The thing is, Hitler was evil when Freudian analysis was in vogue, and it seems to have created a lasting tradition of viewing his evil via his anatomical and sexual, um, “notables”. How he was a short, dark-haired, single-testicled man who was obsessed with tall blonde people populating the world etc.
4 Likes
Jeez, why always picking on Hitler, what did he ever do to you?
5 Likes
Well firstly, any psychologist might find it extremely interesting.
I was going to post this heheh
1 Like
I think that if Stalin did have a micropenis people would talk about it. People are pretty obsessed with junk in general, but there has to be something notable about the junk.
With Hitler what I find interesting (not in particular about this, but this is an example) is that he would have been a victim of his own genocide if it was taken to its conclusion. He hardly had blond hair and blue eyes, and his abnormal genitalia would have been reason enough as well.
5 Likes
Why do you hate us all so very much. Why?
7 Likes
But that’s about him TALKING about his johnson and it tends to not be the go to discussion on the man, I think.[quote=“adonai, post:32, topic:74096”]
Historian #3: “Me? I’ve spent the last two years examining Hitler’s cock.”
[/quote]
There is probably some historian who is doing that…
I mean, I guess? But the guy has been dead for how long? Why not study psychopaths that are alive?
2 Likes
Yeah, don’t you know he killed Hitler? That was pretty awesome.
16 Likes
Is it mutually exclusive? History has its own value, does it not?
Sure, it just seems like an odd obsession to me that does nothing to clarify actually history. As a historian, I just don’t see the value in psychologically figuring out Hitler and his junk.
3 Likes
Quite the contrary, these historians have clarified that Hitler had a micropenis and a deformed urethra.
2 Likes
Well clearly you are just not a Hitlerian Junkologist.
5 Likes
…I got nothing. I know there is a pithy joke somewhere, but I don’t see it.
I am much more comfortable making fun of my own junk.
3 Likes
Doesn’t the Smithsonian have Napoleon’s and John Dillinger’s penii stored away?
We should arrange a festival. Mine’s Pol Pot’s Superfluous Three Nipples.
2 Likes
So
- Hypospadias says nothing about penis size;
- This “new book” was published a year ago;
- The authors are journalists, not “researchers”; and
- They present the “hypospadias” idea as a widespread opinion, and make no claim to have supporting evidence, from medical records or anywhere else.
Other than that, the Daily Telegraph is an entirely cromulent source.
10 Likes
I think it is the dative case. The omitted object is “something” in the sentence “he reduced something to Hitler.” Hitler is therefore the indirect object, and in the dative.
Grammar is bad enough without people providing misleading examples. On the other hand, it’s more interesting and less controversial than a discussion of whether medical conditions are an explanation of genocidal tendencies.
A final note - calling it a deformity. It’s the 21st century and anybody with a basic grasp of anatomy will see that it is an intermediate stage between clitoris and separate urethral outlet on the one hand, and penis with included ureter on the other. Taking the line I said above we should not, in a modern, advanced society tolerant of transsexuals and where reconstructive surgery is possible, perhaps Hitler would have grown up to be a well known TV presenter.
4 Likes
On the other hand, like the Daily Mail, they were quite in favour of Hitler at one time. Kept the workers in their place, dontcherknow.
2 Likes
I think you mean 39 days early…
1 Like
