Come and take my Sriracha and jalapenos, from my cold dead hands.
Then some kinky dude added sugar to these and made the mascot a himbo tiger daddy.
The historical lore behind cereal is way weirder than it should be 😭
Am I the only one here who masturbates into a bowl of cornflakes!!! What the actual fuck!
Masturbate into my bowl of cornflakes please
Done
Thanks
Yea man any time
“a bowl”
It’s concerning that it’s not specified if it’s your bowl of cornflakes or someone else’s.
Why would I do that into my own cornflakes! That’s gross
Oh thank God, you had me worried
Don’t worry, there’s plenty to go round :-)
The opposite of horny flakes
Explanation: John Kellogg invented corn flakes, a popular form of breakfast cereal.
… one of the rationales of John’s culinary thinking was that a simple and bland diet would reduce sexual desire and masturbation.
Funny enough, his brother, William Kellogg (featured here, and the founder of the company which now bears the name), was actually the one who added other ingredients to it so it would actually have some sort of taste.
John Kellogg was not thrilled about the addition.
Specifically sugar is what his brother added to make the taste more palatable
i’ve heard somewhere that the original idea was to put them in the mattresses of the dormitories at schools so that the boys couldn’t “move around” without making noise. no idea how true that is, but it’s a fun factoid.
Sounds like an effective way to get mice and roaches.
Also, I shift around a lot when I’m trying to sleep. This would be literal hell for me, especially with some creepy puritan rector out in the hallway accusing me of sin every time I roll onto my side…
a few good canings will put a stop to that
Technically, if you don’t know if it’s true or not it’s a factish not a factoid.
a factish seems to be “something that’s believed to be immutable truth even though it isn’t necessarily”. like a fact fetish (the magical kind). so a bit like a microcosm of “scientism”.
good word.
Corn flakes have a taste?
Slightly sweet, yes.
True tastelessness is Wheat Thins, which are like chewing straw.
Weren’t Wheat Thins the cracker?
Are you thinking of Shredded Wheat? That was terrible. It was like a little burrito hay bail. Frosted Mini Wheats weren’t bad though. They had like, well, sugar.
Shredded Wheat, that was it!
Frosted mini wheats, on the other hand 🤌
Rat vs. Rat with Ketchup
One is inedible; the other, a staple of any honest dwarf’s diet!
Small additions make all the difference
With a bit of salt, it tastes like some chips
I prefer bran flakes. More fiber, too.
Was John Kellogg also the one who convinced Americans that male circumcision was somehow medically necessary, again as an effort to cut down on masturbation? I think I’ve heard that before.
Yep. He also tried to convince people to destroy the nerve endings on a girls clitoris with acid to avoid, in his words, “abnormal excitement”
Why are religious people so against sex?
Potentially schismogenisis at least in the Christian and Muslim traditions. Middle Eastern and European pagans had more comfort with sex. Ultimately this has resulted in a lot of sexual liberation movements coming with rejection of religion. Though you do occasionally get Christians who are super into free love and consider it a part of Christianity.
That said, this is just a guess. I strongly suspect that individuals who are deeply ashamed of their sexual desires or lack thereof latch on to prudish relitions as a justification to try to fix people having sexual desires.
I think it originates from ancient social constructs. Because its very easy for men to knock up women and then abandon them and their child, it became necessary to have social rules to ‘bind’ couples through marriage. And strongly forbid sex outside marriage or adultery. In biblical times, adultery was such a severe crime it was often a death sentence.
These days contraceptives are so widely available it makes zero sense. But it made some sense in early civilizations thousands of years ago when infantcide was a very common practice.
That makes a lot of sense until you look at the evidence. In the epic of Gilgamesh, Shamhat, a sacred prostitute, has sex with Enkidu for a week before introducing him to civilization and then dipping out of his life. We have evidence of varied attitudes on sex at a cultural level around the world. In fact in the middle East we have such a clear picture of a sexually open culture that it’s a relevant question how the attitudes we see in the bible come up so close to Babylon. David Graeber argues that it’s related to the adoption of money in his book Debt, but I really feel that the schismogenetic component is more worth using for the short internet comment level explanation.
I think it originates from ancient social constructs. Because its very easy for men to knock up women and then abandon them and their child, it became necessary to have social rules to ‘bind’ couples through marriage.
But in most ancient societies, the woman is punished and policed much more harshly than the man.
It’s not really oriented towards keeping men in check.
No doubt misogyny runs deep. But my thoery isnt to keep ‘men in check’ but to prevent unwanted children being born and forced to be murdered because of limited resources.
