Vitamin D and Dark Skin: Are You a Fish Out of Water?

Back when I included the “Are You a Fish Out of Water” section in my book, it was based on the idea that because darker skin is an evolutionary adaptation to protect from overexposure (and an attractive one at that 🙂 that the logical corollary would be that darker skinned folk living at latitudes far from the equator (Manilla is at just 14 deg N, Seattle is at 48 deg N) would typically be deficient even with significant sun exposure (4 reasons: the angle of the rays, the smaller window of absorption daily, smaller seasonal opportunity, and a general absence of sunny days year round in comparison to tropical regions).

Unfortunately, when I looked for research I found lots on the general deficiency of darker skin folk (and all the associated maladies, from osteoporosis to higher all-cancer risk), but nothing that contemplated the specific cause I was aiming at: WHERE YOU LIVE. That has now changed and confirms my suspicions. Just published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition:

Efficacy of a dose range of simulated sunlight exposures in raising vitamin D status in South Asian adults: implications for targeted guidance on sun exposure

Background: Vitamin D is essential for bone health, and cutaneous synthesis is an important source. South Asians cannot attain adequate amounts of vitamin D by following general recommendations on summer sunlight exposure at northerly latitudes, and increased exposure may be appropriate for improving their vitamin D status.

Objective: We examined the efficacy of a dose range of simulated summer sunlight exposures in raising vitamin D status in UK adults of South Asian ethnicity.

It’s pretty short, just the abstract, but someone at The Vitamin D Council went through the full text and here’s the brief synopsis in plain English.

In an effort to estimate just how much vitamin D dark-skinned individuals can make during exposure to sunlight, UK researchers exposed a group of people of South Asian ethnicity to several different doses of UV radiation[.]

This same research group had previously determined that laboratory exposure to UV irradiation equivalent to casual summer sun exposure produced 25(OH)D levels greater than 20 ng/mL in almost all white adult participants, but failed to do so in any of the adults of South Asian ethnicity. This study was designed to determine how much more UV exposure those of South Asian ancestry would need to achieve vitamin D blood levels similar to those seen in people with lighter skin types.

Researchers recruited 60 adults of Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi ethnicity with skin type V. People with skin type V have a fairly dark skin tone from increased melanin production. This extra melanin protects them from UV radiation, reducing their likelihood of developing non-melanoma skin cancers, but means they must spend much more time in the sun than those with lighter skin to produce the same amount of vitamin D.

The participants were divided into six groups and exposed to UV radiation three times per week for six weeks. The UV lights were designed to mimic the summer sun with 95% of the light as UVA radiation and the remaining 5% as UVB. The groups were divided by the amount of radiation they received, measured in standard erythema doses (SED):

• Group 1: .65 SEDs
• Group 2: 1.3 SEDs
• Group 3: 1.95 SEDs
• Group 4: 2.6 SEDs
• Group 5: 3.25 SEDs
• Group 6: 3.9 SEDs

These doses were equivalent to anywhere from 15-90 minutes of peak summer sun exposure in Manchester, United Kingdom (53.5˚ N), the larger the number, the more minutes in equivalency. The six week study design was chosen to represent the length of school summer vacation, the time period where most people in the UK receive the majority of their vitamin D-producing UVB radiation. Participants were dressed in T-shirts and knee-length shorts during UV exposure to simulate casual, summer clothing. The study was conducted during the winter months to avoid confounding with any UVB exposure from the sun.

At baseline, all participants had 25(OH)D levels less than 20 ng/mL. Ninety percent had levels less than 10 ng/mL and eighteen people had levels less than 5 ng/mL, the latter a serious deficiency state which can cause rickets and osteomalacia. Baseline parathyroid hormone (PTH) was also measured.

After this six week simulated summer, 25(OH)D levels rose significantly in all six groups, but only six participants achieved blood levels greater than 20 ng/mL, with no one specific SED group showing significant improvement in vitamin D levels.

