VELVET DONK

Introductions

Preface

to top

Archives

Issue 1
Issue 2
Issue 3
Issue 4
Issue 5
Issue 6

to top

Contributers

to top

Tid Bit

The Word Fuck

by an unkown author

Perhaps one of the most interesting and colorful words in the English language is the word "Fuck." It is the one magical word, which, just by it's sound describes pain, pleasure, love, and hate. In language, "Fuck" falls into many grammatical categories. It can be used as a verb, both transitive (John fucked Mary) and intransitive (Mary was fucked by John). It can be an active verb (Mary doesn't really give a fuck); or an adverb (Mary is really fucking interested in John); and as a noun, (Mary is a terrific fuck). It can be used as an adjective (Mary is fucking beautiful). As you see, there are very few words with the versatility of "Fuck."

Besides It's sexual connotations, this incredible word can be used to describe many situations:

• It can be used in an anatomical description - "He's a fucking asshole."
• It can be used to tell time - "It's five fucking thirty."
• It can be used in business - "How did I end up with this fucking job?"
• It can be maternal - as in "Motherfucker."

And of course in varying states of mind:

• Greetings -- "How the fuck are you?"
• Fraud -- "I got fucked by the car dealer."
• Dismay -- "Oh, fuck it."
• Trouble -- "Hell, I guess I'm fucked now."
• Aggression -- "Fuck you."
• Disgust -- "Fuck me."
• Confusion -- "What the fuck...?"
• Difficulty -- "I don't understand this fucking business."
• Despair -- "Fucked again."
• Exasperation -- "For fuck's sake."
• Enjoyment -- "This is fucking great."
• Hostility -- "I'm going to knock your fucking head off."
• Stupidity -- "Geir Bergerud is a Fuckwad!"
• Incompetence -- "He's such a fuck-up."
• Ignorance -- "Fuck if I know."
• Displeasure -- "What the fuck is going on here?"
• Lost -- "Where the fuck are we?"
• Disbelief -- "Unfuckingbelievable!"
• Retaliation -- "Up your fucking ass."
• Surprise -- "Fuckin A!"
• Surprise -- "Well, I'll be fucked."
• Suspicion -- "What the fuck are you doing?"
• Contempt -- "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on!"

Finally, some famous quotes:

• General Custer's last words: "Look at all the fucking Indians!"
• Mayor of Hiroshima: "Holy FUCK!"
• Captain of the Titanic: "Where is all this fucking water coming from?"

The mind boggles at the many creative uses of the word FUCK! Use it regularly in your daily speech. It will add to your prestige.

Stuff

Image Explantions

Feature

Hypocritical Animal Phobia

by Dax

Preface

These are the facts of life.

However, humans prove distinct on one front; we have the ability to utilize developed complex thought. No other organism can utilize this ability to the degree that humans can. And developed complex thought is indeed distinct. This evolutionary trait enables us to reason through triadic behavior, basically meaning that we can use symbolism in our language and thought, which other organisms cannot.

Developed complex thought separates us psychologically from other organisms. All other separations are defined biologically, mostly by anatomy. Eating and excreting and procreation are not novel processes; they've been going on in one form or another long before the inception of symbolism on this planet. All organisms eat and excrete and procreate.

Section 1

All humans are animals. We have always been animals and in all likelihood we will remain an animal species until we become extinct. Despite, most individuals in modern America have some absurd notion that humans really are not animals. These individuals have what I call hypocritical animal phobia.

This state of mind is manifest in individual belief that human animal needs and desires are different than those for other animals. Of course, though, they are not. We eat and excrete and procreate just like all other animals.

Those who are sadly subject to hypocritical animal phobia, however, believe that our eating and excreting and procreating is somehow superior to the comparable tasks in other animal species. These base tasks are either written off by these individuals as life's pleasures or masked by consumerism. And the numbers are astounding. I would estimate that ninety nine percent of individuals in modern America are subject to this phobia. I shall explain further.

Section 2: Eating

Humans eat to maintain their lives. Our bodies need certain essential nutrients and a minimum caloric intake to survive on a day to day basis. These nutrients and calories are acquired through food, defined as any substance that contains either calories or nutrients. Eating is the process of the intake of food. That simple.

