More Evolutionary Theory
W Gaius
Scientists, answer me this:
Why is the female provided with the means to reach orgasm, but the
chief organ of stimulation, the clitoris, is located where ordinary
intercourse doesn't sufficiently stimulate it?
Why are the clitoris and other erotogenic areas ideally located for
cunnilingus and exceptionally intense female orgasms?
1. Evolution screwed up? (After all, we have an appendix and a weak
back.)
2. Darwin sees the value of sexual bonding between couples as vitally
important to the survival of the species, and provided a
nonimpregnating alternative to intercourse?
3. God did #1.
4. God did #2.
5. Some other explanation.
W Gaius
Jana
> covered with the clitoral hood (which aids in stimulation) and so the
> clitoris can be stimulated during intercourse. Second, the vagina is also
> very sensitive in many women and women can have vaginal orgasms as well as
> clitoral orgasms. Cunnilingus is just icing on the cake!!!
>
Alternatively, the female orgasm isn't a necessary prerequisite for
reproduction.
Jana
suzee
The clitoris isn't just the little nub you can see/feel but extends
inside the labia which are certainly stimulated during intercourse.
Mark...@gmail.com
> Scientists, answer me this:
>
> Why is the female provided with the means to reach orgasm, but the
> chief organ of stimulation, the clitoris, is located where ordinary
> intercourse doesn't sufficiently stimulate it?
Doesn't it? I'll have to tell my partner that her orgasms are
imaginary...
Norton
>Scientists, answer me this:
Maybe your initial assumption is wrong.
Consider our ancestors who had sex mostly in the "all fours"
position with the male behind the female. Or, if you want
a common name "doggy style".
Things don't start with penetration. In fact, she needs to
be both sufficiently lubricated and open for that to happen
easily. So things likely began by thrusting over the vulva,
engaging the labia and the clitoris directly.
If things go right and the female becomes more excited, then
lubrication occurs and the vaginal opening becomes more open.
One of the male thrusts now causes penetration and lo and
behold, the species has a chance to continue into a new
generation.
This may not be exactly what happened back then, but I'd
guess it is fairly close.
--
--- Norton
toramjero
Maybe you should try to go on a farm and actually see how animals go
at it (on "all four" indeed). Cunnilingus is not an exclusive of
humans.
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
The clitoris is thought to be an extensive structure that doesn't
include just the nubbin that you're thinking of.
Not all activities that beings engage in contribute to procreation and
evolutionary fitness. Why do we listen to music?
suzee
> W Gaius <gai...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Scientists, answer me this:
>>
>> Why is the female provided with the means to reach orgasm, but the
>> chief organ of stimulation, the clitoris, is located where ordinary
>> intercourse doesn't sufficiently stimulate it?
>>
>> Why are the clitoris and other erotogenic areas ideally located for
>> cunnilingus and exceptionally intense female orgasms?
>>
>> 1. Evolution screwed up? (After all, we have an appendix and a weak
>> back.)
>> 2. Darwin sees the value of sexual bonding between couples as vitally
>> important to the survival of the species, and provided a
>> nonimpregnating alternative to intercourse?
>> 3. God did #1.
>> 4. God did #2.
>> 5. Some other explanation.
>
> The clitoris is thought to be an extensive structure that doesn't
> include just the nubbin that you're thinking of.
Yep, what we think of as the clitoris is about 1/10 of it -
http://www.luckymojo.com/tkclitorislarger.html
sue
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
You know, what amazes me about these evolutionary questions is that they
so often seem to focus on, "Why is X pleasurable for women when it
doesn't produce babies?" I can't even remember the last time I heard,
"Why is X pleasurable for men when it doesn't produce babies?" Why does
it feel good for men to have their nipples tweaked or their earlobes
sucked or their necks bitten? Why the heck is the armpit an erogenous
zone, or the arches of the feet, or the backs of the knees, or the
palms, or the wrsits, or the achilles tendon?
Why to people who need explanations for why sex feels good only need
explanations for why sex feels good for women?
toramjero
I should say that those drawings, which I saw in another web site some
time ago, were quite enlightening. Stimulating the areas of this
"larger clitoris" happened to be quite pleasurable to my significant
other. If men read this: it is worth a try.
Kat
> You know, what amazes me about these evolutionary questions is that they
> so often seem to focus on, "Why is X pleasurable for women when it
> doesn't produce babies?" I can't even remember the last time I heard,
> "Why is X pleasurable for men when it doesn't produce babies?" Why does
> it feel good for men to have their nipples tweaked or their earlobes
> sucked or their necks bitten? Why the heck is the armpit an erogenous
> zone, or the arches of the feet, or the backs of the knees, or the
> palms, or the wrsits, or the achilles tendon?
Because real men only want a blowjob followed by missionary until they
cum then they roll over sleep it off and go back to lifting heavy
objects and banging on things and shooting other things. Real women
just think of England then make their man a sandwich.
toramjero
I sense some frustration in your post...
I would like to point something out, however. Not all men are "real
men" in the sense of your post. For example, I am not that found of
blowjobs myself, and I know at least another position than missionary
(Ah! I can't wait for the hot babes to come to my place after that
post. For the first time, I feel more attractive than Tom
Allen... ;) ).
Yet, women never seemed to be that attracted to the idea. Maybe it was
because I do not bang on things and shoot other things? Maybe women
are first attracted to loud, banging, shooting men? For once: they
look more masculine than their more discrete counterparts and they are
more visible. Actually, they don't hesitate to bang their more
discrete counterparts, as I found out a long time ago (and I am glad I
do not live in a country were firearms are easy to get... do you get
my drift?).
I don't want to start another thread on "nice guys versus jerks",
there are far enough in the archives of s.s.g. But I wanted to point
out something: whether they are attracted to "real men" or to more
discrete types, many women assume that most men are "slap, bang,
sleep" at least internally. You have proven the point yourself, even
if it was in jest: from your blog, I take that you know a few
different men. Yet, you contributed to perpetuate this opinion of men,
which is the one too many women have.
I've read here that if you believe something (about sex), if often
becomes true. It takes two to tango: men are like that, because women
believe that they are (and women are from venus when men believe it,
it goes both ways).
Do you know many women who actually SELECT their lover on their sexual
abilities? I mean: if one does not want a "slap, bang, sleep" man, it
seems reasonable to try to select one you know to be a cunning
linguist before actually jumping in the sack, for example. Do you know
many women who actually try to do that? I don't.
toramjero
> suzee <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
> > Irfon-Kim Ahmad wrote:
Because only men ask this kind of questions maybe?
Tom Allen
Kat, you say that as if there's something wrong with this.
> Real women
> just think of England then make their man a sandwich.
Wow, some men get a sandwich?
Dang.