Also Leviticus 20:10 instructs both the adulter and adultress to put to death equally. Now rather this was actually done in practice… I do not know.
and also obsessed with it. sexual repression causes deviant kink in ultra religious people.
Well they needed a constant supply of ingredients
Let’s not forget, also the sole reason America still mutilates newborns.
It’s not just Kellogg, Graham crackers were also developed to stop masturbation.
America is so weird. If it weren’t for alcohol, they wouldn’t have sex at all.
And that’s the real reason prohibition failed. /s
Regardless of your feelings of penile circumcision, let’s avoid actively spreading blatant misinformation.
It’s not the sole (nor even a) reason Americans currently perform circumcision; there are medical considerations (such as the complete removal of penile cancer risk) that are the primary motivators and defenses.
That’s not me saying those benefits outweigh any other considerations (nor me making any defense of circumcision, etc.) but masturbation habits are not even a remote consideration and to state otherwise is just blatant and overt misinfo.
I mean, removing the breasts or colon would also prevent breast or colon cancer, which are much more prevalent.
I actually hear about other penis diseases a lot more when people defend circumcision. And in any case, it’s more of a cultural thing, and the justifications are retroactive.
That’s a bold claim about curing cancer with no citation.
That’s because it takes two seconds to Google due to being the most commonly used defense for circumcision: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3139859/.
Again, I’m not arguing that’s good reasoning (especially considering that penile cancer is generally rare) but I don’t think it makes any more sense to not address the actual reasons people are doing circumcision for.
Again, I’m not arguing that’s good reasoning (especially considering that penile cancer is generally rare) but I don’t think it makes any more sense to not address the actual reasons people are doing circumcision for.
The actual reason most people in the US do circumcision is because it’s been normalized to do (and offer unprompted, by hospitals), nothing more.
True; I guess I was providing the answer to the follow-up question of “why is it offered by hospitals, unprompted”.
Regardless, it’s certainly not “because it reduces masturbation”.
Regardless, it’s certainly not “because it reduces masturbation”.
Don’t pretend like antimasturbatory logic wasn’t a massive drive behind the force to set up the US as the only supposedly “developed” nation with this horrid practice.
The concept of circumcision as a preventive, and then routine, procedure emerged in the mid-nineteenth century, though the reasons for this development remain contested. In a recent historical survey, Dunsmuir and Gordon cite prevention or cure of impotence, phimosis, sterility, priapism, masturbation, venereal disease, epilepsy, bed-wetting, night terrors, “precocious sexual unrest” and homosexuality as among the contradictory benefits urged by Victorian and Edwardian physicians in Britain and the USA, without offering any firm suggestions of their own as to the relative weight of these factors.
Korea as well unfortunately.
I’ll grant you that “sole” was a little hyperbole, but It is a practice that started between the 19th and 20th century that was absolutely started by Kellogg. Practiced almost exclusively by Protestants that have zero history of doing it before then, and do it now to keep their children from masturbating. I really would like you to list some other reasons almost exclusively Protestants do something they have no history of, and started doing it around the Time when Kellogg was contemporary. He was a Seventh Day Adventist who achieved to a “revivalist” reinterpretation of Christian Scripture.
Penile cancer rates in newborns is so close to non existent that it is a very poor excuse. The hardening of the foreskin is something that is usually treated at the time the condition pops up, and most doctors recommend non surgical treatments.
And finally the one poor excuse commonly cited about hygiene is just fucking dumb. The rest of the world manages to not let their dicks fall off from gangrene, why are kids in America so susceptible?
I know you said your not defending it, but you are sugar-coating it so hard that it reads like you are.
You can’t get cancer if that part is removed. If it’s about cancer, let the boy decide for himself at 18. There’s zero reason to take that choice away from them on the grounds of penile cancer in old age.
Sure; again, I’m not arguing on either side for the issue. I’m just pointing out what’s not the actual argument people do or don’t make for the practice.
Super fair 🙂 I’m a former cancer researcher, so I like to chime in on cancer misconceptions haha. But yes, I’m absolutely against circumcision of minors, and circumcision misinformation, so I also come in there as well.
(such as the complete removal of penile cancer risk)
Unless the circumcision actually cut of the glans as well as the prepuce, no, you’re not gonna completely avoid risk, since some of the cases start from the glans, even keratinised ones. True, it’s quite a reduction, but it’s not “complete removal of the risk” that’s just misinformation. Also, you can make sure you don’t get cancer on your limbs if you amputate them! (Wouldn’t really be enough for me to get rid of completely functional parts of my body just in case.)
Cool, man; that’s so besides the point of the conversation that I have to assume you just want to have your own one.