The authors noted that in this follow-up study, even with a three-fold increase in UV exposure, those of South Asian ethnicity are not able to make sufficient vitamin D at northern latitudes wearing casual clothing. Those receiving the larger doses of UV radiation were left with an average vitamin D blood level of only 15 ng/mL.

From an evolutionary perspective, those with skin type V evolved this darker skin as protection from the intense UV exposure they received in the tropics. While this increased melanin production was protective for South Asians living in South Asia, it makes it very difficult to produce adequate vitamin D in the sunlight of northern latitudes. Based on the studies by these authors it will be difficult, if not impossible, for those with darker skin to achieve a natural vitamin D level from sun exposure alone, particularly if they do not commit to getting full-body sun exposure.

It is therefore imperative that those with the darker skin types living in areas of the world far from where their skin types evolved supplement with oral vitamin D year round to avoid the startling deficiency states observed in this study. If they want to make their own vitamin D, they likely have to expose more skin and get even longer periods of sun exposure.

I’ve been supplementing with 4,000 – 8,000 IU per day of D for years now and spend lots of time shirtless in the summer. I almost never get sick, hardly get colds, and energy levels are usually off the charts. It’s kinda like that feeling of euphoria you get after a day at the beach—but year round for me. That’s D doing its thing (same is reported by many, many “paleo” fans). Most recently I’ve been going to the swim club almost every afternoon for 30 minutes of lightly treading water in the deep end, followed by 10-20 minutes of air drying by walking laps around the large pool. The only downside is that I feel so good all the time I seem to have less interest in being on the Internet, including blogging.

I try to keep my levels between 60-80 ng/mL year round and here’s why, the association with most forms of cancer, excerpts from that 2008 post:


This is a huge presentation from GrassrootsHealth: Dose-Response of Vitamin D and a Mechanism for Prevention of Cancer, by Cedric F. Garland, Dr.P.H., Edward D. Gorham, M.P.H., Ph.D., Sharif B. Mohr, M.P.H., and Frank C. Garland, Ph.D.

There are a ton of slides here, so I’ll highlight a few of what I consider the most notable. First up, placebo vs. intervention. I’d call that significant.

Picture 1

Babes: protect those awesome boobies, wouldja — not to mention you very lives? Get your vitamin D levels above 30.

Picture 2

Smile. You’ve been duped by the “experts” and “authorities.” But at least they’ve got their grants from the drug companies. I’m sure that’ll work out for you in the end.

Picture 4

Here’s one of a great many of similar slides on various cancers illustrating the same thing. Get your level up to 30 and you reduce your risk by half. Get it up to 60-70 and you virtually eliminate your risk.

Picture 6

And here’s the mother load. Above 50, and your associative risk of cancer drops to 25%. For women, the real outlier is breast cancer. Get it above 60-70, sweethearts, and good luck. A high amount of fat in your diet isn’t going to hurt, either.

Picture 7


Here’s two very similar posts from the same day in 2008, summarizing similar presentations by vitamin D researchers:

In the end, we’re just plants, you see. Thing about plants is, we seem to understand that depending on where they evolved on the earth, they thrive best under certain environmental conditions from tropics to arctics and everywhere in-between.

Simple. Pimple. But, see, “humans are different.” God created us, or something stupid like that, and the Bible never said anything about latitude. It also said to eat your daily bread. Dumbest book ever, designed for ignorant people, to motivate and encourage them to be as stupid as they can be. On that score, marvelous success.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More


  1. tatertot on June 11, 2013 at 16:39

    Here’s a pretty cool tool:

    You can type in the name of your city and it will give you an hour-by-hour reading of the angle of the sun for any day of the year. They say sun exposure is best when the sun is at an angle of 50 degrees in the sky or higher–at this angle you supposedly get more UV-B rays.

    However, I live at latitude 65 degrees north, not far from the arctic circle. The sun, at it’s highest on June 21st is only at 48 degrees in the sky. I try to get 30-45 minutes a day of direct sun with no shirt on from April thru September and without supplementing Vit D these months, my Vit D level was 69 last September.

    From Sep – April, I supplement with 5,000IU per day and my blood level drops to about 50 by April.