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself... I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
Tom Allen
> On Dec 3, 9:13 am, Kat <ki...@gothkat.com> wrote:
>> Because real men only want a blowjob followed by missionary until they
>> cum then they roll over sleep it off and go back to lifting heavy
>> objects and banging on things and shooting other things. Real women
>> just think of England then make their man a sandwich.
>
> I sense some frustration in your post...
>
> I would like to point something out, however. Not all men are "real
> men" in the sense of your post. For example, I am not that found of
> blowjobs myself, and I know at least another position than missionary
> (Ah! I can't wait for the hot babes to come to my place after that
> post. For the first time, I feel more attractive than Tom
> Allen... ;) ).
:laughs:
You're setting your sights low, Tor. I'm just an overweight, balding, 50
year old guy with bad digestion.
> Yet, women never seemed to be that attracted to the idea. Maybe it was
> because I do not bang on things and shoot other things? Maybe women
> are first attracted to loud, banging, shooting men? For once: they
> look more masculine than their more discrete counterparts and they are
> more visible. Actually, they don't hesitate to bang their more
> discrete counterparts, as I found out a long time ago (and I am glad I
> do not live in a country were firearms are easy to get... do you get
> my drift?).
A few women friends of mine are avid gun hobbyists. They shoot (mostly
traps and skeet, but have gone deer hunting), they can strip and rebuild
their rifles, and can out-shoot me with pistols. Some of them like that
kind of thing simply because they like that kind of thing, and it's got
nothing to do with "manliness" or anything else.
> I don't want to start another thread on "nice guys versus jerks",
> there are far enough in the archives of s.s.g. But I wanted to point
> out something: whether they are attracted to "real men" or to more
> discrete types, many women assume that most men are "slap, bang,
> sleep" at least internally. You have proven the point yourself, even
> if it was in jest: from your blog, I take that you know a few
> different men. Yet, you contributed to perpetuate this opinion of men,
> which is the one too many women have.
Tor, sometimes we give continuity to stereotypes via jokes that we would
never make in other contexts. Kat made a sarcastic observation based on
a certain stereotype. But stereotypes exist because some people - or
groups of people - have found them to be true in some or certain cases.
Are men in general better than they were 50 or 100 years ago in this
regard? Statistics show that they probably are, but there are also
probably pockets of the population in which there doesn't seem to be any
change.
> I've read here that if you believe something (about sex), if often
> becomes true. It takes two to tango: men are like that, because women
> believe that they are (and women are from venus when men believe it,
> it goes both ways).
And obviously, if some women continue to act according to certain
stereotypes, then they will continue to attract certain types of men.
American TV shows are full of this.
> Do you know many women who actually SELECT their lover on their sexual
> abilities? I mean: if one does not want a "slap, bang, sleep" man, it
> seems reasonable to try to select one you know to be a cunning
> linguist before actually jumping in the sack, for example. Do you know
> many women who actually try to do that? I don't.
Can you think of reasons why? I can.
toramjero
> toramjero wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 9:13 am, Kat <ki...@gothkat.com> wrote:
>
> >> Because real men only want a blowjob followed by missionary until they
> >> cum then they roll over sleep it off and go back to lifting heavy
> >> objects and banging on things and shooting other things. Real women
> >> just think of England then make their man a sandwich.
> >
> > I sense some frustration in your post...
> >
> > I would like to point something out, however. Not all men are "real
> > men" in the sense of your post. For example, I am not that found of
> > blowjobs myself, and I know at least another position than missionary
> > (Ah! I can't wait for the hot babes to come to my place after that
> > post. For the first time, I feel more attractive than Tom
> > Allen... ;) ).
>
> :laughs:
> You're setting your sights low, Tor. I'm just an overweight, balding, 50
> year old guy with bad digestion.
>
Well... I am balding as well, does that count?
>
> > Yet, women never seemed to be that attracted to the idea. Maybe it was
> > because I do not bang on things and shoot other things? Maybe women
> > are first attracted to loud, banging, shooting men? For once: they
> > look more masculine than their more discrete counterparts and they are
> > more visible. Actually, they don't hesitate to bang their more
> > discrete counterparts, as I found out a long time ago (and I am glad I
> > do not live in a country were firearms are easy to get... do you get
> > my drift?).
>
> A few women friends of mine are avid gun hobbyists. They shoot (mostly
> traps and skeet, but have gone deer hunting), they can strip and rebuild
> their rifles, and can out-shoot me with pistols. Some of them like that
> kind of thing simply because they like that kind of thing, and it's got
> nothing to do with "manliness" or anything else.
>
Sure it does not have anything to do with manliness. It only has to do
with how fast you can run and how unpredictable the sharp turns you
take are... for the partners.
>
>
> > I don't want to start another thread on "nice guys versus jerks",
> > there are far enough in the archives of s.s.g. But I wanted to point
> > out something: whether they are attracted to "real men" or to more
> > discrete types, many women assume that most men are "slap, bang,
> > sleep" at least internally. You have proven the point yourself, even
> > if it was in jest: from your blog, I take that you know a few
> > different men. Yet, you contributed to perpetuate this opinion of men,
> > which is the one too many women have.
>
> Tor, sometimes we give continuity to stereotypes via jokes that we would
> never make in other contexts. Kat made a sarcastic observation based on
> a certain stereotype. But stereotypes exist because some people - or
> groups of people - have found them to be true in some or certain cases.
>
> Are men in general better than they were 50 or 100 years ago in this
> regard? Statistics show that they probably are, but there are also
> probably pockets of the population in which there doesn't seem to be any
> change.
>
>
You don't need to convince me that stereotypical men still exist. You
need to convince more women that less stereotypical men exist. Like,
say, men who would be carriers of multiple orgasms.
> > I've read here that if you believe something (about sex), if often
> > becomes true. It takes two to tango: men are like that, because women
> > believe that they are (and women are from venus when men believe it,
> > it goes both ways).
>
> And obviously, if some women continue to act according to certain
> stereotypes, then they will continue to attract certain types of men.
> American TV shows are full of this.
>
I am glad I don't watch them.
>
> > Do you know many women who actually SELECT their lover on their sexual
> > abilities? I mean: if one does not want a "slap, bang, sleep" man, it
> > seems reasonable to try to select one you know to be a cunning
> > linguist before actually jumping in the sack, for example. Do you know
> > many women who actually try to do that? I don't.
>
> Can you think of reasons why? I can.
>
>
Can you think of any reasons why Kat may know more such women than I
do? I can too.
suzee
> On Dec 3, 9:13 am, Kat <ki...@gothkat.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 2, 10:27 am, Irfon-Kim Ahmad <ir...@ambienautica.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You know, what amazes me about these evolutionary questions is that they
>>> so often seem to focus on, "Why is X pleasurable for women when it
>>> doesn't produce babies?" I can't even remember the last time I heard,
>>> "Why is X pleasurable for men when it doesn't produce babies?" Why does
>>> it feel good for men to have their nipples tweaked or their earlobes
>>> sucked or their necks bitten? Why the heck is the armpit an erogenous
>>> zone, or the arches of the feet, or the backs of the knees, or the
>>> palms, or the wrsits, or the achilles tendon?
