21 February 2006

merms?

i've been waiting for this day. i've been waiting for the excuse to write another post on sex ed. 101 (ish). and now, thanks to last night's episode of house (such a good/interesting show), i can.
last night's plot twist? a lovely nubile teenage supermodel passes out on the runway and is rushed to the hospital where house and his band of jolly house-wannabes discover the model is 1) addicted to heroin 2) sleeping with her daddy, and 3) anatomically... a guy. sort of.
now, i don't know about you, but i think the first question that comes screaming to the front is this: how often do such things happen in real life (as opposed to tv life which is never really quite like real life in any way, shape or form)?
brace yourhappynaiveselves for the answer, kids, because, according to researchers who research such things, it's yes. in fact, it happens about 1.7 percent of the time. that's 1.7 babies out of 100. are you shocked? (and what, exactly, does .7 of a baby look like, anyway?)
of course, if any of you had read mommy's sister's book, skin flutes and velvet gloves, a collection of facts & fancies, legends & oddities about the body's private parts, you would not have been surprised in the least. but then, most of you did not read this book, nor did you take the veryveryverysmart dr. terri's human sexuality courses in college when you had the chance. (tho', since her classes were among the most popular courses ever, lots of you actually did!) but, back to those of you who didn't read the book and/or take one of her classes... i wanna know, what's wrong with you? don't you want to be as smart as all the other boys, girls, and intersexuals on the playground? sigh. why do i bother?
as most of you do know (whether you took any of the classes and/or read the book) a child's gender is traditionally identified by the person handling the delivery duties at a baby's birth. it's a boy! or it's a girl! are the 2 most anticipated declarations a new parent waits to hear... but if that delivery-assisting person looked closer, perhaps the announcement might sound more like this:
hmmmm. this child has both testes and ovaries. it's a herm!
or: this child has testes and some female genitalia but no ovaries. it's a merm!
or: this baby has ovaries and some male genitalia but no testes. it's a ferm!
boys, merms, herms, ferms, and girls. those are the real gender distinctions. see it's not just about the X's and the Y's, since there are XX boys and XY girls, which, truth be told, only really matters in the olympics (yep, they test for it). as for house's assertion last night that the he/she model had long lean limbs, soft curves, and perky breasts, along with a peaches 'n cream complexion because he/she was a ... er he/she? that's true.
yes, true. which means... boys & girls, manymanymany supermodels you admire--and wish to emulate and/or date--are probably not unlike the aforementioned supermodel on house, in that they are of an ambiguous gender or, if you prefer... intersexual. (was olive oyl intersexual? how the hell should i know? i only put that picture in 'cuz, if you're anything like me, your eyes started crossing after the 2nd paragraph of this post, and i was hoping to give you something to look at besides all these goddam worms.)
for those of you whose eyes have yet to cross, are ya in the mood for a little more gender specific brain pain? okay:
every male has a remnant of a vagina which appears as a tiny tag of skin on the lining of the bladder. it's called "vagina masculina", which, i suppose, takes the girly aspect out of it.
and speaking of vaginas, out of every 4000 female babies born each year, approximately 1 is born without one. (but then, 1 in 100,000 males babies is born with a "diphallus" or double penis, so, go figure.)
there. that should hold ya until i get around to telling you more. when will that be? i dunno. maybe csi will do an episode involving mirkins. or law order: criminal intent will toss around impressive genital-related terms like automonosexualism, or pedomentia, or my personal favorite, bugf*cker (a term mommy and her sister have ascribed to a certain television critic they don't like in chicago, but i'm pretty sure that's another story for another day).

"You can't have a period, Stan, because you are a man... with titties." ~ God [during an episode of South Park where Stan tries to "get his period" and accidentally grows breasts]

6 Comments:

Anonymous Joel said...

talk about educational...wow! hope you're feeling better...i love you

21/2/06 6:03 PM  
Blogger puppytoes said...

every once in awhile we strive to provide genuine content (as opposed to stuff we rip off from other web sites!) even if the content we're providing was initially generated by our smarter sister. sigh. love you, too! xoxox

21/2/06 7:22 PM  
Blogger schnoodlepooh said...

This is so enlightening. And we just thought you were another cute face!

22/2/06 2:02 AM  
Blogger puppytoes said...

ya know... when the looks go, all we have left is our mind (unless we lose that, too!) so i try to keep mine er... uh... occupied with interesting/semi-useful information. you never know when you're gonna need it! tee hee : )

22/2/06 12:30 PM  
Anonymous maxxypawd said...

how much better than the book is your spin on events therein??? THISSSSSS MUCCCCCCH BETTTTTTTER!!! So much better that you should rewrite the whole thing and then maybe somebody'll read the frickin' book and some money will eventually be had : )

lovelovelove

24/2/06 12:35 AM  
Blogger puppytoes said...

i took everything straight from the book... the book was good. the book was brilliant. and people did read the book. but i do think it's time to do another book. or maybe the same book in a redone kind of way. but make no mistake... i'm proud of the book and i'm proud of you! (can't ya tell?)

i freakin' lovelovelove the book. and i lovelovelove you!!! xoxoxo

24/2/06 8:31 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home