Janet held the home pregnancy test strip in her smelly urine stream and prayed. If it came back pink, she'd be so happy. So very happy. If it could just be a girl. But no, that was counting chickens. First things first....
She rushed to the telephone and dialed Charles' office.
"Charles? Come home, honey! We have to celebrate! PINK! Yes, pink!"
25 minutes later, Charles burst through the front door, still wearing scrubs.
"Let me see that paper!" he said. Janet held it up proudly.
"No time to lose!" Charles cried.
***
The 3-month-old foetus slipped out of Janet's pussy almost too easily. Charles held its delicate head in the forceps, puckering his mouth appraisingly as he turned it left and right. A bubble of blood formed on the foetus' gill-slit.
"Let me see that little fucking baby!" Janet screamed in maternal ecstasy. "Is it a girl? Is it, Charles? Does it have a pussy?"
Charles adjusted his pince-nez and held the limp, froggish specimen up to the light.
"Well, since it's not really human at all, Janet, we can't really call it a pussy, now can we?"
He stuck his tongue out to lick the baby's proto-clit.
"Oh God, Charles, it makes my cunt so wet to end this little fucker's life and watch you lick its nonviable snatch. Fuck that foetus snatch, Charles! I want you to fuck that little bitch right in front of me!"
Charles placed the raw carcass down on the operating tray and took up a second pair of forceps. Grabbing one little flipper foot in each tong, he splayed what was basically the zygote's legs apart and shoved his beautiful plum bullet inside. It was all perfectly legal, and it felt really, really good on top of that. He looked down and admired how his daughter's tight-lidded, alien face formed a sort of figurehead to the prow of his massive frigate.
"Fuck my ass with that baby-condom, Charles, fuck it now!!"
Janet flipped over and stuck her gorgeous ass in the air, exposing her precious grocery maw. Charles took her hips in his hands and pushed his foetused cock against her quivering sphinc. The unborn child's head bent back between its own shoulder blades as Charles maneuvered his tumid engine inside Janet's tight asshole. The head popped off without a sound and tumbled across the floor like a baked crabapple.
It was more than either could bear. Charles creamed so hard the foetus' thorax ballooned out with his copious load and exploded. Janet felt his bloody goop ooze out of her ass as she jilled herself to completion.
***
They smoked cigarettes on the porch swing that evening and watched the meteor shower.
"I want to give you another baby," Janet cooed, nuzzling Charles' shoulder.
"It's not really a baby, honey, it's a foetus. And anyway, we really should quit smoking first."
User Feedback:(+ Add Comment) 3/7/2005 6:34:35 PM - deliciousbrains (): Til now, the Chuck Palahnuik (sp?) short story "Guts" held the top rank in my "Things I Wish I Could Unread" category. Here's your five fucking stars, you bastard. 12/5/2004 11:05:16 AM - anon_user_b: Agreed! But also don't you think qualcomm could have done better? 12/5/2004 12:29:18 AM - anon_user_c: this anonylith is great! no one will know how small our penises are! High five! 12/4/2004 11:54:39 PM - anon_user_a: Agreed! 12/4/2004 10:25:14 PM - anon_user_b: When writing this, qualcomm, I wish you had done better. 12/4/2004 7:08:27 PM - Jon Matza: Disney: please add a feature whereby authors and non-superuser guests (but definitely NOT superuser guests) can vote for "latest most subversive short". Next Tuesday ought to be just fine. 12/4/2004 5:02:53 PM - anon_user_a: qualcomm, this is not your best work. 12/4/2004 4:50:25 PM - qualcomm: jimson: yes.
