or

"If I wanted to see mammals feeding their young with their own self producing lactic fluids I'd go to a god damned zoo and "Awww" at its adorable quaintness on the other side of plexiglass where it belongs! Now feed my wife this god damned hand pealed citrus or I'll murder every last one of us!"

Has this ever happened to you? If you have a family this kind of scene plays out to your horror each and every day until you're finally murdered for feeding someone the wrong produce. I've never trusted family. I have always seen them as challengers to my resources and an attachment to any one of them as a liability waiting to be exploited. But that's just how I was raised.

Breasts are a thing to be ashamed of. We all know this. This is accepted as science fact Alpha 0. The feeding of a child in public, especially those that are not your own, is also recognized accepted as a wholly embarrassing and reprehensible act. When you combine the two you are left with the single biggest assault on the senses of those that have every opportunity to not witness it by the simple turn of their head.

For some reason breasts and the feeding from thereof has a very polarizing effect on otherwise crazily irrational people or "people" as they're more commonly known. And once again "Sesame Street" is in the middle of another divider of the masses. Just like Muppets to stick their bulbous, brightly colored felt noses on another hot button and stir the shit. Except for the fact that they're actually not, but that's beside the point.

Like a couple months ago when busy bodies started circulating a petition trying to encourage the Sesames to out Bert and Ernie, the public broadcasting children's show is being dragged into another issue by people who should really have better things to do with their time. This time it's a petition asking "Sesame Street" to promote breast feeding, as they apparently had in the 70s and 80s with two separate segments involving teat suckling and the supposed "normalcy" and "naturality" of the clearly despicable act.

The squeamish, who recognize boobies and their practical use as the abomination that they are, are uncomfortable with children being exposed to such depravity. They understand the slippery slope that nourishing titty sucking is. First you ingest sustenance from your mother as your kind have since you've had a kind, then before you know it you've moved on to sucking off terrorist in welfare parking lots for crack drugs! Or something.

I personally don't care for either side of the issue. If you want your children to be taught that nip sips are okay, then, you know, why not tell them yourself. You're already asking the TV box to teach them to read and count and bright flashy colors loud noise buy this toy! Why not take a role in letting them know that you're not a sex offender for feeding their baby brother.

And to those that are so mesmerized by the disgusting act of a mother keeping their child alive with the very liquid provided by their biology to do just that thing, that they can't stop staring at it in disgust whenever it's never happening all the time right not in front of their faces; I simply want to say: calm down. It's not "gross", it isn't effecting your existence in any way what so ever, and even if the images of an oblong blanket being held to a woman's chest were broadcast through space and into your living room, you are still entitled to decide for your own self whether or not to watch it intently, seething at its appearance on your baby sitter, or to change the channel and seethe at the fact that it could be appearancing on someone else's picture tube somewhere else in the world. Or maybe you could settle the fuck down for half a god damned second and realize that you're wasting your entire life hating things that are none of your fucking business.

Meanwhile: Orange you glad I shot your sisters?!

Police in Ohio believe that a family murder-suicide was the result of a dispute over an orange, peeled specifically to be fed to a dying wife and sister, that went un-served.

I'm willing to bet that there was probably more leading up to this that more directly related to the killing spree than the waste of a juicy mandarin, but in this story it seems to be the only factor involved, so I'm just going to assume that this Paul David Gilkey, a man who served a ten year prison sentence for "beating a man to death with a fence post in 1974" and in 1986 "allegedly stabbed his own father" was an otherwise well-adjusted individual who simply could not abide the disuse of a perfectly edible piece of fruit which he himself delicately peeled in anticipation of its imminent ingestion.

"They had given Darlene a meal, toast and I believe a banana, toast and tea prior and when [Paul] already had an orange peeled for her and that seemed to be the issue that spurred [Paul] to his rampage," said Hocking County Sheriff Lanny North.

An Orange dispute is clearly the only explanation. And the only answer to this injustice is the assassination of his terminal wife's two sisters, their son and himself. I mean, that goes without saying I would think.

Gilkey's cousin told reporters that Paul had been "showing signs of instability" but NATURALLY thought that that would only manifest "after his wife had passes" and would NATURALLY only be "self-inflicted". Because an instable individual with a history of fence post murdering and the stabbing of family members, MUCH more immediate than in-laws, will NATURALLY not be a danger to anyone but themselves if a vexing fruit dispute were to arise.

Family: you can't squeeze milk from their torso sacks without enraging someone with full control of their necks and you can't shoot them all because they selfishly didn't cram the food you prepared for one of them into the intended face.

Advertisement
Advertisement

From Around the Web