>> Because real men only want a blowjob followed by missionary until they
>> cum then they roll over sleep it off and go back to lifting heavy
>> objects and banging on things and shooting other things. Real women
>> just think of England then make their man a sandwich.
>
> I sense some frustration in your post...
More like sarcasm...
sue
darklily
> > men" in the sense of your post. For example, I am not that found of
> > blowjobs myself, and I know at least another position than missionary
> > (Ah! I can't wait for the hot babes to come to my place after that
> > post. For the first time, I feel more attractive than Tom
> > Allen... ;) ).
>
> :laughs:
> You're setting your sights low, Tor. I'm just an overweight, balding, 50
> year old guy with bad digestion.
>
> > because I do not bang on things and shoot other things? Maybe women
> > are first attracted to loud, banging, shooting men? For once: they
> > look more masculine than their more discrete counterparts and they are
> > more visible. Actually, they don't hesitate to bang their more
> > discrete counterparts, as I found out a long time ago (and I am glad I
> > do not live in a country were firearms are easy to get... do you get
> > my drift?).
>
> A few women friends of mine are avid gun hobbyists. They shoot (mostly
> traps and skeet, but have gone deer hunting), they can strip and rebuild
> their rifles, and can out-shoot me with pistols. Some of them like that
> kind of thing simply because they like that kind of thing, and it's got
> nothing to do with "manliness" or anything else.
Yup, and some women have firearms because of their jobs. I've had a
concealed weopons permit. I suppose I bang on stuff too...I use power
tools (more hobby related than work related these days). (This is more
for Tor than Tom...Tom knows all that already).
Darklily
darklily
> Tom Allen wrote:
> > toramjero wrote:
> > > On Dec 3, 9:13 am, Kat <ki...@gothkat.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Because real men only want a blowjob followed by missionary until they
> > >> cum then they roll over sleep it off and go back to lifting heavy
> > >> objects and banging on things and shooting other things. Real women
> > >> just think of England then make their man a sandwich.
>
> > > I sense some frustration in your post...
>
> > > I would like to point something out, however. Not all men are "real
> > > men" in the sense of your post. For example, I am not that found of
> > > blowjobs myself, and I know at least another position than missionary
> > > (Ah! I can't wait for the hot babes to come to my place after that
> > > post. For the first time, I feel more attractive than Tom
> > > Allen... ;) ).
>
> > :laughs:
> > You're setting your sights low, Tor. I'm just an overweight, balding, 5
0
> > year old guy with bad digestion.
>
> Well... I am balding as well, does that count?
Hmmm...I've heard that balding men tend to produce more
testosterone. ;-P
(snip)
> > > I don't want to start another thread on "nice guys versus jerks",
> > > there are far enough in the archives of s.s.g. But I wanted to point
> > > out something: whether they are attracted to "real men" or to more
> > > discrete types, many women assume that most men are "slap, bang,
> > > sleep" at least internally. You have proven the point yourself, even
> > > if it was in jest: from your blog, I take that you know a few
> > > different men. Yet, you contributed to perpetuate this opinion of men,
> > > which is the one too many women have.
>
> > Tor, sometimes we give continuity to stereotypes via jokes that we would
> > never make in other contexts. Kat made a sarcastic observation based on
> > a certain stereotype. But stereotypes exist because some people - or
> > groups of people - have found them to be true in some or certain cases.
>
> > Are men in general better than they were 50 or 100 years ago in this
> > regard? Statistics show that they probably are, but there are also
> > probably pockets of the population in which there doesn't seem to be any
> > change.
>
> You don't need to convince me that stereotypical men still exist. You
> need to convince more women that less stereotypical men exist. Like,
> say, men who would be carriers of multiple orgasms.
You know, I've been wondering if Tom could provide some hard evidence
for that claim. ; -)
Darklily
Tom Allen
Now *there's* a double entendre just waiting to happen...
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com/
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself. I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
darklily
> darklily wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 8:46 am, toramjero <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> You don't need to convince me that stereotypical men still exist. You
> >> need to convince more women that less stereotypical men exist. Like,
> >> say, men who would be carriers of multiple orgasms.
>
> > You know, I've been wondering if Tom could provide some hard evidence
> > for that claim. ; -)
>
> Now *there's* a double entendre just waiting to happen...
>
Yeah...I didn't notice that *at all* when I wrote it. ;-)
Darklily
Tom Allen
> On Dec 3, 1:31 pm, Tom Allen <taomli...@SPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> darklily wrote:
>>> On Dec 3, 8:46 am, toramjero <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> You don't need to convince me that stereotypical men still exist. You
>>>> need to convince more women that less stereotypical men exist. Like,
>>>> say, men who would be carriers of multiple orgasms.
>>> You know, I've been wondering if Tom could provide some hard evidence
>>> for that claim. ; -)
>> Now *there's* a double entendre just waiting to happen...
>>
>
> Yeah...I didn't notice that *at all* when I wrote it. ;-)
:-)
W Gaius
> Consider our ancestors who had sex mostly in the "all fours"
> position with the male behind the female. Or, if you want
> a common name "doggy style".
Even that's not for sure, since chimps and apes in the wild have been
observed doing it missionary.
I know that the clitoris goes 'way back into the innards, but it's
also true that a significant proportion of women ('way more than 50%)
cannot reach orgasm by penetration, and a greater proportion can get
there by manual or oral stimulation. My wife is a highly sexed woman.
She enjoys penetration, but can't cum that way. She cums easily during
oral sex.
We can't know the mind of God or Darwin, but there doesn't seem to be
much percentage in putting the clitoris in a place where the penis
can't stimulate it, no matter what angle it comes from.
Here are some possibilities. The clitoris hangs out front:
1. To promote pair bonding. Primitive people engaged in oral sex as a
means of pair bonding and so women wouldn't be pregnant *all* the
time.
2. So women wouldn't be keeping their men home from work *every* day.
3. So God could get even with Republicans. They have only missionary
sex, so even though they run everything, they don't have as much fun
as liberals.
4. So teenagers could find it easier.
5. To make it easier for Nigerian Muslims to cut it or burn it out.
Somehow this list doesn't appear complete.
W. Gaius
Tom Allen
> Here are some possibilities. The clitoris hangs out front:
>
> 1. To promote pair bonding. Primitive people engaged in oral sex as a
> means of pair bonding and so women wouldn't be pregnant *all* the
> time.
Or mutual masturbation. Or maybe just solo masturbation so they wouldn't
b bored while the men were off hunting for mastodon burgers.