All organisms must eat. True, other organisms require different nutrients and caloric levels, but the base process of eating remains throughout all living organisms.

Why then do most of us gawk at the way other organisms eat? Why is there a vegan movement? And why is expensive food so coveted?

The answer is hypocritical animal phobia.

We see pigs eat from troughs and dogs from bowls. We see these animals tear at their food and then lick the containers that held their food. We laugh. "Look how they eat," we say; "That's repulsive." But what do we do that is any different from them?

Well, we eat from plates. We don't usually touch our food with our hands. We clean our plates. We go to specific places to eat specific kinds of food.

"Sophistication," most say. Yet are these eating rituals more sophisticated than those of other animals? Not to a great degree. We are consuming elements that our bodies need just the same, whether we pick these elements up with our hands or with a fork. And what difference does it make what kind of food we eat? None, really. As long as we receive all the essential nutrients that our bodies need.

So what am I saying, that we should eat from troughs with our mouths and then not clean them. Of course not. I am just bringing to light the fact that we believe our eating habits our somehow better than other animals when they are just as base and just the same. Well, who cares? What difference does it make if I happen to enjoy pizza over Chinese food and if I happen to like the ritual of drinks then appetizers then entrees then dessert. After all, it tastes good right?

Well the thing is food and eating happen to be an immense chunk of most individuals' lives, beyond the base act of eating. Most people talk about food and the process of eating constantly.

If restaurants were simply coveted for their atmosphere and their food equally I wouldn't complain. And most people would say this is true. But it is not. Definitions of atmosphere vary. My definition of well-developed restaurant atmosphere is a place conducive to conservation. The popular definition of well-developed restaurant atmosphere is a place conducive to eating.

Clarification: when I go to eat I never talk about eating. I talk about life. Most people talk about eating when they go out to eat. They spend hours deciding what kind of food they want. They pour over the menu, discussing each item in detail with each other. They talk about the anticipation of the well-prepared meal. During the meal they talk about how well-prepared the meal actually is. And after the meal they talk about how the meal sits in their stomachs. Of course this is a great exaggeration, but you get the point. The base process of eating is blown up on a meal to meal basis to be a lavish event when in reality eating is just eating.

I am advocating that people eat with out spending a quarter of their lives talking about it. Remember, we have the ability of developed complex thought. My dog probably thinks about eating as much as most people do. That's pathetic. That time can be spent thinking much more complexly while still maintaining the daily intake of well-prepared exquisitely tasting food.

A further extension of this thought is a rebuke of veganism or any "ism" that suggests eating certain foods is morally right. Humans must eat once organic substances to stay alive. We cannot eat coal or assimilate atmospheric nitrogen. For food to be useful to us, it must of been part of something living at some time. This is simply a fact of life. Humans are consumers not producers. You and I will never be able to photosynthesize. The point is there is no moral boundary between consuming different types of organic matter. Everything we consume for nutritional value at one point in time was living. Who are we to say that one living organism is superior over another? If your particular "ism" suggests that eating a living organism is morally wrong, then you better just kill yourself now because you are going to starve to death.

Section 3: Excretion

This section is abut excretion. The next describes procreation. Both are similar in ideas to the previous section about eating. All three advocate an end to endless time being spent on base acts. They don't advocate and end to pleasure, just a change in the state of mind of those with hypocritical animal phobia. Still eat, just don't talk about it constantly. The same with excretion.

Excretion seems to be an endless joke for the human kind. Flatulence and burping are just base means of excretion. All animals do them. They must or they would explode. That simple. There is no humor in it. Is it the bad smell? The sound? The smell is arbitrarily bad through thousands of years of evolution, most likely so our ancestors wouldn't eat their own feces.

What amazes me is that flatulence along with eating and procreation comprise probably over fifty percent of daily conversation. Can people just not use their thought. Can we not think up our own humor? Surely we can.

