Sites We Like

RealUltimatePower

Poop Report

Fat Chicks in Party Hats

Xbox-Scene

TechLore

NEWS 204 - 12 Comments
From: John Entered on: July 15, 2004 2:07 AM
That was a very interesting article, Bert. To answer your question, yes I have thought about this and no I don't think you're a giant nerd. I'm sure most of us on this site have contemplated this very question.
From: Creeko Entered on: July 15, 2004 2:47 AM
What are you talking about John? We're all giant nerds :)
From: Ross Entered on: July 15, 2004 8:58 AM
Here is another article, unrelated, but equally sweet, on the topic of a secular country. This person makes almost too much sense to be writing Op-Ed pieces for a newspaper:     http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/4868939.htm l
From: Jackzilla Entered on: July 15, 2004 8:55 AM
The important question is: How did man evolve into having "pee hard-ons"?
From: John Entered on: July 18, 2004 12:57 AM
I'm about midway through The Blind Watchmaker and it's very enlightening. This is one of the best science books I've read in quite some time. Dawkins arguments for evolution are airtight and insightful. Everyone on the site who hasn't read it should.     No mention of "pee hard-ons" as of yet but I'll let you know, Zilla.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: July 18, 2004 12:08 PM
He's probably saving "The Evolution of Pee Hard-Ons" for a chapter in his NEXT book. Bastard.
From: The Bone Entered on: July 18, 2004 1:14 PM
I'll take a stab at this one Jack.     The horny guys who had to pee at night happened to have boners which constricted thier bloodflow and prevented them from pissing themselves in bed. The non-horny guys who had to pee, just pissed themselves. Women folk didn't want to fornicate with the losers who pissed themselves so they fornicated with the horny winners. Thus, whatever genetic trait that made them horny with boners at night was passed along from generation to generation selectively weeding out the pissed on losers. I should collaborate with Dawkins.
From: Ross Entered on: July 18, 2004 2:09 PM
Actually Jack I don't think there's a direct evolutionary reason for "pee hard-ons", they're more of a side-effect of our anatomy - I didn't even think you were asking a serious question, just making up something silly to divert a semi-serious discussion since you usually can't seem to stand them. But I believe it's as simple as a full bladder placing pressure on the nerves that control erection.     From this site:     http://www.andrologyaustralia.org/malebody/erecteja c.htm     "Erections come about by a stimulus arising in the brain provided either by a visual input, an imagined image, smelling or hearing. These impulses are relayed down the spinal cord and to the penis through nerves leaving the lower part of the spinal cord. In addition erections may arise from local feelings around the penis such as touch or a full bladder, sending impulses directly into the spinal cord to influence the erection nerves. Also the brain generates a stimulus three or four times through each night's sleep for an erection to occur."     Though I have to admit, there is a certain eloquence to Bone's hypothesis of horny guys and bedwetting that somehow overshadows more reasoned responses. :)
From: BigFatty Entered on: July 18, 2004 5:34 PM
I don't get pee hard ons any more. I wake up in the middle of the night with a bad urgency to piss. It must be a sign of getting older. I miss the complete night of sleep, waking in the morning with a pee hard on, and falling back to sleep not caring, because hey, pee hard ons feel GOOD'
From: John Entered on: July 18, 2004 9:44 PM
You're not that fucking old, dude. I still wake up some mornings with a pee hard on albeit not every day. They do feel good and on luckier mornings I wake and insert. When I try this in the middle of the night I'm usually kicked to the curb.     A special thanks to Bert for taking time out to explain in full the phenomenon that is "pee hard-ons".
From: Ross Entered on: July 26, 2004 4:27 PM
Dawkins has been voted Britain's top intellectual. As Roche and I know, he is sweet and very deserving of the title:     http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903 ,1268687,00.html     I love the quote from him where he "says creationists are 'ignorant, stupid, insane or simply wicked'"     Reading this article, which is a great mini-biography, I almost would like to say that Dawkins is a much sweeter version of myself, if even that didn't sound too self-aggrandizing.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: July 26, 2004 7:55 PM
oh boy... better get out the peanut butter...