> 2. So women wouldn't be keeping their men home from work *every* day.
I've read that some societal taboos arose simply to keep people more
productive, or else we'd all be overgrown bonobos.
> 3. So God could get even with Republicans. They have only missionary
> sex, so even though they run everything, they don't have as much fun
> as liberals.
*ahem*
You may have missed the study that was published last year, saying that
in the US, self-identified conservatives are much more satisfied with
their sexual relations than self-identified liberals.
> 4. So teenagers could find it easier.
Yeah, but will they put it back when they're done? And clean up the
counter afterwards? I doubt it.
> 5. To make it easier for Nigerian Muslims to cut it or burn it out.
Ick.
toramjero
> W Gaius wrote:
> > Here are some possibilities. The clitoris hangs out front:
>
> > 1. To promote pair bonding. Primitive people engaged in oral sex as a
> > means of pair bonding and so women wouldn't be pregnant *all* the
> > time.
>
> Or mutual masturbation. Or maybe just solo masturbation so they wouldn't
> b bored while the men were off hunting for mastodon burgers.
>
> > 2. So women wouldn't be keeping their men home from work *every* day.
>
> I've read that some societal taboos arose simply to keep people more
> productive, or else we'd all be overgrown bonobos.
>
Hey, I remember having read that story. We were bonobos, walking
around naked and not knowing that it was shameful, and then taboos
arose, we grew shame of walking around naked and gone was the good
life. Isn't it THAT text:
6: And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it
was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise,
she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her
husband with her; and he did eat.
7: And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were
naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
8: And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in
the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the
presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
9: And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art
thou?
10: And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid,
because I was naked; and I hid myself.
11: And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten
of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
12: And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she
gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
13: And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast
done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
14: And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done
this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the
field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the
days of thy life:
15: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy
seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his
heel.
16: Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy
conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire
shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17: And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice
of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee,
saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake;
in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18: Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou
shalt eat the herb of the field;
19: In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return
unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and
unto dust shalt thou return.
> > 3. So God could get even with Republicans. They have only missionary
> > sex, so even though they run everything, they don't have as much fun
> > as liberals.
>
> *ahem*
> You may have missed the study that was published last year, saying that
> in the US, self-identified conservatives are much more satisfied with
> their sexual relations than self-identified liberals.
>
Maybe. But were republican women allowed to answer out of the presence
of their husbands?
Tom Allen
I don't know, but here are some excerpts from the 2004 ABC News item:
Ideology/Politics
Political ideology follows a similar pattern as religious observance --
like weekly churchgoers, conservatives are more conservative sexually,
liberals less so. That makes sense, not least because conservatives are
more frequent churchgoers.
Conservatives are far less likely to accept premarital sex or
homosexuality, and half as likely as liberals to say sex without an
emotional attachment is OK. They're less apt to have had rebound sex, to
call themselves sexually adventurous, to watch sexually explicit movies,
to discuss their fantasies, to have had sex outdoors, to have had sex on
a first date or to have visited a porn site. At the same time,
conservatives are slightly more likely than others to be very satisfied
with their relationship and sex lives. Liberals, for their part, are
more apt to be sexually adventurous.
In a presidential election year, it's tough not to look at political
groups, even though differences here likely are standing in for other
factors, such as sex, age, marital status and religiosity. With that
proviso, Republicans are around 10 points more likely than Democrats to
think about sex daily, to be very satisfied with their marriages and sex
lives and to wear something sexy to spice things up; and less likely to
say they've cheated. In a more directly political context, Republicans
are less apt to say premarital sex is OK, and 20 points less likely to
say homosexuality is OK for some people.
Churchgoers
Religiosity guides sexual attitudes and behavior, with stark contrasts
particularly between weekly churchgoers (a third of adults) and those
who attend church infrequently or not at all (the "unchurched," about half).
Attitudinally, most weekly churchgoers say premarital sex and
homosexuality are not acceptable; most infrequent attenders hold the
opposite view. Ten percent of weekly churchgoers say sex without an
emotional attachment is acceptable; it's 36 percent among the unchurched.
Behaviorally, weekly churchgoers are less likely than the unchurched to
watch sexually explicit movies, to have had sex on a first date, to have
looked at a pornographic Web site, had rebound sex, had a threesome or
had sex outdoors. They're less likely to say they've cheated on a
spouse. And weekly churchgoers have had half as many lifetime sex
partners (an average of eight, median three) as have the unchurched
(average of 16, median seven).
At the same time, more than four in 10 weekly churchgoers discuss their
sexual fantasies with their partners to enhance their sex lives, think
about sex daily, and have had sex outdoors; and just over a third
describe themselves as sexually adventurous. Weekly churchgoers are as
satisfied as the unchurched with their sex lives, and 10 points more
likely to be very satisfied with their marriage or relationship.
http://abcnews.go.com/primetime/pollvault/Story?id=156921&page=4
I should make the point that while we, here in SSG, typically make a
point to avoid stereotyping sexuality in men and women, stereotyping by
political association is just as bad- and apparently, we can be just as
wrong.
Norton
Nominated for best post of the week!
--
--- Norton
Norton
>On Dec 3, 9:13 am, Kat <ki...@gothkat.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 2, 10:27 am, Irfon-Kim Ahmad <ir...@ambienautica.com> wrote:
>>
>> > You know, what amazes me about these evolutionary questions is that they
>> > so often seem to focus on, "Why is X pleasurable for women when it
>> > doesn't produce babies?" I can't even remember the last time I heard,
>> > "Why is X pleasurable for men when it doesn't produce babies?" Why does
>> > it feel good for men to have their nipples tweaked or their earlobes
>> > sucked or their necks bitten? Why the heck is the armpit an erogenous
>> > zone, or the arches of the feet, or the backs of the knees, or the
>> > palms, or the wrsits, or the achilles tendon?
>>
>> Because real men only want a blowjob followed by missionary until they
>> cum then they roll over sleep it off and go back to lifting heavy
>> objects and banging on things and shooting other things. Real women
>> just think of England then make their man a sandwich.
>I sense some frustration in your post...
I think the frustration is with what Irfon-Kim Ahmad wrote, not
with men in general.
>I would like to point something out, however. Not all men are "real
>men" in the sense of your post. For example, I am not that found of
>blowjobs myself, and I know at least another position than missionary
>(Ah! I can't wait for the hot babes to come to my place after that
>post. For the first time, I feel more attractive than Tom
>Allen... ;) ).
>Yet, women never seemed to be that attracted to the idea. Maybe it was
>because I do not bang on things and shoot other things? Maybe women
>are first attracted to loud, banging, shooting men? For once: they
>look more masculine than their more discrete counterparts and they are
>more visible. Actually, they don't hesitate to bang their more
>discrete counterparts, as I found out a long time ago (and I am glad I
>do not live in a country were firearms are easy to get... do you get
>my drift?).