Furthermore, and here is where hypocritical animal phobia comes into play, people scold their young children for flatulence at the dinner table. Why? Can they help it? Of course not. We laugh at our pets' flatulence but scold our own? Yet they are the same. They both are necessary acts of life. Again, we should go to the bathroom as much as need be, but we should not waste our precious time talking about our experiences in there. We have no time to waste. There are no other times as these.

Section 4: Procreation

Hypocritical animal phobia takes the biggest toll on individuals' day to day lives in the aspect of procreation. People definitely believe that human means of procreation are superior to the means presented by other animals. Actually, modern Americans generally never consider this fact: no one compares human sex to animal sex, even though they are the same. Our society completely disguises the base act of sex as a secretive euphoric link to utopia. Of course, sex provides no such link. Sex results only in procreation and fleeting pleasure.

This pleasure, furthermore, is entirely understandable. Naturally human beings crave and enjoy sex. We are programmed as such. Our limbic systems and various hormonal alterations make us feel this way. That simple.

Sex is the only way we can procreate, so it seems rational that sex feels right to us while we are doing it. Evolution has willed it as so. This enjoyment makes us more fit to our environment: if sex feels right, we will instruct ourselves to do it often, and thus we will procreate and in time inherit the earth. Simple Darwinian fitness.

So if we recognize that sex feels right because our genes say sex feels right and we know that otherwise sex is just a means for procreation, why all the hush-hush? Why was the mentioning of sex prohibited from almost all mass-media publications before the 1960s? Why is the concept of chastity even a concept? What is the big deal surrounding sex? Sex is just a base act. Nothing else.

And yet there is an arguable basis that our entire society is based upon this act. I am not arguing this point, of course, but there is no doubt that there is an amazing amount of awe surrounding the act of sex. Is it just that we cannot comprehend our own sexual drives? Or is it that our society has climaxed to a point of hypocritical animal phobia where we have indeed transformed one of the basest animal acts into a concept that we constantly converse about and seek out knowledge about?

We spend an astonishing amount of our limited time thinking and talking about sex. Now I'm not talking about having sex, just thinking and talking about it. This time is being wasted. There is no need to attempt to delve deeply into a subject which is shallow. There are no answers down there. Sex is simply procreation. Don't waste your time talking and researching a base animal act.

Yes indeed we are animals and crave sex, but the craving is easily satiated by the act. Yet we waste so much time working up to a short and base act. Seriously, think how much time you have spent thinking or talking about sex compared to actually having it. Astounding. And this error is not entirely your fault. Here you can blame society, although you comprise society.

Our society has us believe that sex is secretive euphoric link to utopia. Religions and social organizations comment faithfully on how sex should be administered and the rules of etiquette surrounding sex. All of this discourse is rubbish.

The answer is simple. The sexual drive is basically impossible to overcome. You will inevitably think about sex, and this thinking will only truly be relegated to nothingness when an orgasm or an equivalent means of satiation occurs. At this point your hormonal system and brain shift you away from sexual drive and back in a mode where you can think clearly, fully able to utilize your abilities for developed complex thought. So, the simple solution is, when you have a craving for sex, satiate it.

Some people don't have cravings as often as others. And some people can think of other things and their sexual drive will disappear. This is a form of satiation. The other is, as mentioned, orgasm. This method can be triggered by, of course, sex, either through intercourse or masturbation. Both acts are not complicated and take little time, and are, as in accordance to are genes, pleasurable.

If we satiated our sexual desires when they occurred, our society would most likely be more advanced and on an individual basis, smarter and happier. We would have much more time to think and would also never be sexually repressed. We would win on both fronts. We would no longer be trapped inside our hypocritical animal phobia. We would recognize sex as base animal need and we would fulfill that need just like eating and excreting.

Section 5

What does all this bellowing mean? It means freedom. Freeing up your sacred time for things that only humans can think about. My dog cannot conceptualize our galaxy, but she can eat and excrete and procreate.

What I advocate is that you continue to eat and excrete as you did before, but stop talking about these acts when you are not performing them. There is no need. In fact, you are wasting your time. Moreover, I suggest you satiate you sexual cravings whenever you have them through whatever means is possible. Of course, the openness our society should have toward sex will not occur overnight, but individuals can change society. After all, individuals comprise society.

