Nobel Prize winner and Holocaust survivor Isaac Singer has called our treatment of animals an âEternal Treblinkaâ. First, when we talk of suffering, we should talk of quantity of sufferingâaccording to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, each year in the US about 9.5 billion farm animals are raised and killed for food FAO, 2006. According to Cem Akin (âAnnual Aquatic Animal Mortality Caused by Fishing Practices in the United Statesâ 1998), the number of sea animals is probably double that Vegetarian 101. Another 100 million are killed in the US by hunters HSUS and over 500 million suffer in labs USDA, 2000. Worldwide, about 50 million animals are killed a year for their fur HSUS. Millions more animals suffer in circuses, rodeos, zoos, and pounds. The overall number of animals killed in the world each years reaches into the hundreds of billions. For our purposes, we will restrict this essay to farm and sea animals because they represent about 95% of the animals killed each year. Every American who eats meat, sea animals, eggs, and dairy contributes to the death of about 93 animals per year VegforLife.
Second, the quality of their suffering is extreme. Over 90% of US farm animals are raised in CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations), also known as factory farms (Scientific Farm Animal Production, 1998; Peter Cheeke, PhD, Contemporary Issues in Animal Agriculture, 1999). These are huge windowless metal warehouses with wire or concrete floors, poor lighting, terrible ventilation, and a sensory assault of hellish sights, sounds, and smells CAA investigation. Often, thousands of pigs or cows or tens of thousands of chickens or turkeys will be confined to a single building. Many of them may never get outside except for the day the truck comes to take them to the slaughterhouse. Disease, injury, fly infestations, and slow painful death are the norm Video footage: Meet Your Meat.
The purpose of this nightmare is to save money and produce meat, dairy, and eggs as cheaply as possible. Americans want animal products and want them cheaply; every meateater consumes over 200 pounds of animal flesh a year Media Public Center and Media Public Center, let alone dairy products, sea animals, and eggs. In order to keep the price low, there is often a total lack of veterinary care; itâs cheaper to let an animal die than to ease its suffering. Many injured animals starve to death because they are too weak to compete for food or even crawl to the food troughs. Industry estimates say that about half a million animals a year are so weak that they have to be literally dragged to slaughter (Joe Vansickle, âQuality Assurance Program Launched,â National Hog Farmer, 2/15/02) (Science, 5/14/99). The real number is probably far higher.
Animals are crammed into tiny spaces to save money. The standard breed of egg laying hen has a wingspan of 37 inches; they are crowded in cages with 6-11 other birds and, according to the United Egg Producers, allowed at best 72 square inches of space Compassion Over Killing. Average space is 57 inches. According to the National Hog Farmer (11/15/93), a 600 pound breeding sow (female pig) is confined in a 2 by 4 foot pen during pregnancy and nursing and artificially impregnated twice as often as she would be in nature Why Vegan. Veal calves (male dairy cows) are chained by the neck and kept in crates too narrow for them to even turn around or lay down or stand up, depending on the system used. Some animals are housed in tiered CAFOs with wire floors; the excrement of those animals above them falls on animals below. As factory farms age and decay, more and more piglets are falling through the rusted wire floors to slowly drown in the pig waste below.
Regular practices include the following surgical and other invasive procedures all done without anesthesia: beakcutting, forced feeding and/or forced starvation for birds; branding, tail docking, and castration for cows; tale docking and ear cutting for pigs. All of these are done to minimize problems caused by overcrowding (Erik Marcus, Meat Market, 15-48). Rather than stop overcrowding, the âfarmersâ inflict horrid painful procedures on animals instead.
Many specific practices are inherently cruel. Veal calves are denied any solid food and suffer from severe diarrhea. In order to make flesh âtenderâ, veal producers deliberately induce anemia in young calves; a result is that, often, calvesâ bones break but are not treated. Ducks and geese used for foie gras have their livers enlarged 10 times normal size through horrific force-feeding methods, according to an EU Expert Committee Farm Sanctuary. Because male chicks from egg laying breeds donât grow large enough to be suitable for meat, they are killed at birth; the most common methods are to dump them in piles several feet deep into dumpsters where they smother and/or starve to death, or to throw them alive into chipper shredders to be processed for pet food San Diego Union-Tribune 2003.