I suspect that women are not men with breasts. They really
are interested in more than muscles.
>I don't want to start another thread on "nice guys versus jerks",
>there are far enough in the archives of s.s.g. But I wanted to point
>out something: whether they are attracted to "real men" or to more
>discrete types, many women assume that most men are "slap, bang,
>sleep" at least internally. You have proven the point yourself, even
>if it was in jest: from your blog, I take that you know a few
>different men. Yet, you contributed to perpetuate this opinion of men,
>which is the one too many women have.
I don't think this is so at all. I've never met such a woman.
That said, for what I suspect are good evolutionary reasons,
men *do* get tired after a long session of lovemaking.
I've known the occasional (and more than occasional) woman
to also fall asleep, preferably while cuddling.
>I've read here that if you believe something (about sex), if often
>becomes true. It takes two to tango: men are like that, because women
>believe that they are (and women are from venus when men believe it,
>it goes both ways).
>Do you know many women who actually SELECT their lover on their sexual
>abilities? I mean: if one does not want a "slap, bang, sleep" man, it
>seems reasonable to try to select one you know to be a cunning
>linguist before actually jumping in the sack, for example. Do you know
>many women who actually try to do that? I don't.
Yup. I know many (for small values of "many") who don't do that.
Sexual technique is not necessarily at the top of their list of
desireable things in a man. I suspect they are, in general,
far more holistic than men are.
I *do* know men who what to have sex with her, if she's blonde
and built -- even if they know nothing else about her. Of
course they don't intend to form a long-term relationship but
instead want, figuratively, to add another notch to their
collection.
--
--- Norton
Norton
>Kat wrote:
>> On Dec 2, 10:27 am, Irfon-Kim Ahmad <ir...@ambienautica.com> wrote:
>>> You know, what amazes me about these evolutionary questions is that they
>>> so often seem to focus on, "Why is X pleasurable for women when it
>>> doesn't produce babies?" I can't even remember the last time I heard,
>>> "Why is X pleasurable for men when it doesn't produce babies?" Why does
>>> it feel good for men to have their nipples tweaked or their earlobes
>>> sucked or their necks bitten? Why the heck is the armpit an erogenous
>>> zone, or the arches of the feet, or the backs of the knees, or the
>>> palms, or the wrsits, or the achilles tendon?
>>
>> Because real men only want a blowjob followed by missionary until they
>> cum then they roll over sleep it off and go back to lifting heavy
>> objects and banging on things and shooting other things.
>Kat, you say that as if there's something wrong with this.
>> Real women
>> just think of England then make their man a sandwich.
>Wow, some men get a sandwich?
>Dang.
That's because you keep them too busy to get up and make one.
--
--- Norton
Norton
>On Dec 3, 8:46 am, toramjero <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Tom Allen wrote:
>> > toramjero wrote:
>> > > On Dec 3, 9:13 am, Kat <ki...@gothkat.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> Because real men only want a blowjob followed by missionary until they
>> > >> cum then they roll over sleep it off and go back to lifting heavy
>> > >> objects and banging on things and shooting other things. Real women
>> > >> just think of England then make their man a sandwich.
>>
>> > > I sense some frustration in your post...
>>
>> > > I would like to point something out, however. Not all men are "real
>> > > men" in the sense of your post. For example, I am not that found of
>> > > blowjobs myself, and I know at least another position than missionary
>> > > (Ah! I can't wait for the hot babes to come to my place after that
>> > > post. For the first time, I feel more attractive than Tom
>> > > Allen... ;) ).
>>
>> > :laughs:
>> > You're setting your sights low, Tor. I'm just an overweight, balding, 5
>0
>> > year old guy with bad digestion.
>>
>> Well... I am balding as well, does that count?
>Hmmm...I've heard that balding men tend to produce more
>testosterone. ;-P
>(snip)
Some sweatshirts for sale in Greenwhich Village here
in New York have text that reads:
I'm not a bald guy.
I'm a solar-powered sex machine.
I always figure that they should not try for romance
on the beach at night.
--
--- Norton
suzee
> W Gaius wrote:
>> 3. So God could get even with Republicans. They have only missionary
>> sex, so even though they run everything, they don't have as much fun
>> as liberals.
>
> *ahem*
> You may have missed the study that was published last year, saying that
> in the US, self-identified conservatives are much more satisfied with
> their sexual relations than self-identified liberals.
There's an easy answer to that, which WG touched on... conservatives are
more easily satisfied with `basic' sex which liberals are looking for
something a little more exciting.
sue
Tom Allen
"At the same time, more than four in 10 weekly churchgoers discuss their
sexual fantasies with their partners to enhance their sex lives, think
about sex daily, and have had sex outdoors; and just over a third
describe themselves as sexually adventurous."
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself... I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
Tom Allen
> I always figure that they should not try for romance
> on the beach at night.
Isn't that a mixed bar drink?
Tom Allen
> Tom Allen <taoml...@mesbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> Real women
>>> just think of England then make their man a sandwich.
>
>> Wow, some men get a sandwich?
>
>> Dang.
>
> That's because you keep them too busy to get up and make one.
Well, I'll be dad-burned if I'm gonna let *that* happen again!
Norton
>> Consider our ancestors who had sex mostly in the "all fours"
>> position with the male behind the female. Or, if you want
>> a common name "doggy style".
>Even that's not for sure, since chimps and apes in the wild have been
>observed doing it missionary.
Sure. We have common ancestors.
>I know that the clitoris goes 'way back into the innards, but it's
>also true that a significant proportion of women ('way more than 50%)
>cannot reach orgasm by penetration, and a greater proportion can get
>there by manual or oral stimulation. My wife is a highly sexed woman.
>She enjoys penetration, but can't cum that way. She cums easily during
>oral sex.
But, what matters is that the female is aroused enough to be
interested, not that she has an orgasm. Nature has rules and
isn't politically correct... ;-)
>We can't know the mind of God or Darwin, but there doesn't seem to be
>much percentage in putting the clitoris in a place where the penis
>can't stimulate it, no matter what angle it comes from.
But it *is* where a penis can stimulate it. Sometimes the stimulation
is direct, sometimes indirect. It depends on what is going on.
But I think that the women here would have a better idea than I
do. I keep meaning to check during sex, but somehow, my mind
seems to be somewhere else while that is going on.
>Here are some possibilities. The clitoris hangs out front:
>1. To promote pair bonding. Primitive people engaged in oral sex as a
>means of pair bonding and so women wouldn't be pregnant *all* the
>time.
>2. So women wouldn't be keeping their men home from work *every* day.
>3. So God could get even with Republicans. They have only missionary
>sex, so even though they run everything, they don't have as much fun
>as liberals.
>4. So teenagers could find it easier.
