Jump to content
JulyDiaz

Episode 94 — Hands In The Air

Recommended Posts

Paul Rust, John Gemberling, Lauren Lapkus, and Brandon Johnson are here to give us their take on The Bachelorette, watch a professional ice cream taster at work, and test out the female version of the “popcorn trick” on a special improv5humans! Plus, the bestiality debate with John Gemberling that will go down in improv4humans history! You can now get Matt Besser’s new comedy album at mattbesser.com, the UCB Comedy Improv Manual at http://ucbstore.com/books/the-upright-citizens-brigade-comedy-improvisation-manual, and Dragoon’s new album at dragoongalaxy.bandcamp.com!

Share this post


Link to post

I watched this when it was live on youtube, really funny episode, hope Brandon Johnson comes on the show more often.

 

The bestiality debate is one of the craziest things I've ever heard, you're expecting this guy to come on tell Gemberling that fucking animals is unequivocally wrong, but instead all he really does is talk about what specific ways you can and can not fuck animals. So neither side of the debate is saying DON'T fuck animals, it's more a debate about what's the acceptable way to fuck animals. My mind was blown.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Without a doubt this is the funniest I4H episode I've listened to and I've pretty much heard all of them. Everyone was on their A game. So proud of you guys. Call me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Lauren's reactions to everyone nonchalantly talking about fucking dogs are incredible. Especially when John reveals the contents of the video. Holy shit, I was dying. Also, Brandon in the background asking where the video "can be found"... Incredible. Paul and Brandon's funny crosstalk and shit during the debate was amazing, since neither of them really had a dog in the fight (I felt that Matt wanted to moderate and Lauren immediately became too disgusted by the whole ordeal to be neutral enough to make the kinds of jokes Paul and Brandon were making). On top of all that, incredible improv; Lauren's one-liner work was beautiful (her lightning-fast response to Matt about her husband thinking her mouth was her vagina had me dying along with Brandon and John). A+ episode. Brandon needs to come back ASAP.

 

Also, pertinent: http://www.psycholog...ally-experience

 

Also also: Can you guys include the links to the YouTube videos you watch? I'd love to see a man sexually arousing himself using ice cream. That's what that was, right?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

That picture of Lauren Lapkus is amazing.

 

agreed. i'm falling in love with her (crushing on her actually) based on sense of humor and how beautiful she is...

 

also, this episode was phenomenal. I'm still going to say I4H is the best podcast on Earwolf for 2013 as far as consistently funny episodes goes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

i dont think ive ever laughed that hard before.. watching it live was a life changer haha lauren was soo disgusted it was epic..this whole episode was fucking gold soo much more i missed the first time around thankful i get a audio version!

Share this post


Link to post

This episode was un-fucking-believable. There should be a 'not safe for public listening' warning on this show sometimes, jesus.

 

Also, I'm incredibly unhappy with myself for knowing this, but I'm about 99% sure that dolphins are the only other species outside humans that have sex for pleasure.

Share this post


Link to post

paul rust mixing up "anna nicole smith" and "nicole brown simpson". i'm laughing so hard already.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Hilarious episode but I was disappointed that the debate guy clearly didn't present a serious argument, seemed like he was just trolling the show and trying to be funny. He didn't make any real points or present a real counter argument. No animal rights advocate would have argued "beastiality is okay if your eyes are closed and your hands are in the air." I can't believe Matt and the other guests took this guy seriously. I think Matt should vet these debaters and their arguments before letting them on the air if he wants to have a serious discussion.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Hilarious episode but I was disappointed that the debate guy clearly didn't present a serious argument, seemed like he was just trolling the show and trying to be funny. He didn't make any real points or present a real counter argument. No animal rights advocate would have argued "beastiality is okay if your eyes are closed and your hands are in the air." I can't believe Matt and the other guests took this guy seriously. I think Matt should vet these debaters and their arguments before letting them on the air if he wants to have a serious discussion.

 

Hey Noah,

 

I'm that guy from the debate, and I feel I should clear the air about me "trolling" the show. I had no intention of going on I4H and putting one over on Matt and the gang. In fact, when I first learned I was going to be on the show, I WAS preparing a serious argument. But then I thought of something: I'm not going to be able to change Gemberling's mind, and nobody wants to hear a screaming match that goes nowhere (and certainly nobody wanted to hear some loser call in and berate the hell out of a much funnier comedian) I decided that my job in the segment was not to give a mediocre lecture on philosophy to some amazing comics, but to instead provide them with fodder for good comedy. I'm sorry if I disapointed anyone hoping for an official stance on bestiality, I just wanted to maybe find some common ground with Gemberling and inspire some funny scenes.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

I watched this when it was live on youtube, really funny episode, hope Brandon Johnson comes on the show more often.