Genetic manipulation is also a constant: âbroiler hensââmeat chickensâlive a grand total of 42-49 days US Poultry & Egg Assoc.. They are bred to grow so fast that their legs canât support their weight and they suffer crippling injuries. Dairy cows now produce up to 10 times the milk they would in nature, causing painful sores and mastitis (udders swelled to the size of beach balls). Dairy cows and chickens are the most over bred animals, but many turkeys and pigs also suffer from breeding problems.
Physical and emotional problems aboundâchickens are raised in wire cages and their claws may literally grow into the metal of the cage; injuries and tumors are untreated and ignored; leg and joint problems are found in all types of animals because of lack of exercise; by the time they face the terrors of slaughter, 40% of all dairy cows are lame Video footage: Meet Your Meat; cannibalism can occur; and repetitive rocking, gnawing, and swaying (known as stereotypies) can occur. Quite frankly, animals often go insane. Pigs, which have been tested to have IQs equivalent to human 3-year olds, have been witnessed literally attacking their cages out of rage and frustration. In essence, every natural instinct is denied (Cambridge Daily News 3/29/02). Tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of animals die before even being taken to slaughter.
Transport is no betterâfarm animals can legally be transported for up to 48 hours with no food or water. They are overcrowded in trucks and shipped in all weathersâfreezing cold or boiling heat. According to Temple Grandin, PhD, animals have been found literally frozen to the inside of trucks in cold weather USDA Survey. Often animals are jostled so badly on the road that they arrive for slaughter with broken bones.
Even if all the rest of this were altered, slaughter itself is a nightmare. 95% of farm animals kille
d for food are birds; they receive NO legal protection under the Humane Slaughter Act US HSA and HSUS. In essence, the US Government has spent nearly 50 years denying that birds are animals because to admit so would mean they have to be stunned first before slaughter begins. Stunning costs 1 cent a bird; the industry will not pay for it. Under the Bush administration, the USDA is now trying to re-categorize rabbits as poultry in order to eliminate stunning requirements for them also.
Stunning is no panacea, though. Where practiced for birds (Europe), it involves dragging a bird through a trough of water with an electric current running through it, basically near electrocution. For cows and pigs, it involves shooting a metal bolt into their brains. Frequently, because slaughterhouses work like assembly lines with an emphasis on speed, stunning is done improperly or missed. According to the Washington Post, slaughterhouse workers have testified and videotapes have shown cows, pigs, and other animals being hoisted upside down by one leg, boiled alive, and slit open and bled while still moving Washington Post 2001. In Oct. 2003, the NY Times reported that the terror is so great for pigs (the most intelligent of farm animals) that they enter a âhypermetabolicâ state in which their flesh literally liquefies New York Times 2003.
Former cattle rancher turned vegan Howard Lyman has said that heâs been in dozens of slaughterhouses and the animals are âalways terrifiedâ. They can smell and hear their herd or flock mates being killed and butchered.
If you think that perhaps âhumaneâ, âfree rangeâ or organic animal products are really any better, first these are a tiny percentage of the market. Second, the transport and slaughter are the same. Third, the first two terms have no legal meaning: free range chickens may have no more room than caged ones, and all the males are still killed at birth. The term organic refers primarily to the food the animals are fed. Although there are some welfare standards, they are riddled with loopholes, and enforcement is poor anyway. Well known âorganicâ producers have been caught using factory farm methods to raise animals. Philosopher Tom Regan has said of these types of farming that they are ânot right, just less wrongâ (The Case for Animal Rights).
The treatment of sea animals is no betterâthey most commonly die in huge piles at the bottom of massive mile long nets. They are crushed or suffocate. As sea animals are caught for food, others ((known as bycatch) are also caught at the same time and killed or injured. According to the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense, estimates suggest that 20-30 million tons of animals are harmed this way yearly AIDA report. Other animals like seals in Canada and dolphins, whales, and porpoises in Japan are killed because of alleged competition with the fishing industry.
This essay addresses the plight of food animals primarily but the lives of lab animals and circus/rodeo animals are just as horrific. NO laws of any kind regulate what actually can be done to animals in lab experiments. The only relevant laws relate to cage size and feeding schedules, NOT what can be done in the actual experiment. And, if experimental procedures deem it necessary, food, water, and medicine can all be denied. Again, as with farm animals, enforcement of even these weak laws is notoriously lax.
At this point, two thoughts may be running through your head: (1) They are just animals and/or (2) Whatâs this got to do with me? Our responses to these thoughts are interrelated.