>5. To make it easier for Nigerian Muslims to cut it or burn it out.
>Somehow this list doesn't appear complete.
To encourage oral sex?
--
--- Norton
Norton
>Norton wrote:
>> I always figure that they should not try for romance
>> on the beach at night.
>Isn't that a mixed bar drink?
Dunno. When I'm in a bar I'm usually drinking.
--
--- Norton
Gordon
> W Gaius wrote:
>> Scientists, answer me this:
>>
>> Why is the female provided with the means to reach orgasm, but the
>> chief organ of stimulation, the clitoris, is located where ordinary
>> intercourse doesn't sufficiently stimulate it?
>>
>> Why are the clitoris and other erotogenic areas ideally located for
>> cunnilingus and exceptionally intense female orgasms?
>>
>> 1. Evolution screwed up? (After all, we have an appendix and a weak
>> back.)
>> 2. Darwin sees the value of sexual bonding between couples as vitally
>> important to the survival of the species, and provided a
>> nonimpregnating alternative to intercourse?
>> 3. God did #1.
>> 4. God did #2.
>> 5. Some other explanation.
>
> inside the labia which are certainly stimulated during intercourse.
>
Indeed. The clitoris is like the glans of the penis. It is just the end.
I read somewhere where a woman surgen considered that cutting in that area
one needed to know where the nerves where, and what the atomony was. This
lead her to discover that no one really knew and she discovered that the
clitoris was connected to two parts which went around the vigina.
Gordon
>
> Scientists, answer me this:
>
> Why is the female provided with the means to reach orgasm, but the
> chief organ of stimulation, the clitoris, is located where ordinary
> intercourse doesn't sufficiently stimulate it?
>
like a porn star. Hence the clitoris gets more stimulation as he stays
close.
> Why are the clitoris and other erotogenic areas ideally located for
> cunnilingus and exceptionally intense female orgasms?
Sex is the aim of reproduction.
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
> toramjero <tora...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>On Dec 3, 9:13 am, Kat <ki...@gothkat.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 2, 10:27 am, Irfon-Kim Ahmad <ir...@ambienautica.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > You know, what amazes me about these evolutionary questions is that they
>>> > so often seem to focus on, "Why is X pleasurable for women when it
>>> > doesn't produce babies?" I can't even remember the last time I heard,
>>> > "Why is X pleasurable for men when it doesn't produce babies?" Why does
>>> > it feel good for men to have their nipples tweaked or their earlobes
>>> > sucked or their necks bitten? Why the heck is the armpit an erogenous
>>> > zone, or the arches of the feet, or the backs of the knees, or the
>>> > palms, or the wrsits, or the achilles tendon?
>>>
>>> Because real men only want a blowjob followed by missionary until they
>>> cum then they roll over sleep it off and go back to lifting heavy
>>> objects and banging on things and shooting other things. Real women
>>> just think of England then make their man a sandwich.
>
>>I sense some frustration in your post...
>
> I think the frustration is with what Irfon-Kim Ahmad wrote, not
> with men in general.
Huh. Really? I took it as frustration with the evolutionary psychology
posts that I was also expressing frustration with. But if I read that
wrong, then I'm curious what was frustrating about what I wrote.
Kat
> On Dec 3, 9:13 am, Kat <ki...@gothkat.com> wrote:
> > Because real men only want a blowjob followed by missionary until they
> > cum then they roll over sleep it off and go back to lifting heavy
> > objects and banging on things and shooting other things. Real women
> > just think of England then make their man a sandwich.
>
> I sense some frustration in your post...
I sense more frustration in it now then I had intended when I wrote
it. I was just trying for a little humor but my grouchiness may have
come through. It's been a rough couple of weeks and I didn't mean to
stir up anything.
> I've read here that if you believe something (about sex), if often
> becomes true. It takes two to tango: men are like that, because women
> believe that they are (and women are from venus when men believe it,
> it goes both ways).
We are in 100% agreement. Beliefs become reality.
I've met some really amazing guys too and I try to give credit where
it is due but I'm never one to miss an opportunity to poke fun at a
stereotype.
toramjero
And I can't miss an opportunity to poke fun at people poking fun at
stereotypes...
Still, I wonder if there are that many men of the type "blowjob
followed by missionary until they cum then they roll over". I am not
in a position to tell, of course, but I am more under the impression
that the majority of men are proud when a woman has pleasure, and
would therefore seek to satisfy whomever they happen to sleep with.
Can they all be so clueless? Is it because they don't listen when
women tell them what they like? Is it because women do not tell them,
or do not tell them clearly what they like? Inquisitive minds want to
know.
Elizabeth
> Scientists, answer me this:
>
> Why is the female provided with the means to reach orgasm, but the
> chief organ of stimulation, the clitoris, is located where ordinary
> intercourse doesn't sufficiently stimulate it?
>
The nerves of the clitoris are very far reaching. See the discovery of
Dr Helen O'Connell on the anatomy of the clitoris. A useful website
to begin to explore this is http://www.abc.net.au/quantum/scripts98/9825/clitoris.html
Another thing to add to this response to your question, Who says
pleasuring in sex is confined to penis in vagina intercourse? What
about using your lips, tongue, fingers, a silk scarf, a vibrator, or
anything else that enhances a woman's pleasure?
Bob
Not too much evidence in the last 8 years that republicans ever speak
the truth either.
Bob
Tom Allen
They might have learned from the previous administration
ObSex: I wonder what ever became of those cigars...
Matthew Vincent
> On Dec 1, 10:13 am, W Gaius <gaiu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Scientists, answer me this:
>
> > Why is the female provided with the means to reach orgasm, but the
> > chief organ of stimulation, the clitoris, is located where ordinary
> > intercourse doesn't sufficiently stimulate it?
>
> The nerves of the clitoris are very far reaching. See the discovery of
> Dr Helen O'Connell on the anatomy of the clitoris. A useful website
>
> Another thing to add to this response to your question, Who says
> pleasuring in sex is confined to penis in vagina intercourse? What
> about using your lips, tongue, fingers, a silk scarf, a vibrator, or
> anything else that enhances a woman's pleasure?
Agreed... but I have wondered about the clitoris being positioned
where it is, combined with the fact that the female body is well
suited to multiple orgasms. Could it be that the female body has
evolved to be well suited to having intercourse with multiple male
partners? Also, there's the fact that semen/sperm do not get sent up
to fertilise the egg until about (IIRC) 72 hours or so after
intercourse. This may be an evolutionary adaptation to provide equal
opportunities to the different men's sperm in the event that a woman
has casual sex with a group of men.
Matthew
cmbright
And yet, how would it have turned out if Clinton had been honest about
the cigars/dress/etc. in the first place instead of playing semantic
games like define 'is'.
cmbright
wrote:
Why do we have five digits on our hands and feet? Sometimes the
answer is as simple as the fact that our ancestors did.