scoop: no. 12/4/2004 4:45:38 PM - Jimson S. Sorghum: Sheesh. Really, QC? 12/4/2004 4:42:25 PM - scoop: Wouldn't the most subversive short on the site not have a giant flashing neon (or other inert gas) sign over it reading: "Most Subversive Short on the Site" and a Willy Loman-like pitchman twisting his hat and swearing up and down that its subversive, and a little Runyonesque paper boy with a cap slanted on hsi head barking "Extry, Extry, Subversive Short read all about it!" Wouldn't it not? 12/4/2004 3:37:14 PM - Mr. Pony: "Correct," anon_user_a? 12/4/2004 3:36:56 PM - anon_user_a: In fact, this one is overrated. 12/4/2004 3:33:43 PM - anon_user_a: Probably her vote was correct. 12/4/2004 3:31:03 PM - qualcomm: i will destroy you 12/4/2004 3:24:51 PM - Jimson S. Sorghum: I probably really low-balled this. I voted in the heat of the moment and my vote was, like, the flip side of the "Oh, Dude, this is so sick!" response cited below. It mostly seemed like a very well-wrought gimmick, but I just wasn't buying it. You shouldn't think about it too much, 'comm. I didn't. Besides, I still cry myself to sleep at night wishing I could write shorts as good as yours. Oh, the beauty.... 12/4/2004 3:13:02 PM - anon_user_a: Sorry, qualcomm, but it's not very good. 12/4/2004 3:01:25 PM - qualcomm: yeah. the author of the most subversive short in the history of the world is, ironically, stepping out to support his local economy by purchasing a cup of coffee (the price for the beans of which were negotiated at fair-trade rates). when he comes back, he expects to see a comment regarding this piece, which is so packed with cultural baggage and portent, and has come to mean so much to so many people, that he will refer to it in the distant tone of someone who didn't even write it, since, in a way, he didn't; acme shorts did. 12/4/2004 2:52:25 PM - John Slocum: Jimberg, answer Qualcomm - THIS INSTANT!! 12/4/2004 2:51:39 PM - qualcomm: no, seriously, i'd like to hear your reasons, so i can try to convince you you're wrong. (unless said reasons are some surprising slant that will alert me to the worthlessness of this material, a possibility i righteously and agnostically allow. holy shit, i'm fair.) what i mean is: craft. 12/4/2004 2:47:56 PM - qualcomm: DO YOU??! 12/4/2004 1:06:52 PM - qualcomm: you just don't get it, do you, jimson? 12/4/2004 12:56:40 PM - Jimson S. Sorghum: Well, QC was angling for a reaction. That was my reaction. 12/4/2004 1:07:41 AM - John Slocum: ouch, Jimberg. Why? 12/3/2004 11:29:04 PM - qualcomm: i demand satisfaction 12/3/2004 7:55:42 PM - qualcomm: you got a lot of nerve, sorghum 12/3/2004 7:54:04 PM - Jimson S. Sorghum (): (no comment) 12/3/2004 12:25:57 PM - CrazyGuy: Well, okay, qualcomm. I'll take your word for it. I'm sorry if I overreacted, but I really find this sort of material to be offensive. Would you say that there is a problem with people on acmeshorts.com changing appropriate material into inappropriate material without the original author's knowledge? If so, please speak out about it. 12/3/2004 12:22:00 PM - qualcomm: oh my god! i'm so sorry, but we have a lot of pranksters on this site, and one of them must have gone in and changed what used to be my wholesome, pro-life short into this trash. i'm the only person of faith on this site, and the guys give me a hard time over it with jokes like this. here, this short i wrote is still untouched, and i think it represents my more mainstream tastes, crazyguy. (hey, do you watch 'golden girls'? i love that show!) 12/3/2004 12:15:13 PM - CrazyGuy: DISGUSTING!!! I REFUSE TO FINISH READING THIS GARBAGE!!! QUALCOMM, YOU ARE A BAD, BAD PERSON. 10/19/2004 12:58:20 AM - Jon Matza: Come on, I've given plenty of five to shorts that were universally fived. The truth is, I didn't actually enjoy it, the experience of reading it, all that much, with the exception of a few jokes as specified. So stop Yurndting me. 10/17/2004 5:37:08 PM - Joseph Yurndt: This is beneath contempt. 