    I think the only way to ever know if you are doing it right is to get your Vit D tested in Mar or April and again in Sep or Oct. After a few years you can get a feel for how much to supplement with or how effective your summer sun is.

  2. […] The Animal / Posted on: June 11, 2013 Free The Animal – Back when I included the “Are You a Fish Out of Water” section in my book, it […]

  3. Contemplationist on June 11, 2013 at 12:18

    My dad professed skepticism of such high serum 25(OH) D levels (he’s a doctor) as just another obsession which will be tempered in the coming years like the cholestrol mania. I disagree with him as the evidence looks good in this post above, but my natural contrarianism kicks in now and then.

  4. Richard Nikoley on June 11, 2013 at 12:27


    I absolutely do not think having 30-50 vs. 50-80 is going to make a huge diff for most people. On the other hand, it’s easy, cheap and in the 5 or so years I’ve supplemented and get as much sun as I can, I have zewro detectable downsides and a number of apparent upsides (all confounded, of course, but one does not need to be an idiot on purpose either—especially when some measure of evolutionary logic appears to be on your side).

    – we evolved outdoors, generally
    -we didn’t have textile manufacturing
    -we all come from sunlit regions at base
    -there’s not much D in food (and none in the soil or water for plants)

    Finally, I like the lifeguard standard. Working lifeguards who don’t supplement appear to have levels of around 80.

  5. Nils on June 11, 2013 at 13:01

    You should be careful with those really high levels of Vitamin D, if your A and K2 are not at sufficient levels to balance it out you are at risk of artery calcification and kidney stones among things. Other than that it’s very sound advice to grab as much sun as you can, especially since it also has many other great effects (like lowering blood pressure, decreasing stress etc).

    • Richard Nikoley on June 11, 2013 at 14:54

      Yep, I’ve been on the K2 deal for just as long. Tons of posts on the blog going back. I don’t worry about A. Part of my K2 is in the form of fermented CLO, and I eat plenty of meat and the bits of liver now & then.

  6. Paul C on June 11, 2013 at 14:11

    This year my very fair niece just married a very dark man from Ghana (5 degrees north of equator) and they are currently living in the upper peninsula of Michigan at 46.5 degrees north of equator (about the same latitude as northern Maine or Seattle). I could definitely see him having the severe deficiency problem and will bring this up with them.

  7. Dr. Curmudgeon Gee on June 11, 2013 at 15:51

    thanks for the interesting study.

    i read it somewhere that African has trouble absorbing D orally; they seem to get it from skin the best (sorry no citation).
    don’t know if this is true for S. Asian tho.

  8. Nigel Kinbrum on June 11, 2013 at 16:23

    The D-nialists always refer to the U-curve study.

    They never mention the fact that it’s only the top 2.5% of subjects (probably the K2-insufficient ones) who follow the U-curve and that the vast majority of subjects enjoy monotonically-decreasing all-cause & CHD mortality with increasing serum 25(OH)D level.

    What Nils said.

  9. gabriella kadar on June 11, 2013 at 16:59

    Studies were done here at the University of Toronto Scarborough campus in re: students from the Indian subcontinent and they had super low vitamin D levels. But the government in its wisdom stopped coverage for vitamin D blood testing. It now costs money. So I don’t know what’s going on for people here. The government does have contracts with drug companies manufacturing drugs for osteoporosis though. And of course, it is only legal to sell vitamin D up to 1,000 IU doses.

    Mind you studies also indicated that an awful lot of university students are vitamin C deficient as well. What does THAT take?

    It all boggles the mind.

  10. MC on June 11, 2013 at 19:18

    I was born and raised in Canada, and I’m also Indian.

