Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« The Great American Car Chase Appear… | The Morning News: Ruffled Feathers,… »

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Health A Note on Universalism

Posted by Charles Mudede on Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 8:34 AM

One more thought concerning this old story:

(BBC) A survey of more than 1,000 men in India has concluded that condoms made according to international sizes are too large for a majority of Indian men.

The study found that more than half of the men measured had penises that were shorter than international standards for condoms.

This story enables us to do something that is essential to the success of the humanist project: separate good universalism from bad universalism. The bad universalism is, of course, the standardized condom; the condom itself, as a thing in the world, needs to be particularized. The good universalism, on the other hand, is the idea of using the condom. This idea is transcultural; it can be applied on any society or community. So, when we speak of universality, always try to separate the good from the bad.

Comments (14) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

Bad Delhi meat...

Posted by Jubilation T. Cornball on February 3, 2010 at 8:43 AM

Sometimes we have to tolerate the bad universalism to reap the benefits of the good universalism.

Posted by Chris in Vancouver WA on February 3, 2010 at 8:51 AM

They may have teeny-tiny little peckers, but it obviously hasn't stopped them from putting a billion or so people on the planet.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty

on February 3, 2010 at 8:58 AM

Or that it just allowed a bunch of British guys to say, "Oi, yeah Mate! Our knobs are bigger than the wogs, innit?" would not be a bad guess either...

Posted by Mayhem on February 3, 2010 at 9:02 AM

@4: sounds like an aussie not a brit

Posted by Max Solomon on February 3, 2010 at 9:22 AM

I never really wanted to visit India anyway....

Posted by bigg

on February 3, 2010 at 9:26 AM

@4/5 - Indeed, it does sound more like an Aussie. Also, I always thought 'wog' was a derogatory term for Southeastern Europeans. I wiki'd it and apparently it means different things to the English, Aussies, and (whaddaya know) Scientologists.

Posted by Dee on February 3, 2010 at 9:30 AM

golly gee whilikers you mean one thing can also be two diff. things at the same time?

the contradictions are mindblowing.

Posted by Bhudda, Hegel, & wave/particle crowd on February 3, 2010 at 9:49 AM

Whatever on the size thing. Big dick, small dick -- there are advantages and disadvantages to both. Size has no bearing on your skill as a lover.

Posted by Irena on February 3, 2010 at 10:55 AM

@7: "wogs begin at Calais".

A drop of lube makes a "too large" condom a wonderful thing. Much nicer than a tight-fitting one.

Posted by Fnarf

on February 3, 2010 at 11:18 AM

@9 Whatever, girl. No one loses points for having a bit more to give.

Posted by B. Betherton on February 3, 2010 at 11:20 AM

@11: Exactly. And no one loses points for having skill and enthusiasm, or being able to last long enough, or loving to give oral, or saying just the right thing in a sexy, sexy voice. And for some women, there is such a thing as too big. It's nice to get rough, and pain is such a turnoff.

Posted by Irena on February 3, 2010 at 11:46 AM

(Pain is a turnoff for me, anyway.)

Posted by Irena on February 3, 2010 at 11:48 AM

I don't understand how a condom that is merely too long is considered "too large". You just don't roll it down all the way, like, I don't know, basically every other man on Earth.

Posted by w7ngman