10/14/2004 10:57:20 AM - qualcomm: you're right, matza, the 'author' isn't a clear-cut pro-lifer, because this short is far too complex to offer such easy answers. i think you gave this a four out of iconoclasm - you saw all those fives lined up, and decided that everyone had experienced it on a sophomoric, "Aw, dude, that's so SICK" level, and rewarded it reflexively. this rankled your chancre. in a vacuum, you'd have given this a five. search your heart, you know it to be true. thank you. 10/13/2004 5:03:54 PM - Jon Matza: i.e., your short 10/13/2004 4:59:49 PM - qualcomm: whuzat? what'd i write? 10/13/2004 4:54:13 PM - Jon Matza: OSS--that's what I meant. I don't think even the 'author' here is a clear cut pro-lifer. (If you disagree, it just means you don't fully understand what you wrote). 10/13/2004 3:41:00 PM - Ferucio P. Chhretan (): Everything Scoop wrote about Pony's appetites is completely true. 10/13/2004 3:02:03 PM - scoop: teencervicalmucus.com 10/13/2004 2:09:40 PM - TheBuyer: Ooo try fondu, it's friggin amazing. Nothin says 'fuck you' like fondu. 10/13/2004 1:50:51 PM - scoop: Hey, TheBuyer, your going to make Pony's tummy grumble by that lucious display of tender tastee babee treats. It's almost lunch time and Pony loves eating aborted remnants. Sometimes he mixes them in a goulash, otehr times he just snacks on the little frog legs a la mode. It's his way of saying fuck you to the fetus. 10/13/2004 1:19:17 PM - qualcomm: no, pony said the "author" was pro-life 10/13/2004 12:56:58 PM - Jon Matza: RE smoking: ah, I see. And I agree the short succeeds at being disgusting, though as I said merely disgusting does not necessarily equal a triumph or interesting--'least not to (smugly pointing both thumbs towards self) THIS reader. Also, while I agree it comes across like a fevered pro-lifer fantasy I think calling the author's stance "decidedly pro-life" may be a bit presumptuous (i.e., saucy). 10/13/2004 12:39:26 PM - TheBuyer: Democrat 10/13/2004 12:37:51 PM - qualcomm: fœtus 10/13/2004 12:32:54 PM - Mr. Pony: Fetus. Furthermore, zygote. 10/13/2004 12:18:16 PM - qualcomm: foetus 10/13/2004 12:17:31 PM - qualcomm: yes, it was intentional, pony, and i thank you for your support. 10/13/2004 12:14:52 PM - Mr. Pony: I read the smoking thing as a dry little joke between the couple. Despite the fact that the short was trying so hard to be transgressively unpleasant, it was, in fact, one of the most disgusting things I've ever read. I also thought the "author's" decidedly pro-life stance was funny. Reminded me of that anti-abortion jerkoff you see sometimes in Times Square, sitting behind a bizarrely red and white picnic-checkered tableclothed stand, with big laminated posters of aborted fetuses, essentially telling people that they shouldn't have abortions because it's gross. The short takes an already extreme argument to an extremer (and retardeder) conclusion. Intentional or not, this little political bit pushed it up to a five for me. 10/13/2004 11:53:24 AM - Jon Matza: That's the thing--for me the 'trying too hard to shock' quality made it a bit N-R (tiresome). In the end I found it more unpleasant than shocking, though was amused by how gleefully and knowingly unpleasant. To me the unexpected language usages & shifts in tone and plot employed by Mr. Sausage in many of his other shorts--recent kofi annan one, for instance--are more shocking (and in a more interesting way). Now I admit to having "penned" calculatedly transgressive shorts myself, but would justify them as generally tempered somewhat by silliness, surrealism or some other angle than mere 'sick' subject matter (this short has such moments I admit, but not enough for me to consider it vanilla essence.) Also was a bit confused by ending...why would they worry about the effect of smoking on the baby? I mean I guess the joke is how utterly preposterous this is given what's preceded it...but--and I hope my raw honesty will not startle anyone--I found this contradiction to be jarring. On the other hand 'grocery maw' & the 'pince nez' gag were undeniably nutmeat. 