    Probably had low vitamin D growing up. And also wasn’t allowed to eat beef due to religion. Though I did sneak in some beef sometimes on the down-low. That’s right. Not drugs. Beef. B)

  11. Celestia on June 12, 2013 at 05:10

    Well, just to be fair to the Bible, I am not aware of a single theologian who takes “bread” literally; it refers to all that we need to survive —- and that means everything from food and water and air to friends! It is an expression of gratitude for the “giftedness” of creation; whether you are a “believer” or not, you at least know that you did not make yourself or the world around you, and that having gratitude for the sunlight, for the animals and plants that feed you, etc. is not a bad way to be. And remember that the God who is being prayed to is not a bearded man in the sky, but one the bible itself describes as “dwelling in realms of unapproachable light” and the “I AM” — that is Being itself, that which imparts being to individual entities. It’s basic Catholic theology. At the very least, people “believe in” Being, since without it there’d be Nothing!
    Not to mention that the “bread” the ancient world ate was IN ADDITION to lots of meat AND was NOT made of the hybridized, industrialized, invented “dwarf grains” of the last 50 years……

  12. Calvin on June 12, 2013 at 06:56

    Hmm, Anna at Lifextension seems to say that genomic evidence would support agriculture as the culprit for light skin, since we’ve been in higher latitudes for 50,000 years while light skin has only been around for 10,000. Apparently a shift away from vitamin D-rich game and seafood was the crucial difference. Personally, I think this is good news as it indicates that getting vitamin D from food sources (or maybe supplements) might be sufficient for people with darker skin who may find it difficult to spend so much extra time in the sun.

  13. tatertot on June 12, 2013 at 07:53

    “In the end, we’re just plants, you see. Thing about plants is, we seem to understand that depending on where they evolved on the earth, they thrive best under certain environmental conditions from tropics to arctics and everywhere in-between.”

    The Inuit are looked at as a model of health for the high fat diet–they were fish out of water, as well, though. Dark skinned, evolved in Mongolia or somewhere closer to the equator. Travelled north faster than evolution could keep up. Makes you wonder if diet can help overcome some problems of being misplaced. On the SAD, Inuit decline rapidly.

  14. Richard Nikoley on June 12, 2013 at 08:24


    Well, of course, my jab is aimed at the fundamentalists/literalists, of which there exists billions on this rock in space, and not just in Christianity.

    I have far less issue with the various mystics/spiritualists. My only beef with them: can we just move on, learn what we can about the natural realm and stop trying to put a mystery, meaning, spin on everything like we’re a bunch of idiots?

    Finally, know that I always laugh at the word “theologian,” as though it’s an avocation that’s supposed to command respect at its utterance. Well, I suppose there are those who study and take serious meaning from Mother Goose and Dr. Suess. There’s that. Basically the same thing though.

  15. Marc on June 12, 2013 at 08:31

    whether you are a “believer” or not, you at least know that you did not make yourself or the world around you….

    But we do make ourselves…
    How could we not? We are all and part of all that is, was and will be.


  16. Shelby on June 12, 2013 at 09:00

    Great article, Richard.

    My D levels were miserable at <18, even living in Los Angeles and using my sunroof 1+ hours daily, no sunscreen (for SHAME! :p) and sunbathing as much as possible. From personal experience, I had trouble getting my D up past about 25, even on 10,000iu daily, taken orally. I found supplementing liquid D (Liquid Sunshine or similar) at 5000iu along with the 10,000 oral was the push I needed to get me up into the 70-80 range. I've also found that once my levels got up to that level, my body seemed to "hold" the D more easily. I still supplement 10,000 daily along with the K2 to keep them up there but have since dropped the liquid.

  17. Joshua on June 12, 2013 at 09:26

    re: theologians, Richard, have you ever heard The Man Who Couldn’t Cry? Johnny Cash did the version I’ve heard.
    “The theologians were finally found out”

  18. Nigel Kinbrum on June 12, 2013 at 09:44

    Dr. Curmudgeon Gee // Jun 11, 2013 at 15:51
    “thanks for the interesting study.
    i read it somewhere that African has trouble absorbing D orally; they seem to get it from skin the best (sorry no citation).
    don’t know if this is true for S. Asian tho.”
    Vitamin D is fat-soluble, so only people who can’t absorb dietary fats can’t absorb oral Vitamin D, unless you can cite a study on PubMed that says otherwise. “I read it somewhere” isn’t valid evidence.