Yeats spoke of opposing gyres as a metaphor for everything. I use his gyres now for a metaphor for modern American society. Originally our ancestors were situated at a point of an unwound gyre: a tightly packed, neatly organized civilization, dedicated to survival of the fittest. Lately though, our once tightly bound gyre has unwound into a globulous world of hypocritical animal phobia. Maybe a new gyre will create from our mess. A new gyre. A new civilization…

Poetry

Absolution is Female

by Dan

to top

"This Be The Verse"

by Philip Larkin

to top

Humor

You Might be a Physics Major If...

by Jason Lisle

• You have no life - and you can PROVE it mathematically.
• You know vector calculus but you can't remember how to do long division.
• You chuckle whenever anyone says "centrifugal force."
• You've actually used every single function on your graphing calculator.
• It is sunny and 70 degrees outside, and you are working on a computer.
• You always do homework on Friday nights.
• You know how to integrate a chicken and can take the derivative of water.
• You've calculated that the World Series actually diverges.
• You hesitate to look at something because you don't want to break down its wave function.
• You have a pet named after a scientist.
• You laugh at jokes about mathematicians.
• The Humane society has you arrested because you actually performed the Schrodinger's Cat experiment.
• You can translate English into binary.
• You can't remember what's behind the science-building door that says "Exit."
• You have to bring a jacket with you in the middle of summer, because there's a wind-chill factor in the lab.
• You are completely addicted to caffeine.
• You avoid doing anything because you don't want to contribute to the eventual heat-death of the universe.
• You consider ANY non-science course "easy."
• When your professor asks you where your homework is, you claim to have accidentally determined its momentum so precisely that, according to Heisenberg, it could be anywhere in the universe.
• The "fun" center of your brain has deteriorated from lack of use.
• You assume that a "horse" is a "sphere" in order to make the math easier.
• You understood more than five of these indicators.
• You made a hard copy of this list, and posted it on your door.

If more than twelve of these indicators apply to you, there is good reason to suspect that you might be a physics major. Kill yourself before it's too late.

Fiction

Associations

by Dax

However, before Tess became what she is today in all her flair, back when Tess was just a precocious child, Tess was truly naïve. She was uninformed about people and motives and intentions and relationships. Tess was uniformed of the true nature of her society. Tess thought she existed in a world which rested upon pillars of the Ten Commandments and education and axioms like "You can do whatever you want to, Tess, as long as you put your mind to it." Tess had net yet discerned that her ginger bread world actually consisted of LSD stamps baked in spiked punch. Tess had no idea that sex not mind was what other people considered valuable. So, in a seemingly perfect state of innocence and misunderstood motives, Tess met Cain.

Cain is despicable and stupid (in all likelihood incorrigible) and deserves less of a description than Tess. Cain is lascivious, lustful, lecherous, rooted in feculence, and produces nothing but chagrin. His desires remain limited to sex and food like any other base animal. Cain has never thought once where thought may lead him. Despite, he dresses cool and drives a speedy awe-striking automobile. Cain also knows how to seduce naïve teenage girls in a sex-driven society. If naivete is defined in context to street intellect on how to function in society (as it often is), Cain is not naïve himself; instead, he knows how to manipulate naïveté. He knows what girls of this nature want to hear, and so he speaks to them, and so he always has a date.

You know the next step. Inevitability screams. Cain whispered sly seductions through the grapevine, at Tess. Tess is curious. She doesn't know love but wished she did, and Cain promised some answers. And so Cain and Tess spent evenings together which Tess thought were evenings of approaching love and understanding, but Cain knew in reality were evenings of approaching unimportant immaterial sex.

In a state of half-unwilled, half-curiosity-baked, all-manipulated acquiescence, Cain proceeded to release his hormonal rage unto Tess.

Cain and Tess then "mutually" decided to stop seeing each other socially, a euphemism Cain doesn't deserve and Tess wishes were true. Tess had been manipulated, used, and disposed of—all once unbeknownst to her in sheltered ignorance but now blatantly apparent to her in reality. But had Tess truly been used? In society's standpoint, definitely yes.