Homo sapiens sapiens is a complex organism that is sexually
dimorphic. That means that we have biochemistry, physiology,
instinctive behaviors, learned behaviors, instinctive behaviors that
need to be learned, and far more going into our individual
development.
Traits that impair survival can be successful so long as they increase
the chance of having offspring.
Traits that impair survival can be successful so long as they do not
kill before the individual has finished his or her reproductive
lifetime.
Traits that impair survival in late life can cause improved survival
or improved reproduction in development or reproductive years.
Traits necessary for reproduction in one gender will be conserved in
the opposite gender in sexually dimorphic species.
Traits that do neither impair nor improve survival of individual,
survival of offspring or mating success can be successful.
Traits that impair survival of individual, survival of offspring or
reproductive success can be maintained in a population if the
heterozygous form confers improved survival of individual, survival of
offspring or reproductive success. Sickle Cell Anemia and Cystic
Fibrosis are both cases of this. One normal and one abnormal improve
survival of malaria and, if I recall correctly, turboculosis
respectively. Yet two abnormal alleles in either case is fatal.
Although evolution, for the most part is extremely ordered, mutation
is random.
All of the above are generalizations that apply to just about any
organism on earth. I would love to know the complete answer to why do
we have five fingers and five toes on each hand and each foot. One
one level it is as simple as we vertebrates that are descended from
five-lobed fish that are descended from five-rayed fish. But why were
five-rayed fish more successful than, say four-rayed fish or six-rayed
fish or even twelve-rayed fish? Was there an advantage to the number
of five? Was it that fish with five rays in each fin happened to have
more effecient gills and having five rays instead of four or six was
coincidental? And that is a relatively simple question of
morphology.
Adding behavior into the mix... no, I think I'm staying out of this
discussion. Way too many variables for me to deal with when it comes
to sex, sexual organs and sexual behavior.
Denny Wheeler
<taoml...@MEsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>suzee wrote:
>> Tom Allen wrote:
>>
>> > W Gaius wrote:
>>
>>>> 3. So God could get even with Republicans. They have only missionary
>>>> sex, so even though they run everything, they don't have as much fun
>>>> as liberals.
>>>
>>> *ahem*
>>> You may have missed the study that was published last year, saying
>>> that in the US, self-identified conservatives are much more satisfied
>>> with their sexual relations than self-identified liberals.
>>
>> There's an easy answer to that, which WG touched on... conservatives are
>> more easily satisfied with `basic' sex which liberals are looking for
>> something a little more exciting.
>
>"At the same time, more than four in 10 weekly churchgoers discuss their
>sexual fantasies with their partners to enhance their sex lives, think
>about sex daily, and have had sex outdoors; and just over a third
>describe themselves as sexually adventurous."
Which may simply mean that to them 'sexually adventurous' means having
the lights on once in a while.
--
"Every single religion that has a monotheistic god
winds up persecuting someone else."
-Philip Pullman
-denny-
(not as curmudgeonly as I useta be)
Denny Wheeler
<CMBr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Not too much evidence in the last 8 years that republicans ever speak
>> > the truth either.
>>
>> They might have learned from the previous administration
>>
>> ObSex: I wonder what ever became of those cigars...
>>
>
>And yet, how would it have turned out if Clinton had been honest about
>the cigars/dress/etc. in the first place instead of playing semantic
>games like define 'is'.
Or if there'd been enough honesty among the Starr-led to accept that
Clinton, in that respect, was no better and no worse than they.
But personally, I think he should have told 'em to mind their own
business.
Denny Wheeler
<tora...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>or to more
>discrete types,
I can't stand it!!!
"discrete" means singular or stand-alone
"discreet" means cautious or circumspect.
Please, please, PLEASE use the right one.
ObSex: A couple is made up of two discrete individuals, who are NOT
discreet if they tear their clothes off in public to have sex.
(they may be applauded, but they ain't discreet)
Denny Wheeler
<taom...@SPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Conservatives
>Republicans<snip>; and less likely to
>say they've cheated.
>
>Churchgoers
>
>Behaviorally, weekly churchgoers...<snip> They're less likely to say they've cheated on a
>spouse.
I note that in both cases it says "less likely TO SAY". IOW, those
groups are more likely to lie to survey-takers (and, probably,
themselves) on this item.
(granted, *everybody* lies about sex to some degree)
suzee
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 01:13:07 -0800 (PST), toramjero
> <tora...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> or to more
>> discrete types,
>
> I can't stand it!!!
>
> "discrete" means singular or stand-alone
> "discreet" means cautious or circumspect.
> Please, please, PLEASE use the right one.
Yes, yes, I know you're the curmudgeonly editor, but toramjero is
German, so might be excused as English isn't his native language.
> ObSex: A couple is made up of two discrete individuals, who are NOT
> discreet if they tear their clothes off in public to have sex.
> (they may be applauded, but they ain't discreet)
Yep.
sue
Lusus Naturae
>But personally, I think he should have told 'em to mind their own
>business.
You can't tell a grand jury to mind its own business, even when its
questions are improper and politically motivated. Neither can you
refuse to answer. What you *can* do is to lie very carefully and very
narrowly, so that you create a solid defense against a charge of
perjury. Clinton and his legal team were very astute and forward
thinking.
--
Lusus Naturae
Lusus Naturae
>A couple is made up of two discrete individuals, who are NOT
>discreet if they tear their clothes off in public to have sex.
...and might be considered to have ceased to be discrete for that
interval.
--
Lusus Naturae
Tom Allen
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 01:13:07 -0800 (PST), toramjero
> <tora...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> or to more
>> discrete types,
>
> I can't stand it!!!
>
> "discrete" means singular or stand-alone
> "discreet" means cautious or circumspect.
> Please, please, PLEASE use the right one.
You know, for all intensive purposes...
darklily
> Denny Wheeler(REMOVE LUNCH) wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 01:13:07 -0800 (PST), toramjero
> > <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >> or to more
> >> discrete types,
>
> > I can't stand it!!!
>
> > "discrete" means singular or stand-alone
> > "discreet" means cautious or circumspect.
> > Please, please, PLEASE use the right one.
>
> You know, for all intensive purposes...
>
Hahahahahahahahaha.
Darklily
Dave
<9ef04ead-c050-4839...@b41g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
cmbright <CMBr...@gmail.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>And yet, how would it have turned out if Clinton had been honest about
>the cigars/dress/etc. in the first place instead of playing semantic
>games like define 'is'.
Had Clinton been honest, he wouldn't have been impeached. Clinton was
impeached not because of what occurred, but because he lied about it.
Dave
<LususN...@pobox.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>You can't tell a grand jury to mind its own business, even when its
>questions are improper and politically motivated. Neither can you
>refuse to answer.