  19. Richard Nikoley on June 12, 2013 at 10:02


    Never heard that one. Jonny’s a pretty good social commentarian. He could have been a blogger in another life.

  20. Contemplationist on June 12, 2013 at 10:14

    Agreed. Will be upping my dose to 10k IUs along with more regular liver consumption.

  21. rick on June 12, 2013 at 11:10


    ” Makes you wonder if diet can help overcome some problems of being misplaced. On the SAD”

    maybe if your diet is made of fish and seal fat.

  22. Dr. Curmudgeon Gee on June 12, 2013 at 14:24


    i’m a layman, nor am i a health blogger trying to get followers. so please don’t ask for citation.

    it was quoted by some health blog(s) from a study just to show that oral supplementation not as efficient as sunshine for African skin.

    i believe i _asked_ a question if the same conclusion apply to dark Asian skin. i did not be a conclusion.

    if you’re so interested find out for your ark skin friends, pubmed is your friend.

    oh, have i mentioned i’m a layman?

    have a productive day,

  23. Nigel Kinbrum on June 12, 2013 at 16:37

    It took me a few seconds to go onto PubMed and search for:- “Vitamin D” Absorption African

    The top search result was

    “CONCLUSION: Vitamin D3 800 IU increased serum 25OHD greater than 20 ng/mL (>50 nmol/L) in 97.5% of the African American women just as it did in the Caucasian women, and therefore, the RDA is the same for both groups. Because absorption and metabolism of oral vitamin D absorption is similar in both groups, lower levels of serum 25OHD in African Americans must be due to lower production of vitamin D in skin.

    I’m a layman, too. I’m not even a Dr. Are you saying that you can’t do what I just did?

  24. Nigel Kinbrum on June 13, 2013 at 12:18

    I failed history at school and scored 4% in my final test, before giving up the subject permanently. Isn’t history supposed to help us to not make the same mistakes twice? As it fails miserably in achieving this, I can’t be bothered with it.

    James Burke made history much more interesting & relevant with

    As for ancient languages, we made up a ditty at school:-
    Latin’s a dead language. As dead as it can be. It killed the Ancient Romans. And now it’s killing me!
    Thank you, and good night!

  25. Paul Riemann on June 13, 2013 at 11:07

    There you go again Richard. Calling any theist who’s metaphysics isn’t exhausted by materialism, “stupid”.

    The term “theologian” doesn’t necessarily refer to one who assents to the truth claims of the bible, or any other holy book. Dr. Bart Ehrman is a prime example of one who rightfully deserves the title theologian, but who doesn’t believe the truth propositions of Christianity. In fact, he’s made a living out of attacking Christianity, and in the process, made himself a media darling.

    I find it remarkable that you would equate scholarly study of religion with the “serious” study of Dr. Suess. And yes, I get the point that you consider the Bible to be a fairy tale. But, tell that to those who have made such study their life’s work by doing the arduous task of learning ancient and Semitic languages, examining the available and relevant archeological data, studying and scrutinizing thousands of pages of manuscripts in multiple languages, and by striving to achieve a grammatical historical exegesis of the biblical writers.

    I’ll be sure to tell my pastor–who also happens to be a seminary professor–that rather than spending thousands of dollars, and multiple years in seminary and university training where he earned two PhD’s; that he would have been better off just staying home and reading Mother Goose tales.

    I do love your blog Richard. Have for years.

    Now you can tell me to go fuck off.

  26. Jay on June 13, 2013 at 13:27

    Bible believers do tend to have a lot of children. That’s what I call adaptive, in the Darwinian sense.

    I gather you are childless. Maladapted, I’d say.

    • Richard Nikoley on June 13, 2013 at 18:00


      Have you seen Idiocracy? If not, do. Then you will know you’re right. I am completely mal adapted to breeding as an idiot, and feeding them regurgitate idiot.

      I gather you’re well adapted.