Tess now knew at least what love was not. Tess's character of course was unscathed. She is still the writer, the altruistic beauty, the admirable friend. Tess knows that sex doesn't matter. Something did change, though:

1. Dax visited the high school which Tess and Cain attended to see if he wished to spend his senior year there. He was escorted by Darion. Dax saw something in Tess's eyes that momentarily chilled him. He asked Darion about Tess.

   "What's she like?"

   "Oh, Tess . . . she had sex with Cain, that kid over there, so . . ."

2. Dax ended up enrolling in the school. Dax was perceptive and ingenious like Tess and was not in the least bit naïve about anything. Dax and Tess, being two rare individuals, fell in love. Dax was also reluctant friends with Darion. One day Darion asked Dax (in base terminology) if he and Tess had made love. Dax was silent as Darion continued, "Well, I hear ya, I mean Cain's been there and he's . . ."

News

Six Pack Can Kill

by Reuters

Middle-aged men who binge on beer -- drinking six or more bottles per session -- have a six times greater risk of having a fatal heart attack, a seven times greater risk of dying violently, and a three times greater risk of dying overall compared with men who drink less than three bottles per session, according to a study in the British Medical Journal.

The new findings come from a study that monitored death rates from any cause over nearly eight years among 1,641 beer drinkers living in Kuopio, Finland. Of these, 76 (about 4%) were binge drinkers. When the study began, the men ranged in age from 42 to 60.

The researchers say the increase in death from all causes among binge drinkers was independent of age or total alcohol consumption. The increased death rates among beer bingers were also not affected significantly by other factors such as smoking, unemployment, previous diseases, marital status, blood pressure, or cholesterol levels.

Given the new findings, the Finnish investigators say researchers should look beyond total alcohol intake when studying the effects of drinking on health.

"Our findings suggest that drinking pattern may have independent effects on health that are not explained by total (alcohol) consumption," they write.

But the underlying reasons for the increased mortality risks among beer bingers remains unclear.

"The reason that the men who indulged in heavy drinking sessions had an increased risk of death in our follow-up study might come from the beer itself, from the pattern of heavy acute intake (binging), or from other characteristics that are associated with men who prefer to drink six or more beers at a time," the researchers state.

"Risks of injuries, poisoning, violence, and suicide apparently increase with acute intoxication," write the researchers. They say that the risk of heart attack after a heavy intake of beer may be due to possible events in heart muscle and/or in the coronary arteries that could trigger a fatal heart attack. These events could include sudden heart rhythm abnormalities, blood clots, and coronary artery blockages. SOURCE: British Medical Journal (1997;315:10-14)

Gun Ownership Up's Death Risk

by Reuters (and REALLY!!!)

Owning a handgun may double one's chance of death by suicide or homicide, researchers conclude.

"While there are occasional situations in which handguns offer protection against violent death... the acquisition of a handgun appears to be associated with an increased risk of violent death," concludes a study sponsored by the Seattle-based health maintenance organization Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound (GHC).

The study, led by researchers at Seattle's Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center, is published in the current issue of the American Journal of Public Health.

Researchers looked at GHC member records from 1980-1992 and collected information on 353 suicides and 117 homicides occurring during that time. These represented the bulk of such member deaths recorded.

They then used Washington State Department of Licensing records to determine the legal handgun-purchase statistics of those 470 victims (and immediate family members). This information was contrasted with similar information from nearly 2,400 other GHC members of comparable age, race, and area of residence.

The researchers discovered that a history of handgun ownership within the family was linked to a more than doubled (2.2) risk for death by homicide, compared with those study subjects residing in families without handguns.

There was also a near doubling (1.9) of the risk for death by suicide when the deceased, or an immediate family member, was known to have purchased a handgun.

And these risks appeared to continue for years after the date of purchase -- leading researchers to believe that many guns are not purchased with a firm intent to kill, but instead may increase the risk of violent death during times of personal stress. They point out that "the median interval between first family handgun purchase and any homicide death with a gun was 11.3 years." And they say that while the risk for gun-related suicide was highest in the first year after gun purchase, this risk "remained elevated even after five years."