The history of oppression of non-power groups is remarkably similar. Each group that has been victimized and oppressed by an elite power group has faced similar problems: ridicule, marginalization, disinformation, and stonewalling. Authors such as Alice Walker, Marjorie Spiegel, Carol Adams, Jim Mason, and Charles Patterson have written eloquently showing how much of the same propaganda that currently justifies animal abuse has been used to justify sexism, slavery and racism, the Holocaust, and imperialistic wars. American homophobes engage in similar tactics.
One of the most common elements of oppression involves maximizing differences between oppressor and oppressed while minimizing similarities. Surely, this is something that you have experienced because of sexual orientation. To your oppressors, all that you have in common with them–goals, hopes, talents, needs, the ability to love and be loved and to be hurt and to be happy–are minimized while sexual orientation is maximized. This was done to blacks to justify slavery and Jim Crow laws, to women to justify denying them legal rights, to people with disabilities, to European Jews, and also to animals.
If the last linkage is shocking, consider this: every non-human animal from chimpanzees to fish, from pigeons to pumas, shares many physiological and psychological traits with humans. They have similar central nervous systems, they have brain chemicals that we know are linked to pain in humans, they have limbic system similarities relevant to human emotion, and certain drugs like anti-anxiety medications work exactly the same way metabolically in animals as in humans. Recently, researchers at Edinburgh University in Scotland proved that fish have essentially the same pain perception physiology as humans. In essence, they feel pain like we do.
Although scientists, starting with Descartes and religious leaders beginning with St. Augustine, have gone to great lengths to âproveâ that animals are different emotionally from us, virtually every pet lover can tell you that their pet has wants, needs, and emotions. Science has also increasingly shown that animals process emotions in the same ways we do.
The point is that in terms of feeling pain and feeling emotions, the animals we harm the most are just like us. Oppressorsâ efforts to maximize differences border on the absurd. Some professional ethicists have resorted to arguing that because animals âlack moralsâ they donât deserve rights. This standard, applied to humans, backfires. We could reasonably say that infants and very young children, the mentally retarded and severely mentally ill, and senile people all âlack moralsâ, but we sure wouldnât justify forced starvation, branding, castration without anesthesia, or any of the other horrible things humans do to animals for them. Itâs also worth noting that animal morality is only beginning to be studied; in one famous (or infamous) experiment, chimps were given the choice between shocking another chimp and eating, or not being fed. The chimps overwhelmingly chose to go hungry rather than harm another chimp.
Another morally bankrupt argument is that animals arenât as smart as we are. Letâs ignore the questions of whether this is even measurable and whether there arenât many skills that animals have that we lack and just address the logic of it. If we applied the same standards to humans, we might find a tyranny of the intelligent over the less intelligent. We meet people every day who probably arenât as smart as we are, but that sure doesnât give us the right to kill, hurt, or eat them. This is absurd logic.
Animal rights activists call the prejudice against animals speciesism, the belief that any species different from our own has fewer rights than we do. Like many prejudices, it may have its roots in low self esteem and the psychological need to place oneâs self above others. With human prejudices, a person can be unintelligent, unsuccessful, unattractive, unloved and unlovabl
e but find superiority in discriminating against whole groups of people such as homosexuals or racial or religious minorities. Similarly, many humans may be able to bolster their shabby self-esteem by discriminating against animals.
A brief look at how animals are portrayed illustrates this. Many of our insults–calling another human a pig, rat, dog, bitch, sheep, chicken, cow, ape, or snake–inherently insult animals. A great deal of popular culture humor involves jokes about hurting animals from flushing them down toilets to throwing them out windows to hitting or kicking them. The famous novelists Larry McMurtry and Jerzy Kosinski have both written jokingly about bestiality, which is really the rape of another species. We ridicule animals. Similarly, a mainstay of the early careers of comedians like Robin Williams and Eddie Murphy were anti-gay jokes. For centuries, ethnic minorities have also been the object of offensive jokes and humor. Oppressors often ridicule those they are oppressing.