  27. Richard Nikoley on June 13, 2013 at 18:09

    “But, tell that to those who have made such study their life’s work by doing the arduous task…”

    The labor theory of value was wrong since Marx set it down.

    I don’t care how hard anyone works at making wonderful mud pies.

  28. Richard Nikoley on June 13, 2013 at 18:20


    I must see if Netflix has James Burke episodes. My do I miss those and I’m sure I never caught all of them.

  29. Jay on June 14, 2013 at 06:33

    Richard, the number of children I have is irrelevant. The number of children you have is relevant, because you are a Paleo believer, hence a believer in Darwinian fitness (as I am). Darwinian fitness doesn’t say anything about good, bad or indifferent. There is no value put on characteristics. It’s all about passing your genes on to future generations. That’s all.

    You haven’t done that, so you are maladapted. As is your childless wife. Two sterile, childless people bragging about themselves and their brilliance for all the world to so? A pathetic joke.

    Now, it’s true, that the vast majority of the low IQ people being bred today would not adapt very well to an abrupt change in the system. Cut off their EBT cards and take away their gov’t supplied smart phones and they are dead.

    But that’s not the people I am talking about. I’m speaking about religious believers. Most of them, despite the stereotypes, are very smart, adaptable, self-sufficient people. And they have a lot of kids.

    PS I did see Idiocracy. The first 10 minutes were hilarious. The rest of it was shit.

  30. Richard Nikoley on June 14, 2013 at 07:58

    “A pathetic joke.”

    [eye roll]

    I’ve never once felt the slightest societal duty to reproduce, or even adopt. I prefer to pass on my knowledge and experience via writing. 3,500 blog posts and counting. Over 5 million visitors and counting.

    Neither has Beatrice, who has instead satisfied her desire to teach kids by having a group of 30 of them every year, for a year, and getting them to improve. She just finished her 30th year, so about 900 in total.

    Everyone else, knock yourselves out but in my view what’s pathetic is the notion that society is dearly missing or in need of any particular 2.5 children.

  31. Jay on June 14, 2013 at 09:49

    Roll your eyes all you want, Richard, and honestly, I’m happy you didn’t pass your genes on because you are a selfish, stupid SOB with not one original thought to your credit. You did the world a favor. As regards your blog, it’s just pixels on a screen. No one really gives a shit except you.

  32. Richard Nikoley on June 14, 2013 at 10:37

    “No one really gives a shit”

    I always love it most when people lie so obviously. Not lying? Then:

    1. You’re pretending YOU don’t actually read my blog. You express your “not caring” by manifest caring.
    2. You think that in doing so, that by a few comments you can undo 3,500 posts that attract about 2,000 natural search engine hits per day from Google. I still get hits every day on 10 year old post. Eight more years and it’ll have been like having a kid.
    3. You’re kinda dense, because one thing that has kept me going over 10 years is the emails I get from people who say I have swayed and changed their thinking over time—the most cherished are from those who said they HATED me when they first came over.

    Here’s the gig, Jay. I think I know what I’m doing…not only better than you have a clue what I’m doing, but I’m also quite sure that I have managed my shot at life a lot better than you’ve managed yours, and I have a better shot at being some influence to people long after your children are dead, though I certainly wish them long & prosperous lives, as well as as much quality time with their dad as nature will allow.

    So, I wish you well, though with a helplessly condescending smile.

  33. Richard Nikoley on June 14, 2013 at 10:52

    …Oh, BTW, I was just walking the dogs and recounting all the times I [unoriginally] fielded your fecundity argument, going back about 20 years.

    It’s a dumb argument. A dumb idea. You can’t fix stupid and you can’t outbreed idiot. You have to actually change adult minds—not start a breeding factory competition to just instill your values into blank slates in competition with everyone else doing the same. …It’s kinda why we have books, y’know?

    Your ignorant thinking in this matter is made all the more laughable by the fact that one of the chief consequences of general societal affluence is a decrease in birth rates. When people can better trade their efforts and time for a medium of exchange like dollars, they naturally don’t see a need to breed a contingent of farm & field workers to feed the family or carry on the family (the fewer kids they do have will be trained to trade time & effort similarly, not toil in fields as manual labor).