 

Was there enough visual stuff that it would be worth waiting for the video archive? I haven't listened to Tuesday's bonus ep yet, so I can still get my weekly fix today even if I wait for this one.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Hey Noah,

 

I'm that guy from the debate, and I feel I should clear the air about me "trolling" the show. I had no intention of going on I4H and putting one over on Matt and the gang. In fact, when I first learned I was going to be on the show, I WAS preparing a serious argument. But then I thought of something: I'm not going to be able to change Gemberling's mind, and nobody wants to hear a screaming match that goes nowhere (and certainly nobody wanted to hear some loser call in and berate the hell out of a much funnier comedian) I decided that my job in the segment was not to give a mediocre lecture on philosophy to some amazing comics, but to instead provide them with fodder for good comedy. I'm sorry if I disapointed anyone hoping for an official stance on bestiality, I just wanted to maybe find some common ground with Gemberling and inspire some funny scenes.

 

 

Completely reasonable stance. Also, dogs are objectively ugly.

Share this post


Link to post

I do agree the debate was really weak, Don you can say there was no point in yelling at him but that was kinda the point of the segment.

 

As much as I'm not into having sex with animals, if I girl or guy wants to be penetrated by an animal whats the harm. I gotta agree with John. I mean in ancient Greek mythology Zeus appeared as many different animals and as a swan impregnated a female human. I mean King Minos' wife had sex was impregnated by a bull and that's how the Minotaur was born.

 

Have you ever tried to take an animal to the Vet? Most are extremely hard to get there, they don't do things they don't want to do. Plus who actually hasn't seen bestiality, I'm not saying jerking off to it but just seen it with friends or anything in High School? I mean everyone knows who Mr.Hands is...

Share this post


Link to post

John Gemberling has come across to me as the most sensible across the entire bestiality trilogy. He is taking a step back and trying to examine something without the stigma attached to it.

 

Everyone else seems to just have an "Ew. It's wrong?" response. He is actually trying to examine why people think that it is wrong and trying to debase their claims.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

 

Hey Noah,

 

I'm that guy from the debate, and I feel I should clear the air about me "trolling" the show. I had no intention of going on I4H and putting one over on Matt and the gang. In fact, when I first learned I was going to be on the show, I WAS preparing a serious argument. But then I thought of something: I'm not going to be able to change Gemberling's mind, and nobody wants to hear a screaming match that goes nowhere (and certainly nobody wanted to hear some loser call in and berate the hell out of a much funnier comedian) I decided that my job in the segment was not to give a mediocre lecture on philosophy to some amazing comics, but to instead provide them with fodder for good comedy. I'm sorry if I disapointed anyone hoping for an official stance on bestiality, I just wanted to maybe find some common ground with Gemberling and inspire some funny scenes.

 

I think it would have been possible to make some serious arguments without the conversation devolving into a shouting match. Also, you don't know that Gemberling wouldn't have changed his mind because no one has really presented a good argument on the show.

 

I wish someone would have brought up what is to me the most obvious and central counter argument: animals are similar to human minors in that they are both unable to consent. If an adult has sex with a child, it is still abuse even if the child initiates the act or even if the adult claims that the child "enjoyed it." The same standards hold true for animals. As a society, we are advanced enough to know that children and animals do not have the mental capacity to understand the consequences and meaning of sex.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

 

I think it would have been possible to make some serious arguments without the conversation devolving into a shouting match. Also, you don't know that Gemberling wouldn't have changed his mind because no one has really presented a good argument on the show.

 

I wish someone would have brought up what is to me the most obvious and central counter argument: animals are similar to human minors in that they are both unable to consent. If an adult has sex with a child, it is still abuse even if the child initiates the act or even if the adult claims that the child "enjoyed it." The same standards hold true for animals. As a society, we are advanced enough to know that children and animals do not have the mental capacity to understand the consequences and meaning of sex.

 

I haven't re-listened to the episode so I'm not sure if they edited it out, but I DID bring up the connection between human minors and animals. I didn't really get a chance to expand on it since 1) Matt's a new dad and didn't want to talk about it 2) It was pretty hard to get a word in edge-wise. And I think that John Gemberling's stance on bestiality is well known if you listen back to the two episodes it was discussed in, it seems obvious he wouldn't be changing his mind. But hey, you're more than welcome to ask Matt to go on the show and do the debate justice in the way you see fit. Maybe you'll be the guy who changes his mind.

 

I do agree the debate was really weak, Don you can say there was no point in yelling at him but that was kinda the point of the segment.

