Comments on: Haven’t You Always Wanted a Monkey?

By: SCSIwuzzy

SCSIwuzzy — Fri, 11 Mar 2005 21:05:32 +0000

Slightly off topic, but…
Remember boys and girls, Tuesday March 15th is “International Eat an Animal for PETA Day”.
While normaly, I’d say any animal will do (tastes vary, of course) this year I would advise against monkeys.
No matter how succulent they look at the zoo.
And despite what you may think, monkey brains are better fried and chilled. Despite what you learned from Hollywood. But, you can approximate the monkey brains with nearly any other large omnivore. Ask your local butcher or deli for proper recipe substitution.

By: natalie

natalie — Fri, 11 Mar 2005 19:59:57 +0000

Just wanted to point out http://www.bushmeat.org, which has tons of information on bushmeat, including risks to health. While people have been eating wildlife meat pretty much forever, the current demand for bushmeat and frequency with which people and closely-related primates come into contact with one another provide many more opportunities for cross-species disease transmission. Thanks for a great post!

By: Catez

Catez — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 13:40:46 +0000

The researcher’s are correct. In fact autopsy’s on Aids patients who have died have shown that the virus also spreads to the brain. In some parts of Africa people were eating chimp brains. The other important factor here is the fact that it only takes a few to contract HIV from eating chimp meat – the virus then started transmitting from human to human. The conspiracy theory is bunk – in the same way that epidemiology now shows a clear link with ebola and dead apes, HIV outbreaks have a direct correlation with eating chimps in Africa. Now the transmission from human to human is so widespread that the chimp issue is minor in comparison. And as for cannibals – I read some interesting scientific studies on that. The prevalence of prion disease (CJD) is higher and directly relates to eating brains also.

By: Jimbo

Jimbo — Wed, 09 Mar 2005 18:08:00 +0000

But that’s just it, Jeff. Female genital mutilation totally destroys the normal function of the sex organs. Male genital “mutilation” is a purely cosmetic change that has no effect whatsoever on the normal function of the genitals. There’s a world of difference, and lumping them both into the same category is wildly inaccurate.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Wed, 09 Mar 2005 04:27:05 +0000

Genital mutilation is still mutilation, whether the victim is a boy or a girl.

By: Liberal Larry

Liberal Larry — Wed, 09 Mar 2005 00:43:37 +0000

If all those weird diseases don’t scare people, I fear there’s no hope for Mickey Dolenz or any of the other band members. I, for one, am going to toss out that half-eaten chunk of Michael Nesmith’s femur in my fridge.

By: Juna

Juna — Tue, 08 Mar 2005 23:43:05 +0000

RE: update

La Shawn, do you listen to Rush Limbaugh’s show??

By: RedBeard

RedBeard — Tue, 08 Mar 2005 21:21:13 +0000

I do wish y’all would stop talking about circumcision. I can’t even look at my pocket knife today without getting nervous.

By: Pat'sRick?

Pat'sRick? — Tue, 08 Mar 2005 20:58:25 +0000

The CDC would be all over any outbreak of deadly contagion, looking for the vector, quarantining the infected to prevent the spread.
Well, that is, unless it would be impolitical (unpolitical? politically incorrect) and seem to target a specific identifiable group (monkey eaters, gay men, etc).

By: Pat'sRick©

Pat'sRick© — Tue, 08 Mar 2005 20:54:17 +0000

Another point on circumcision. If performed on the 8th day (Jewish practice of child circumcision), the healing is quicker and supposedly the pain is less (I don’t remember that far back and even if I did, I would not have a frame of reference for comparing the pain). Certain hormones peak at that time, which provides the benefit. If performed as an adult (again a reference in Genesis), it is debilitating for a while.

By: Montie

Montie — Tue, 08 Mar 2005 17:19:23 +0000

Thanks Andy

By: Andy

Andy — Tue, 08 Mar 2005 16:21:42 +0000

Hey Montie, glad you cleared up the fact that there’s two Mont_.

You both sound so much alike, I thot you just changed the ending. The world could use more Monties.

By: Montie

Montie — Tue, 08 Mar 2005 14:32:15 +0000

La Shawn,

Good to see another Montie (albeit with a “y”) on the comments. I had some thoughts on what Ric Landers had to say (althought I must admit you put him in his place rather nicely). He mentions that “bushmeat has been consumed for thousands of years by certain groups in Africa. This is true, but the fact that we only recently indentified the HIV virus does not mean it has not been present in some of those groups and never identified. The huge cultural upheavals that Africa has undergone in the last half century have a lot to do with how things like HIV have gone from rare to epidemic in scope.

He also mentioned cannibalistic practices and wondered why there are no recorded instances of transmission from that. In fact there was a tribe (don’t recall if it was in Africa or another continent or island) who made a habit of ritually consuming portions of deceased relatives. This tribe was found to have a huge incidence of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Desease, which was the result of ingesting tissue from individuals who had expired from the desease. It had become rampant in the tribe because tissue from one individual might be consumed by several relatives.

Before Ric makes comments on subjects, he should have his facts straight, although I assume you may have blocked his access to comment at this point (I hope).

By: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad

Tom Grey - Liberty Dad — Tue, 08 Mar 2005 14:04:07 +0000

La Shawn, Jesus was circumcised.
As am I — but not my two sons (Catholic, in Europe). At the US Naval Academy I knew a guy who, for health reasons, needed to become circumsized as an adult. Painful. He was not pleased.
I’m certain there are “mistakes” by those doing the cutting; and there are some, usually minor (more important in history), health benefits. Wives of circumsized men have fewer cancers of the cervix. Either decision has important advantages.

But genital mutilation of women is terrible. “Cultural norms” should be limited by Human Rights, and the domination of women by men is excessive in most cultures of the world.

Don’t eat monkey meat.

Those infected with HIV should be treated a bit more like drunks; with some limits on their right to drive / have sex, because it endangers innocents. Gays infected thru gay sex were infected by criminals — but the gay community doesn’t want to admit its own support for criminal irresponsible sexual behavior. Much like many drinkers haven’t wanted tough punishment on drunk drivers.

“If I had a $1000000″ — hadn’t heard it in months. Love the lines about:
MORE macaroni and cheese, with fancy catsup; yeah, dijon catsup.

Since I love dijon mustard, and not catsup.

By: Jimbo

Jimbo — Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:40:05 +0000

Brilliant post, La Shawn. The reaction in the comments section just goes to show us more and more how “racist” is increasingly defined as “something that people don’t want to hear” rather than “something that genuinely perpetuates racial stereotypes.”

At the risk of running off on a tangent, though, I don’t quite see the connection to circumcision. I had been under the impression that circumcision was healthy and more sanitary for a variety of reasons. Furthermore, it’s utterly incomparable to “genital mutilation” because it in no way affects the normal function of the genitals. The objective of primitive female-genital mutilation is to enforce sexual norms, because this manipulation often leaves the girls unable to take pleasure in the act, but the objective of circumcision is sanitary in nature. And, repeating because I feel it bears repeating, circumcision does not impair the normal function of the sex organs (at least not that I’m aware of; if I’m simply misinformed then please edumacate me), whereas female genital mutilation does.

Hopefully this wasn’t too explicit, especially for being (somewhat) unrelated to the post at hand. I’m just curious why there’s such vitriol against circumcision and how it ends up being compared to more violent genital mutilation.