My only point was that “reduces masturbation” is not a modern justification that near to any human on Earth is currently using (and especially not any doctor) and, apparently, it’s not as common knowledge as I presumed that there’s an entire body of medical work on the subject that’s the actual basis people use as justification.
I thought people would rather spend their time countering that body of medical work as telling a doctor or any medical organization “you’re just trying to stop masturbating” is definitely not going to get them to take you seriously but I guess that was a grain of specificity too much for Lemmy to handle and you’d rather focus on the original justification that will definitely have no impact or relevance to why it’s still currently in practice.
You’re in denial. The anti-masturbation craze is known to have been a major motivation for pretty much all this research. It’s well documented.
And just like, you can’t argue 100% reduction of penile cancer, when that’s just simply literally really not true. So why claim it?
It has been widely accepted by medical historians since the 1950s that discouraging masturbation was a major reason why doctors, educationists and childcare experts sought to introduce widespread circumcision of both boys and girls in the nineteenth century, a campaign which was successful in the former case, unsuccessful in the latter–an outcome which still colours popular concepts about what constitutes genital mutilation. A result of the partial character of this victory has been a high degree of blindness on the issue: while the treatment of hysteria and masturbation in women by clitoridectomy was noticed early on (and condemned with indignation), the comparable operation on boys (amputation of the foreskin) has been either ignored or given only fleeting attention, and has rarely been regarded with the same degree of abhorrence.
The point isn’t that anyone is directly arguing today that there’s a strong anti-masturbatory movement atm. But historically that has been the motivation, and we can quite clearly see how most of the medical research into the subject was done because someone wanted smarter arguments than fanatic anti-masturbatory moral panic.
And these aren’t all from a lifetime ago.
The sceptical mood and anti-puritanism of the 1960s found expression in Alex Comfort’s light-hearted but reliable survey of medical manias, The anxiety makers (1967). “curious preoccupations of the profession” he listed the crusade for continence, an obsession with constipation, hostility to drinking tea, moralistic theories of venereal disease and the campaign against self-abuse
So yeah there’s definitely people still using the reasoning. Hopefully all the doctors who used it are all retired, but some are definitely still alive.
You’re in denial. The anti-masturbation craze is known to have been a major motivation for pretty much all this research. It’s well documented.
Y’know, – it’s a curious thing – that might be why I’ve never once denied it, in any of my comments? But I’m interrupting the conversation you’d rather be having, again.
The original motivation for the trend is not the current defense for the trend which is the actual thing I was pointing out (and have kept pointing out; your argument that no one is saying there is a strong antimasturbatory movement is ignoring that the comment I was responding to said it was still the motivating reason for the trend, to this day. And a lot of the medical body of research is still within the last 50 years; that paper I linked to in another comment was not an ancient study. Again, – if you actually want to address the current state of the world – you need to acknowledge it).
But I’ll let you return to your other conversation.
why I’ve never once denied it
You said its not a modern reasoning. 20th century is considered to be modernity, and pretty sure there are still doctors alive who worked in the 60s. So even if you’re using “modern” in another context, there are still people who’ve been taught using that reasoning, and since most of the reasoning in the US today is contested as well, we can easily argue it’s about moral panic and conforming to societal standards more than about actual factual objective medical benefits.
You’re still just straight up wrong about “removing all risk of penile cancer”, yet you won’t admit that.
Sure, it significantly reduces the chances of getting penile cancer, but unless you chop of the glans, it doesn’t remove it.
It also significantly alters the sensation in your penis and as far as American media is to be believed, makes jerking off “dry” much more difficult. Can’t imagine needing accessories for getting myself off lol. I mean, I have used accessories ofc, but I couldn’t imagine not being able to get off without them. Always having to have a bottle of lube just in case I get horny and want to rub my keratinised stem which lacks the prepuce and glans, (so that I won’t have even a tiny risk of cancer.)
You said its not a modern reasoning. 20th century is considered to be modernity, and pretty sure there are still doctors alive who worked in the 60s
I think you misread your own quote; what you quoted was not that doctors were still using that as the recommendation in the '60s but an allusion to a book regarding (to quote) “medical manias”, The Anxiety Makers; every example from the book that your source quotes is from the 19th century: “Following Spitz and Hare, Comfort observed that punitive treatments for the vice introduced in the second half of the nineteenth century included[…]”
we can easily argue it’s about moral panic and conforming to societal standards more than about actual factual objective medical benefits
Except the first part would be speculative and not based upon any actual evidence; regardless the reasons parents do it, it is absurd to act like doctors and entire medical org.s are recommending…just because (even if their evidence for the recommendation is poor). My mother was a registered nurse: they have reasons they believe it should be offered within a medical setting and providing your own justifications for their motivations will not actually address why they are acting as they are; this is why – even if it agrees with our side – misinformation is bad as it paints our understanding of things on bad assumptions. Again, I would think we’d actually want to address why these decisions are greenlit rather than just feel smug that we know better but that’s, apparently, too fine-grained a distinction.