 

As much as I'm not into having sex with animals, if I girl or guy wants to be penetrated by an animal whats the harm. I gotta agree with John. I mean in ancient Greek mythology Zeus appeared as many different animals and as a swan impregnated a female human. I mean King Minos' wife had sex was impregnated by a bull and that's how the Minotaur was born.

 

Have you ever tried to take an animal to the Vet? Most are extremely hard to get there, they don't do things they don't want to do. Plus who actually hasn't seen bestiality, I'm not saying jerking off to it but just seen it with friends or anything in High School? I mean everyone knows who Mr.Hands is...

 

I'm suprised you were unhappy with the debate yet side with Gemberling. Seeing as my goal was to establish some common ground between someone who opposes bestiality and one who thinks it can be done in a harmless fashion, wouldn't it be more pleasing for you to see a "victory" for your side as opposed to somebody shouting views you don't agree with over the 5 comics people actually came to listen to? You're entitled to your own opinion, obviously, and I respect that. But I would measure the success of this episode by the funniness of the scenes the debate inspired, not the debate itself.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

 

Also, I'm incredibly unhappy with myself for knowing this, but I'm about 99% sure that dolphins are the only other species outside humans that have sex for pleasure.

 

Fairly outdated information. There is a great part in this article when they talk about rat's desire for sexual pleasure. There are others, that's just the first that came to mind.

 

There is also this from the 2006 Danish Animals Ethics Council Report:

Even though the evolution-related purpose of mating can be said to be reproduction, it is not actually the creating of offspring which originally causes them to mate. It is probable that they mate because they are motivated for the actual copulation, and because this is connected with a positive experience. It is therefore reasonable to assume that there is some form of pleasure or satisfaction connected with the act. This assumption is confirmed by the behaviour of males, who in the case of many species are prepared to work to get access to female animals, especially if the female animal is in oestrus, and males who for breeding purposes are used to having sperm collected become very eager, when the equipment they associate with the collection is taken out.

There is nothing in
' anatomy or physiology that contradicts that
and mating is able to be a positive experience. For instance, the clitoris acts in the same way as with women, and scientific studies have shown that the success of reproduction is improved by stimulation of clitoris on (among other species) cows and mares in connection with insemination, because it improves the transportation of the sperm due to contractions of the inner genitalia. This probably also concerns female animals of other animal species, and contractions in the inner genitals are seen e.g. also during orgasm for women. It is therefore reasonable to assume that sexual intercourse may be linked with a positive experience for female animals.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I am listening to this at work right now, and I am trying hard not to laugh right now!!!!.

 

:P

Share this post


Link to post

This episode was un-fucking-believable. There should be a 'not safe for public listening' warning on this show sometimes, jesus.

 

Also, I'm incredibly unhappy with myself for knowing this, but I'm about 99% sure that dolphins are the only other species outside humans that have sex for pleasure.

 

Also Bonobo Monkeys.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

I haven't re-listened to the episode so I'm not sure if they edited it out, but I DID bring up the connection between human minors and animals. I didn't really get a chance to expand on it since 1) Matt's a new dad and didn't want to talk about it 2) It was pretty hard to get a word in edge-wise. And I think that John Gemberling's stance on bestiality is well known if you listen back to the two episodes it was discussed in, it seems obvious he wouldn't be changing his mind. But hey, you're more than welcome to ask Matt to go on the show and do the debate justice in the way you see fit. Maybe you'll be the guy who changes his mind.

 

 

 

I'm suprised you were unhappy with the debate yet side with Gemberling. Seeing as my goal was to establish some common ground between someone who opposes bestiality and one who thinks it can be done in a harmless fashion, wouldn't it be more pleasing for you to see a "victory" for your side as opposed to somebody shouting views you don't agree with over the 5 comics people actually came to listen to? You're entitled to your own opinion, obviously, and I respect that. But I would measure the success of this episode by the funniness of the scenes the debate inspired, not the debate itself.

 

It's not your job to try to make the show funny nor is it your job to decide that the topic doesn't deserve a debate just because Gemberling has a strong opinion. When Matt asked for a serious debater to come on the show, coming on with the attitude "haha im going to ignore Matt's request and show off how funny I am because a real debate isn't funny" is a dick move. If Matt didn't think that he could have started a scene based on a serious debate, he wouldn't have asked for a serious debater to come on in the first place.

 

Edit: I am referring to your statement

In fact, when I first learned I was going to be on the show, I WAS preparing a serious argument. But then I thought of something: I'm not going to be able to change Gemberling's mind, and nobody wants to hear a screaming match that goes nowhere (and certainly nobody wanted to hear some loser call in and berate the hell out of a much funnier comedian) I decided that my job in the segment was not to give a mediocre lecture on philosophy to some amazing comics, but to instead provide them with fodder for good comedy

 

This is the exact sentiment Matt tries to discourage.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×