10/13/2004 2:33:03 AM - Streifenbeuteldachs: Well, it is without question shocking for shock's sake, but it does achieve its goal beautifully... 10/13/2004 2:28:57 AM - scoop: I think the whole "shocking for shocks sake" type argument is neutralized by the fact that this short is blunted with a playfully corny punchline -- a conspicuously harmless one at that. So let's not start with all that business. 10/13/2004 1:03:16 AM - Litcube: Pony: Because OSS was very successful in accomplishing his goal. 10/13/2004 12:20:52 AM - qualcomm: well, that was kind of the point. it was "trying too hard to shock". not that you shouldn't deduct a star for that anyway, but i just don't want folks to think ol' summer lerpa wasn't cogniscent. 10/13/2004 12:16:56 AM - Streifenbeuteldachs: In retrospect, and after re-reading, I should have dropped a star. It's simply trying too hard to shock. 10/12/2004 9:30:34 PM - Benny Maniacs (): I laughed through vomit and then kept on laughing because I was puking. 10/12/2004 8:12:38 PM - The Rid (): I ordered food before I read this and now I really, REALLY regret it. 10/12/2004 6:13:28 PM - Jon Matza: ok...am at work but will try to formulate in the next 12 hrs 10/12/2004 6:08:24 PM - From Author: Well I for one would like to hear (read: read) your objections! 10/12/2004 6:03:57 PM - Jon Matza (): Sorry, boys...some balsa verbiage here but certain aesthetic objections leave me with no choice but to savagely cornhole your perfect score with my massive frigate. 10/12/2004 5:51:12 PM - Mr. Pony: Why not? I mean, why? 10/12/2004 5:50:03 PM - Litcube (): I can't not 5 this. 10/12/2004 5:08:45 PM - Dick Vomit: This is still the total gnarls, dudes. 10/12/2004 4:51:05 PM - TheBuyer: Also pro-lung/anti-cancer sites. This short could be a catchall psa for everything from gestation-arrest to AIDs awareness through pre-natal licking. 10/12/2004 4:19:39 PM - scoop: I bet there are are some pro-abortion websites who would appreciate a link to this short. Did I say pro-abortion"? Sorry I meant "pro-choice.," ;) 10/12/2004 3:18:01 PM - Dylan Danko: Oh, Scoop! 10/12/2004 3:17:26 PM - Mr. Pony: I bet there are some Anti-Abortion web sites who would really appreciate a link to this story. 10/12/2004 3:16:28 PM - TheBuyer: what do you mean, offensive enough to be declared illegal and censored? 10/12/2004 3:11:53 PM - scoop: Ah, I don't think it went far enough, but I relaize the author is a little squeamish about certain things which would have really made this thing what it could have been. 10/12/2004 3:08:23 PM - TheBuyer: it's like some kind of anti-abortion fever nightmare, I can't get this revolting thing out of my head. 10/12/2004 3:02:52 PM - Will Disney: I think we've found our Sensitivity Award recipient for 2004. 10/12/2004 2:47:49 PM - Dylan Danko (): I think I've seen the face of evil. 10/12/2004 12:51:35 PM - Streifenbeuteldachs (): My god I laughed so hard. As soon as I thought it couldn't get any further, further it went. "baby-condom". LOL. 10/12/2004 11:39:09 AM - TheBuyer (): I really, really, hate these horrible people in this short; I'm sickened by them. Excellent job, author! 10/12/2004 10:54:27 AM - qualcomm (): "puckering his mouth appraisingly as he turned it left and right" 10/12/2004 10:48:54 AM - Mr. Pony (): Boy, that's epic! Some key developmental terminology errors stand out because of the pentultimate joke, but MAN. I was surprised by my reaction to this. Dear author, you are super-gross. 10/12/2004 10:28:12 AM - Dick Vomit: Dudes, this is the gnarls. 10/12/2004 9:22:31 AM - scoop (): I almost cried I was so moved by this O. Henry-like tale of sacrifice and dedication.