    So, what do you propose? A sort of inverse Chinese model? All smart people must have at least 6 children? How you gonna force that? Or, are you just going to wank off to general amusement in my comments?

    Here’s your fundamental error, quite certainly an unoriginal idea on my part: “Social Darwinism” is just a metaphor. I’d ask you to think about it, but I mainly put it out there so that many others wo will read these comments over years to come can go “yea, that’s his idiocy and ignorance.”

  34. Kayumochi on June 14, 2013 at 11:26

    I propose Mormon fecundity for all readers of this blog.

  35. Billy on June 14, 2013 at 12:26

    FWIW, Richard’s influence made a HUGE difference in my life. More so than any religious person has.

    That is all.

  36. G on June 14, 2013 at 13:17

    Cool bit from the Vit D council, honestly didn’t realise they even exist. Also very much like the comment about labour theory of value. It is pretty awesome to call horseshit on this due to its moralistic intertwining. Outside of that I think this is a cock swinging competition of hilarious proportions.

  37. Richard Nikoley on June 14, 2013 at 14:22


    You may be unaware that the maternal side of my family were Idaho Mormons. The paternal, German Lutherans. When I was born. I was “blessed” as an infant on the Mormon Temple that sits prominately overlooking the Oakland hills and the absolute most horrific memories of childhood involve being left with a bunch of strangers in Sunday school in a Mormon church in Reno where I grew up.

    There were a few of the same early on at the Lutheren church.

    Thankfully, my parents dropped both in practical terms by the time I was maybe 5, upon which I experienced cool 30-something drive and productivity that resulted in lots of camping, hunting and fishing trips. Then, when I was 11, the fundamental baptist plague hit, infecting both parents.

    Anyway, the Mormons can be as fecund as they want. Bringing them up actually enforces my argument that fecundity as ideological progenitor is fucking dumb, and on so many levels it’s even hard for me to address it.

  38. Richard Nikoley on June 14, 2013 at 15:41

    “this is a cock swinging competition of hilarious proportions.”

    I can understand why anyone without much of a cock to swing would stay out of it.

  39. Kayumochi on June 14, 2013 at 19:52

    Rodney Dangerfield in a little-known Mormon cult classic, My 5 Wives. He moves to Utah, becomes a polygamist, marries 5 beautiful young wives and is consequently exhausted by the sexual requirements of his marriages:

    “I can’t keep up with [my wives]. They think I’m like Don Juan, after one I’m done.”
    “I tell you…I’m not a kid any more. It takes me all night to do what I used to do all night.”
    “I tell you right now, the condition I’m in. I’m envious of a stiff wind.”
    “I mean I’m getting old. Last night they asked me if I wanted some super sex. I took the soup.”

  40. Kayumochi on June 15, 2013 at 12:41

    Laffable to think that Richard owes his very existence to Mormon fecundity …

  41. Richard Nikoley on June 15, 2013 at 12:44

    Laffable to know that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    My mormon grandfather had a single wife & two children, one of them my mom. Massive polygamous fecundity, there.

  42. Jay on June 15, 2013 at 19:55

    Holy shit, I really got under your skin, Nikoley.

    “You’re pretending YOU don’t actually read my blog. You express your “not caring” by manifest caring.”

    Sure, I read your blog. I never said I didn’t. I read this particular post, which by definition, means I read your blog. But I don’t read it habitually and don’t intend to. It’s boring and verbose. I see a guy in a cage, speaking to other people in cages, reinforcing their fears. Not for me.

    The rest of what you said makes no sense and is worthless. There is one sure thing: people with negative birthrates will die off. You come from a dying people and your sterility is a fitting end to your line.

    Good riddance!

  43. Richard Nikoley on June 15, 2013 at 20:02

    “Sure, I read your blog”

    All I wanted to know. You’re my bitch. I don’t even know who you are, nor would I ever know or care.

    See’ya, bitch.

Leave a Comment

Follow by Email8k