex of the visitor chosen randomly each time. I found that with Scheme 1, the total work done by the system was 999,386 units, while the total work done with Scheme 2 was only 499,270 units, which is less than half the work done under Scheme 1.  (source)

No such problems in Muslim households: the toilet seat is always down. Lucky Islamic women, who don’t have such aggravations in their lives. OK, so they are beaten, raped and often kept prisoner in their own home, but  hey, what’s that compared with the toilet dilemma!

Come to think of it, Muslim men also wear long flowing robes. Again, just like a woman!

Could it be that Muslim men really want to be women, but can’t admit to it, so compensate by growing long beards and being overly aggressive?

We hear a lot about penis envy.

Penis envy refers to the theorized reaction of a girl during her psychosexual development to the realization that she does not have a penis. Freud considered this realization a defining moment in the development of sexual identity for women.

In Freud’s psychosexual development theory, in the phallic stage (approximately between the ages of 3 and 5) the libidinal focus is primarily on the genital area, and the penis becomes the organ of principal interest to both sexes.

For girls:

The child develops her first sexual impulses towards her mother.

The girl realizes that she is not physically equipped to have a heterosexual relationship with her mother, as she has a clitoris, labia and vagina, rather than a penis.

She desires a penis, and the power that it represents. This is described as penis envy. She sees the solution as obtaining her father’s penis.

She develops a sexual desire for her father.

The girl blames her mother for her apparent castration (what she sees as punishment by the mother for being attracted to the father) shifting the focus of her sexual impulses from her mother to her father.

Sexual desire for her father leads to the desire to replace and eliminate her mother.

The girl identifies with her mother so that she might learn to mimic her, and thus replace her.

The child anticipates that both aforementioned desires will incur punishment

The girl employs the defence mechanism of displacement to shift the object of her sexual desires from her father to men in general.

Feminists have been highly critical of penis envy as a concept, arguing that its assumptions are profoundly patriarchal, anti-feminist, and misogynistic and represent women as broken or deficient men. Karen Horney, a German psychoanalyst, developed the concept of "womb envy" to challenge the idea of penis envy.

Some less philosophical feminists have initiated "vagina pride," as a response to penis envy.

Could it be that Muslim men suffer from vagina envy?

Is that why they insist on cutting out all of a woman’s external genitalia?

Maybe I’m onto something here and could one day replace the estimable psychologist Dr Alan Shafer (see: A Politically Incorrect Guide to why we fear Islam). I can’t resist reprinting extracts from his  hilariously fatuous talk, plus the replies I wish I’d made:

Alan: “we are likely to renounce the aspects of ourselves that we dislike or feel uncomfortable with. Instead – and this usually occurs outside of our awareness …we develop an “idea” about what others are like. Usually we find a suitable person (or group) who seems to confirm that this badness is “out there”, “not me”.

So it’s often easier to blame others, especially if there is something about them that appears to confirm this…we often come to feel anger, antipathy or hatred towards people who either seem to exemplify unrecognised parts of ourselves which we find hard to tolerate: parts such as aggression, envy, greed, covetousness, competitiveness.
Or we develop an unsubstantiated idea about other people because we can’t even face that there might be parts of ourselves like hem.

Cass: Alan, let me see if I get this right: if I hate Nazis, it’s because there’s a Nazi part of myself, so I blame the Nazis for my dislike of them, rather than acknowledging my inner Nazi. Well, glad that’s cleared up!

Similarly, if I dislike Islam, it’s because my inner self wants to chop off people’s heads, so I project my badness onto them. Yes, I’m beginning to get the hang of this – it’s all our fault!

Alan: This theory also applies to groups of people…

What I am leading to is a possible explanation of the tendencies we have to be prejudiced against groups onto whom we expel the hated aspects of ourselves (“me”) and of the groups with which we identify (“us”).

First of all is the tendency of those against whom we are prejudiced to behave in ways that seem to confirm our perception of them.

Cass: That’s true – jihadis worldwide chopping off heads confirm my prejudice that they are barbarians.

Alan: Similarly, suicide bombers inspired by the promise of great heavenly rewards after death are regarded with horror by non-Muslims, while forgetting the exhortations of their own people to go to war often on suicide missions, in God’s name.

Cass: Sure Alan - there’s no difference between jihadis indoctrinated to kill us all, and those who engage in defensive war to try and prevent them.

Let me ask you this Alan. If I jihadi wants to slit your throat simply because you’re a Jew, you won’t want any Christian soldiers to come to your aid?

So collating all these ideas, I’ve come up with my grand Cassandran Theory:

1.    Muslim men really want to be women.

2.    They realise that, having a penis, they can never achieve this.

3.    Out of envy of women, they excise women’s external genitalia, so as to destroy their sexuality.

4.    They emulate women in private by adopting their toilet habits.

5.    They indulge their feminine side by wearing long flowing robes and decorative hats.

6.    They are ashamed of this need to cross-dress, so try to prove their masculinity by growing long beards and acting hyper-aggressively.

So maybe this explains why Islam produces 



And they hold hands and kiss each other on the cheeks and shave their crotch just like women... hmmm

Short URL:
click Related        click Rate This        click Share
Associated Topics


Comments powered by Disqus
News ©

Site Menu

null.gif Home
null.gif Members
null.gif News
null.gif Downloads
null.gif Content
null.gif Site
null.gif Drugs
null.gif Physics
null.gif Nature
null.gif Poetry
null.gif Chess

Site Info

Server TrafficServer Traffic
  • Total: 9,942,058
  • Today: 115
Server InfoServer Info
  • May 28, 2023
  • 08:14 am EDT


This is the list of NukeSentinel(tm) banned IP addresses.

  • 179.60.147.*
  • 185.225.28.*
  • 93.35.128.*
  • 54.36.173.*
  • 81.19.135.*
  • 146.59.52.*
  • 51.83.238.*
  • 156.146.57.*
  • 196.196.53.*
  • 212.102.49.*
  • 46.246.122.*
  • 95.181.238.*
  • 181.41.206.*
  • 46.53.243.*
  • 1.196.84.*
  • 104.255.175.*
  • 185.65.134.*
  • 194.165.17.*
  • 194.165.16.*
  • 2.58.56.*



You have been warned!
We have caught 2700 shameful hackers.