Second, oppressors marginalize the concerns of oppressed groups. When women began to fight for equal rights in the 1800s, they were told that their needs werenât important; slavery was more important. When the gay rights movement began in the 1960s, it was judged less important than the anti-war movement. As activists working for animals, we are regularly told by people who wonât even stop to wait for a response that we should be âworking to end the warâ or feed the hungry or stop a disease or work for children or any number of other worthy causes. Those people telling us this are never actually working on those campaigns at that time; they are simply marginalizing our efforts. When someone wants to ignore an issue, they can find an endless list of other âmore importantâ issues. Equal rights for people regardless of sexual orientation is a major human rights issue; until all humans are given the same rights, we live in an unjust society. Similarly, the animals killed in the US outnumber humans by over 90 to 1, and their suffering is unbelievable. We believe that we will not have a just world while ignoring this amount and severity of suffering.
Third, oppressors rely on misinformation. The most obvious issue for homosexual rights is the claim that homosexuals and bisexuals and transgender people want âspecial rightsâ. It boggles the mind to understand how someone asking to be treated the same way as everyone else can be construed as seeking âspecial rightsâ. Similarly, disinformation abounds about animal rights activists and the animals we represent. First, NO ONE thinks that animals should have the exact same rights as humans; no one thinks they should be allowed to drive or vote (another type of ridicule often used). However, they should have the right to be left alone or treated with basic decency, not maimed, tortured, or killed by humans. Second, animal rights activists are NOT people who âhate peopleâ, an accusation we often encounter. At a recent protest where this accusation was made, our group included 3 teachers, a psychologist, 2 social workers, 2 lawyers who work with the mentally ill, and 3 environmental scientists, many of whom are parents and grandparents. In other words, not exactly a cast of misanthropes!
Fourth, oppressors engage in stonewalling (no pun intended.) Just as homophobic politicians support civil unions or other half measures to prevent equal rights or claim that âI support gay rightsâ then oppose gay marriage, efforts are made to block any progress for animals. At least 13 states have now declared farm animals exempt from ALL provisions of the Animal Welfare Act, and a similar number are debating âFood Disparagement Lawsâ making it legally actionable to say anything negative about the procedures for raising any âfood productâ in that state. Industry insiders relentlessly push for weakening already barely existent welfare standards and spend millions and billions of dollars blocking legal efforts to protect animals. The one penny per chicken that could be spent to stun birds before beginning to cut them apart is a vivid example.
Our ultimate point is this: wherever and whenever we see oppression, we see it justified and implemented in remarkably similar manners. All groups fighting oppression are all fighting the same evil, the belief that those with power can do whatever they want to those without power. Lawyer and author Jim Mason has argued in An Unnatural Order that the roots of this oppression can be traced to our treatment of animals. Heâs studied the birth of animal agriculture in the Middle East and argues that because of the inherent cruelty involved in domesticating, raising and slaughtering animals, groups and nations that chose herding over plant-based diets became more violent and more warlike. Carol Adams has linked domestic abuse to animal abuse. The FBI lists animal abuse as a primary early warning sign of human violence. When we justify the harming of ANYONE, it becomes a lot easier to justify the harming of everyone. Ignoring the suffering of the 90 plus animals each American eats every year makes it far easier to ignore the suffering of humans, ESPECIALLY if we can declare that they are different from us. A fundamental break in humansâ relationship with the rest of the natural world occurred when we declared that we differed from other animals and were separate from nature. It has probably affected our treatment of even other humans ever since then.
We know that we donât need to harm animals and certainly donât need to eat them. Every major nutritional association has taken a position that a well balanced vegan diet would keep a person, even a child, in normal health. We donât need to eat animals or their products. We may be used to the taste, but the ethicists arguing for animal rights have consistently argued that when measured against the day to day suffering of animals and the denial of all their basic needs and then the taking of their very lives, âit tastes goodâ is very trivial indeed. It has also been argued that becoming vegan and living an animal rights philosophy âisolatesâ one from the mainstream. This is, to a certain extent true, but being an abolitionist or early feminist or coming out of the closet also all isolate one from the mainstream. Doing anything that asks others to question their morals and values will always cause social discomfort, especially early in a movement or oneâs own activism. The history of all rights movements is a history of recognizing this and taking those steps anyway because they are the right thing to do.
We, in the animal rights community, recognize that the struggle to be able to love regardless of gender/orientation is a difficult and painful battle, and we support it. We ask that you visit our website, read vegan literature, and please, please consider the needs and suffering of animals.