You’re still just straight up wrong about “removing all risk of penile cancer”, yet you won’t admit that.
Because that was never the conversation, bud; and you still think this is a discussion about the efficacy of circumcision, apparently.
It was slight hyperbole but that’s because I don’t actually care about the details (as I said elsewhere, penile cancer is so rare as to make the former point – even if it were true – moot); the point was to refer to some of the medical information out there to draw attention to it because the original point of the conversation was that someone said the current reason for circumcision is antimasturbitory policy; which, again, is not true.
I’m not trying to cite that information in detail because it’s only related to the main point that antimasturbitory policy is not the current defense for the practice. I’m not making an argument for circumcision; that is not the conversation.
I’ll let you get back to the conversation you’d rather have where you describe your masturbation practices.
Funny thing is if you consume sufficient carbohydrates over a long enough period of time then the resultant chronically elevated insulin is a well known correlate with erectile dysfunction. Same with Type 2 Diabetes.
So it works! Extra effective if the cornflakes are frosted.
Kellogg himself was a Seventh Day Adventist and influenced by the work of Ellen G White, who believed that eating meat led to masturbation.
Ellen G. had some serious mental problems. Real piece of work by all accounts.
Is there anything religion can’t ruin?
More fun facts: The Sanitarium health and well-being company are owned by the Seventh Day Adventist Church and pay no taxes as a result.
They sell weetbix, which have the same effects on your health as corn flakes.
So the answer to your question is no.
No.
“Also my cousin doctor is talking to aliens through this passed out guy, he wrote it all down and you should buy this book! I can’t wait to tell you all about the annunaki.”
Everybody please note that this is in the History Memes community and not in the NoncredibleWhatever community, because that’s the actual historical reason why cornflakes which are bland af were so widespread.
Well, one of the reasons at least.
NoncredibleCuisine
Noncredible history would be kinda fun ngl
they weren’t just really bad boxed dandruff sent off to bad children to eat?
Don’t forget to chew at least 100 times before swallowing! Improper chewing is the work of the devil, after all.
I wonder if they still sell the honey and nut variant of corn flakes, Thats probably was my favourite version.
honey bunches of oats is what we see them as
Im not sure if kellogg’s makes them, but nestle still has honey nut corn flakes :3. Of course then you have support nestle but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Tbh I just put sugar on mine.
Burn the masturbating heretic!
These ones? Crunchy Nut Corn Flakes (wiki link)
They’re still very common in the UK. No idea about anywhere else.
this yes,i looked it up and seems Kellogg’s(now split into 2 companies owned by Ferrero and mars respectively according to Wikipedia) still sells them.
cool.This is crack to me. I can’t have it in the house.
“The trouble is, they taste too good” was actually intended as a safety warning, rather than an advertising catchphrase.
At that time, salt was considered spicy.
Kelogg’s cornflakes are the worst cornflakes out of the ones I tried honestly
You actually went and tried several corn flakes? I’m oddly impressed.
Well I tried most brands and types of cereals commonly in stores here over the years, not just cornflakes :3. Though cornflakes are probably my favourite cereal type
At least the local off-brand is worse, in my neck of the woods. Mushy, no firmness to them even when they’re dry.
I think there are generally two kinds of cereal eaters.
First, there are those who enjoy crunchy cereal. They can’t get enough of putting that hard firm stuff into their mouths. The more extreme will even go so far as to put Grape Nuts in. The milk is almost an afterthought, and sometimes they even put it in dry, just to see what it’s like.
Second, are those who enjoy limp, flaccid cereals. These ones are after the milk more than the cereal, if you know what I mean. They make sure that everything becomes a sloppy mess, and they don’t stop until they can greedily slurp up every drop.
…These ones are after the milk more than the cereal, if you know what I mean. They make sure that everything becomes a sloppy mess, and they don’t stop until they can greedily slurp up every drop.
are we still talking about cereal?
What else could we possibly be talking about?
Oh you need to be careful with those kinds of thoughts. If you fetishize cereal, then what could you eat to control your sexual urges?
New copypasta just dropped.
Kellogg’s to me just tasted of nothing but raw starch and basically instantly turned to mush in milk. So I suppose it depends on where you are :3
probably designed to kill you sex drive.
Certainly killed something in me :3
