circle jerk

[Tom Dalzell]

HDAS has circle jerk as a mess since 1973.  I don't have anything
earlier, but it is fairly common in this sense.

Tom Dalzell

Arnold M. Zwicky wrote:

> I was struck by the conclusion of Daniel Rodosh's Talk of the Town
> piece "The Pet Goat Approach", in the 7/26/04 New Yorker.  It's an
> interview with Direct Instruction founder Siegfried (Zig) Engelmann
> (now famous as the author of the "The Pet Goat" material featured in
> Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11").  At the end, Engelmann talks about
> politics:
>
> "For whatever it's worth, I think Iraq is a total circle jerk," he
> said.  "I couldn't think of how to do it worse."
>
> Circle jerk?  The classic circle jerk is a bunch (I think three is the
> minimum number) of adolescent boys masturbating in front of one
> another.  (An actual circle isn't required.  I think "circle" figures
> in the name mostly for its phonetic values: the [rk] of "jerk", in
> particular.)  The accompanying values include: showing off in front of
> other males, and reinforcing each other's arousal.  (Classically, this
> is very much a straight-guy thing, and nobody touches anybody else.
> It's a visual thing.)  Plus the fact that it's masturbation (see other
> postings on this topic), that is, "worthless", unproductive activity.
>
> Then we get extensions from this in various directions: adults;
> standing side to side, touching; openly gay men, frankly appreciating
> each other; mutual masturbation;  a sense of exchanging sexual favors.
> And metaphorical extensions from there: competitive display, egging
> each other on, mutual admiration, trading favors, unproductive group
> activity, and so on.
>
> There are a lot of different directions here, and I'm not sure which
> one(s) Engelmann intended.  Google cites are all over the map,
> including the metaphorical "mutual masturbation" sense of the satirical
> (5), though they all seem to deprecate the activity in question:
>
> ----------
>
> (1)  http://rynemcclaren.typepad.com/blog/2004/06/a_rabid_right_c.html
>
> The Dakota Alliance seems to have hit it rather big, as we all know.
> Now they've reached the pinnacle: attention from a left of center blog.
>
> The results are quite strange, featuring little besides name calling:
>
> ... Now all bloggers cite or refer to other blogs they read. That isn't
> the issue. What gets me is that so much of what's been appearing on
> these rabid dog blogs lately is nothing more than "I saw what you
> posted, now say something about what I posted." The main variation
> seems to be who starts the circle jerk...
>
> ---------
>
> (2)  http://billmon.org/archives/001361.html
>
> April 09, 2004
> Circle Jerk
>
> Or, to use the polite Pentagon expression: "incestuous amplification."
> Also known as "group think."...
>
> ---------
>
> (3)  http://www.justagwailo.com/filter/2003/08/21/big-global-circle-jerk
>
> August 21st, 2003
> Big Global Circle Jerk
>
> chunshek: I’m telling you. This thing called the Web… it’s all a big
> global circle jerk.
> sillygwailo: no, that’s just weblogs.
>
> --------
>
> (4)
> http://zdnet.com.com/5208-1104-0.html?
> forumID=1&threadID=2278&messageID=48111&start=-35
>
> Big Circle Jerk
>
> The lack of cooperation (or should I say the abundance of
> competitiveness) and the finger pointing on this topic are typical of
> this industry. If cooperation doesn't exist on critical issues between
> the parties concerned, there's an opportunity to be an 'industry
> leader'. (There, that should satisfy the marketeers, mousketeers, and
> assorted corporate gerbils.)
>
> --------
>
> (5) http://www.datelinehollywood.com/showarticle.php?articleID=150
>
> SAG AWARDS END IN MASS CIRCLE JERK
>
> Actors finish orgy of self-congratulation with actual orgy
>
> HOLLYWOOD — In a remarkable moment that didn’t make TNT’s telecast of
> the event, Sunday night’s Screen Actors Guild awards ended with a
> massive circle jerk in which nearly every major Hollywood star manually
> stimulated another Hollywood star, bringing them to orgasm while
> whispering in the other’s ear how talented they are and that they truly
> deserve to win an Academy Award.
>
>