ABOUT MARC: MARC is a 501 c (3) nonprofit working everyday to help animals and promote animal rights in Massachusetts. With over 600 members, MARC is the largest most active animal rights group in the state. Every day, animals suffer in Massachusetts, whether as âfoodâ, âscienceâ, unwanted pets, or as animals killed or abused for clothing or entertainment. On land and sea and in the air, wild animals suffer from hunting, fishing, and trapping. And because these animals cannot speak for themselves, we at MARC act as a voice to end this suffering. You can learn more and join our efforts at MARC Public Website.
mem-from-somerville says
whether to just let this pass, or if I should say anything. I just have the feeling that anything I say will be loudly trounced with venom–you know, like having a conversation about why you support Democrats with a Nader voter….
<
p>
But I’m going to make 2 points, and leave it there.
<
p>
1. I don’t think that comparing animal rights with GLBT rights is helpful or effective for either perspective.
<
p>
2. When I read a screed like this, instantly I feel the hair on the back of my neck stand up. I feel like I’m being yelled at for my incomprehensible oblivion. But you know what, I agree with you on many of the animal issues, and I am aware of most of them. I am veg for many reasons. But I am instantly turned off by the tone of this. If you came to me with some action items, or some suggestions for making changes in my life compatible with your goals in a gentler way, maybe that wouldn’t sound so condescending.
<
p>
I appreciate your passion for your subject, and respect your evangelistic energy. But I encourage you to consider another approach.
lightiris says
shai-sachs says
i was gonna blog about this and now i don’t have to because you already said it. 🙂
<
p>
there’s some great discussion on Dailykos these days about something called the “Overton window”, a conceptual framework for taking a totally radical idea and making it into policy. i’ve always thought that the animal rights community, in its public literature at least, does not have a good hold on this concept.
<
p>
the basic idea is that, by repeating your positions over and over again and advocating incremental policy improvements, you can move a radical idea into the mainstream, and eventually into policy. applied to animal rights, the steps would probably go something like: 1) animal rights ridiculed; 2) consumer movements for humane treatment of animals established; 3) government sets voluntary industry standards for humane treatment; 4) government sets mandatory standards for humane treatment; etc. the animal rights movement appears to want to jump from step 1) to step 10) immediately, rather than going through the transitional steps. i suppose if you really want something, that approach is tempting, but it sure is unrealistic.
<
p>
there’s another problem here: what is step 10? in other words, what is the holy-grail-pie-in-the-sky vision for these folks? everyone is a vegan? animal testing completely illegal? what?
<
p>
i don’t mean to ridicule, only to point out that if you want to get from step 1) to step 10) in one leap, you should at least know what step 10) is, and i don’t think the animal rights folks do.
<
p>
i’d suggest the movement go back to the drawing board and figure out what the ultimate goal is, and then put together a more realistic strategy for getting there. if you want everyone to be a vegan, fine, but show me a realistic plan for how you’ll get from here to there, and then we can work together for at least part of the way.
<
p>
for example, if the next step to universal veganism is to boost WIC, small farm subsidies and other related programs, to the point that anyone in the US can afford to eat a healthy diet of organic fruits and vegetables, then i’d say “saddle up pardner, let’s go pass some laws.” but if all you want me to do is read vegan literature and not be offended by your insinuation that bglt folks are just like animals – really! – then i’ve really got better things to do.
peter-porcupine says
At least now I know Sen. O’Leary’s bill – Sen. 938 – to relax sodomy laws also reduces the penalties for beastiality. I always thought gay rights and animal rights were unrelated, and the bill was an insult to gay people, but heck – you learn something every day.
katie-wallace says
Imagine this article written in the 1960s and substitute black for gay.
katie-wallace says
Every American who eats meat, sea animals, eggs, and dairy contributes to the death of about 93 animals per year VegforLife.
<
p>
If you believe it’s wrong to eat eggs, does that mean you are also not pro-choice?
nomadnelraf says
You are misunderstanding the statement (if you are not ridiculing it deliberately). Eggs are not sentient beings, so the concern is not in that eggs are being eaten per se, but for the chickens that are confined in feces-caked cages without enough room to stand or open their wings, without sunlight, until the moment they are thrown on trucks to a slaughterhouse, etc., so that they can produce the eggs for sale and consumption. There are also issues having to do with water, energy and food resources used (wasted) in the maintaining of chickens for eggs/flesh, besides the environmental damage caused by animal agriculture in general in the US.
<
p>
I am vegan and have been active in a few causes, including animal rights, and I have always thought that my capacity for empathy in another’s suffering or unjust status is greatly owed to being/growing up/living queer.