The Seattle researchers contend that gun ownership in itself may help foster an atmosphere of sudden, sometimes fatal violence. For example, handgun ownership was found to double the risk for homicide death, even when those deaths came from methods other than gunfire. The Seattle experts believe that handgun purchasers are either more predisposed to violence per se, or are "encouraged by their ownership of a gun to engage in activities that increased their risk for homicide by any means."

They are quick to point out that the GHC members in the study do not reflect the young, black, male 'gun culture' as often depicted by the media. In fact, GHC members are more often white, more often female, and "predominantly middle class." The researchers believe findings of raised firearm-related death risks in such a population may help refute claims that "firearms might be a risk factor for homicide among the poor, but not among others."

In a commentary on the Seattle findings within the same issue of the journal, Arthur Kellermann, director of the Center for Injury Control at Emory University's Rawlins School of Public Health in Atlanta, says such studies "suggest that the risks associated with keeping a gun in the home outweigh the potential benefits."

Kellermann believes that firearm manufacturers are misleading the American consumer with advertising akin to that disseminated for decades by the tobacco industry. In the same way that many accuse tobacco firms of advertising the 'pleasures' of smoking while ignoring its risks to health, Kellermann says "firearms industry (advertisements)... imply that a home is not 'safe' unless it is protected by a handgun. Ironically, the evidence points to the contrary."

He cites a 1995 study of Atlanta home break-ins, which found that "a gun was used to repel the intruder in only 3 (of 197) instances." Many times the intruder was himself able to reach (and use) a firearm intended for household 'protection.'

Kellerman believes intruders may be less of a threat than family members themselves. "The gun that is kept unlocked and loaded can also be reached by a curious child, an angry spouse, or a distraught teen," he says.

Still, Kellermann hopes research like the Seattle study may lead to a time when "fewer Americans will choose to keep or carry a handgun, and the rate of death from firearm-related injuries will decline."

SOURCE: American Journal of Public Health (1997;87(6):910-912, 974-978)

Random Facts

Recognition by the MIT Faculty

Twelve members of the MIT faculty are Nobel laure-ates:

1. David Baltimore, co-winner, Physiology or Medicine (1975);
2. Jerome I. Friedman, co-winner, Physics (1990);
3. Har Gobind Khorana, co-winner, Physiology or Medicine (1968);
4. Henry W. Kendall, co-winner, Physics (1990);
5. Franco Modigliani, Economics (1985);
6. Mario J. Molina, co-winner, Chemistry (1995);
7. Paul A. Samuelson, Economics (1970);
8. Phillip A. Sharp, co-winner, Physiology or Medicine (1993);
9. Clifford G. Shull, co-winner, Physics (1994);
10. Robert M. Solow, Economics (1987);
11. Samuel C.C. Ting, co-winner, Physics (1976);
12. and Susumu Tonegawa, Physiology or Medicine (1987).

Four members of the MIT faculty have been awarded the Kyoto Prize:

1. Noam A. Chomsky (1988);
2. Morris Cohen (1987);
3. Edward N. Lorenz (1991);
4. and Claude E. Shannon (1984).

Eighteen past or present members of the MIT faculty have received the National Medal of Science:

1. They are Manson Benedict (1975);
2. Vannevar Bush (1963);
3. Morris Cohen (1976);
4. Charles Stark Draper (1964);
5. Mildred S. Dresselhaus (1990);
6. Harold E. Edgerton (1973);
7. Herman Feshbach (1986);
8. Har Gobind Khorana (1987);
9. Edwin H. Land (1967);
10. Warren K. Lewis (1965);
11. Salvador E. Luria (1991);
12. Bruno B. Rossi (1983);
13. Paul A. Samuelson (1996);
14. Claude E. Shannon (1966);
15. Isadore M. Singer (1985);
16. John G. Trump (1983);
17. Victor F. Weisskopf (1979);
18. and Norbert Wiener (1963).

Additioanlly, inn 1988, Harold E. Edgerton was awarded the National Medal of Technology.

to top

Lyrics

Not An Addict

by K's Choice

to top

Semi-Charmed Life

by 3rd Eye Blind

to top

Sink to the Bottom

by Fountains of Wayne

to top