<
p>
It’s predictable that such an essay would be met with unease or disdain for the basic fact that it would demand re-considerations about the choices and views of most, including those in our community. Many in the Jewish community felt uneasy or offended by the explanation and comparison of the overwhelming likeness between factory farms and (human) concentration camps, even though it was stated by a Holocaust survivor himself, as briefly mentioned in the essay in question. It is unfortunate that in this essay, however, it is so clear that the authors are not from within our community, but speak from so far out of it. Nevertheless, this unfortunate clarity should not render most of the arguments devoid of worth by default or risible in and of themselves.
daves says
For those of you who forgot, here is a CNN post on the PETA campaign Read it here.
<
p>
More than just a few Jews were offended. Ask the ADL, or read it here. I still am.
jane says
in a box, where they have plenty of space and fresh water, food, and heat, when I put more food in their feeder.
Even though I hold them regularly, the shadow and movement of my hand scares them -a natural and life preserving reaction. They run into the corner, with their becks up against the wood, or down where they can’t see me, and the last ones duck under the legs of the first ones to hide. They are certainly ‘chicken’!
<
p>
If I am quiet, they will come out and practice strutting around, roosting on the bar of the feeder, and tipping their heads to look at me, one eye at a time.
<
p>
As much as I sympathise with the writers above, I wish they were farmers writing about the choices they make, and how they make them, about real animals they know.
migraine says
…but seriously, this is insane to me for a number of reasons.
<
p>
First and most importantly: as a gay guy I can’t see any similarity between these two subjects, and the writer certainly does not help me make connections. If I was the type to get offended by things, this would certainly offend me. IN FACT, it seems to be written in a way that holds a little bit of hostility towards “homosexuals.”
<
p>
Second: While I admire (sort of) the passion (insanity) of this writer, the scope of the article is very limited and hardly realistic in what it recommends, while at the same time it is written in a tone that truly disgusts me. In fact, one of the thoughts I had early in the article was something along the lines of “If I stop eating meat will I have emotional breakdowns and reality-lapses like this author and end up writing about how important it is for my fellow homos to stop the evils of gay marriage?”
<
p>
Third: What about the jobs?!?! I suppose the reader doesn’t think jobs will be lost… industries won’t be shut down and the US economy wouldn’t feel a thing. Or maybe he/she thinks all of those things would happen but at least we would be saving animals. Who needs an economy when you have more cows to pet?
shai-sachs says
, and this is why i wish these guys would put together a realistic program, but depending on how they realize their goals (and what the hell those goals are), an animal rights public policy program could very well result in a robust economy. for example, if we spend less money on stunned cows, maybe we spend more money on organic broccoli; cattlers get less money, broccoli farmers get more, and there are suddenly a lot more jobs in organic farming.
<
p>
i don’t know the economics too well, but certain industries are “better” for the economy in that a dollar spent in that industry generates more jobs than a dollar spent in another industry. i’d bet (totally unsupported by research) that organic farming is better for the economy than industrial cattle herding, by that metric.
potroast says
I’ve been reading BMG since inception, but just registered.
<
p>
This essay is absolutely terrible and a perfect illustration of why animal rights activists are rejected by most of the population. I really wish you would (1) drop any idea that equating gay people with fish and veal are going to get you anywhere and (2) stop being so absolute in your pronouncements.
<
p>
I suspect you were invited to post this here to illustrate how sometimes those of us who care about treating life on this planet with dignity can easily be portrayed as full-on loons. This kind of argument is how we lose. Thank you for posting it so that we can all think about how to avoid making such arguments in the future.
bob-neer says
Because I think animal rights are an important issue. As to the specifics, thanks for registering and your thoughts about “treating life on this planet with dignity” are welcome: please elaborate when you have some time.
ryepower12 says
I made it tonight and it was delicious.
<
p>
Coincidentally, male genitalia is the only genitalia for me.
<
p>
I sleep well at night.
nomadnelraf says
The flesh of pigs tastes good? Why didn’t someone tell me this before! If only I had known that, I would never have abdicated animal products…Something feeling good always makes it OK! Silly people with their social change movements…tsk tsk.
<
p>
Coincidentally, male genitalia is also the only one for me…pre-pubescent, because that feels good too, and I sleep fine at night, so I hope nobody has anything ridiculous to say about that.