Sure you can! You'll even get complementary room and board until you
change your mind.
Matthew Vincent
> Bob wrote:
> > On Dec 5, 3:28 am, toramjero <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 4, 8:23 pm, Tom Allen <taomli...@SPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> 3. So God could get even with Republicans. They have only missionary
> >>>> sex, so even though they run everything, they don't have as much fun
> >>>> as liberals.
> >>> *ahem*
> >>> You may have missed the study that was published last year, saying that
> >>> in the US, self-identified conservatives are much more satisfied with
> >>> their sexual relations than self-identified liberals.
> >> Maybe. But were republican women allowed to answer out of the presence
> >> of their husbands?
>
> > Not too much evidence in the last 8 years that republicans ever speak
> > the truth either.
>
> They might have learned from the previous administration
Okay, I'm aware that you (Tom) only got into politics in this thread
due to replying to an opposing view, but if you're going to say things
like this about the Clinton administration then I really feel
compelled to reply.
Bill Clinton said in 1992 that he'd fix the economy and reduce the
crime rate. He did in fact do both of those things during the eight
years of his presidency, as well as stabilising the trajectory of the
national debt, which had been messed up terribly by Reagan's
neoconservative military spending. George W. Bush has again messed up
the trajectory of the national debt.
Ronald Reagan claimed that he'd balance the budget. He made this claim
both in 1980 and in 1984. He must surely have known all along that he
was lying through his teeth, unless he was either seriously senile or
living in cuckoo land with his "voodoo economics" (as GHWB, his
opponent in the 1980 Republican primary, labelled Reagan's flawed
supply side ideas). Reagan failed miserably to balance the budget; in
fact, he increased the national debt by a greater margin than all of
the previous 39 presidents put together. He claimed that he'd balance
the budget while lowering taxes and increasing military spending even
in 1984; this was *after* he'd already gutted domestic infrastructure
spending, so he no longer had that card up his sleeve.
Bill Clinton did tell a few lies, mostly in self-defence, but they
were not consequential in terms of running the country. He fixed the
economy and lowered the crime rate, which was dangerously increasing
prior to him taking office. So, Reagan told consequential lies whereas
the Clintons did not. George W. Bush, too, told consequential lies
about Iraq having WMD and ties to Al-Qaeda.
Back to the original topic: your link is pretty thorough and I largely
agree, but the link itself notes that political affiliation may be
acting as a proxy for other variables such as age, marital status and
income level. Certainly, I think your link is sufficient to question
whether someone can automatically assume that Republicans have lousy
sex lives; that's not an assumption I'd make at all.
Matthew
illecebra
<snip>
> (granted, *everybody* lies about sex to some degree)
Not I. I often deny people information, but I don't lie.
--illecebra
Denny Wheeler
wrote:
Clinton was impeached because the House of Representatives was 52%
Republican. Check the voting records.
(and it was the lame-duck session of the Congress, at that)
Dave
Wheeler(REMOVE LUNCH)<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net> was claimed to have
wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:37:56 -0800, Dave <calga...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In message
>><9ef04ead-c050-4839...@b41g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
>>cmbright <CMBr...@gmail.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>>
>>>And yet, how would it have turned out if Clinton had been honest about
>>>the cigars/dress/etc. in the first place instead of playing semantic
>>>games like define 'is'.
>>
>>Had Clinton been honest, he wouldn't have been impeached. Clinton was
>>impeached not because of what occurred, but because he lied about it.
>
>Clinton was impeached because the House of Representatives was 52%
>Republican. Check the voting records.
>(and it was the lame-duck session of the Congress, at that)
While true, he was impeached on charges of perjury and obstruction, both
of which were because Clinton lied.
Denny Wheeler
>Denny Wheeler(REMOVE LUNCH) wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 01:13:07 -0800 (PST), toramjero
>> <tora...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> or to more
>>> discrete types,
>>
>> I can't stand it!!!
>>
>> "discrete" means singular or stand-alone
>> "discreet" means cautious or circumspect.
>> Please, please, PLEASE use the right one.
>
>Yes, yes, I know you're the curmudgeonly editor, but toramjero is
>German, so might be excused as English isn't his native language.
Ah. Didn't know that. Nor expect it. That sort of error is almost
always made by careless 'native speakers' rather than those for whom
English is a second (or more) language.
JustGB
<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:59:27 -0700, suzee <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
> >Denny Wheeler(REMOVE LUNCH) wrote:
> >> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 01:13:07 -0800 (PST), toramjero
> >> <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> or to more
> >>> discrete types,
>
> >> I can't stand it!!!
>
> >> "discrete" means singular or stand-alone
> >> "discreet" means cautious or circumspect.
> >> Please, please, PLEASE use the right one.
>
> >Yes, yes, I know you're the curmudgeonly editor, but toramjero is
> >German, so might be excused as English isn't his native language.
>
> Ah. Didn't know that. Nor expect it. That sort of error is almost
> always made by careless 'native speakers' rather than those for whom
> English is a second (or more) language.
Just shows to go you how good his English is!
JustGB
Tom Allen
>
> Just shows to go you how good his English is!
:pulls out editor's pencil:
Just shows how well he writes in English.
:smiles and goes off to flame somebody for spelling errors...:
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself... I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
JustGB
> JustGB wrote:
>
> > Just shows to go you how good his English is!
>
> :pulls out editor's pencil:
>
> Just shows how well he writes in English.
>
> :smiles and goes off to flame somebody for spelling errors...:
>
> --
>
> "I don't have multiple orgasms, myself... I am, however, known to be a
> carrier."
Yup. Even better then me!
There was a great article on the OpEd page of the Boston Globe on
Sunday that you -- and Denny -- should enjoy reading. And everyone
else, of course.
"The Language Dustbin". Enjoy.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/12/28/the_language_dustbin/
JustGB
Denny Wheeler
<getti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 29, 5:25 pm, Tom Allen <taomlinS...@MEsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> JustGB wrote:
>>
>> > Just shows to go you how good his English is!
>>
>> :pulls out editor's pencil:
>>
>> Just shows how well he writes in English.
>>
>> :smiles and goes off to flame somebody for spelling errors...:
>>
>
>Yup. Even better then me!
<G>
>There was a great article on the OpEd page of the Boston Globe on
>Sunday that you -- and Denny -- should enjoy reading. And everyone
>else, of course.
>
>"The Language Dustbin". Enjoy.
>http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/12/28/the_language_dustbin/
Yes, it's a lovely column. But each of us must be allowed to decry
certain manglings--especially those which affect meaning. As, for
example, compared to those which effect meaning...<g>
I have several betes noir--probably foremost among them is the
deplorable misuse of the apostrophe.
Pilcrow
wrote:
>
>Scientists, answer me this:
>
>Why is the female provided with the means to reach orgasm, but the
>chief organ of stimulation, the clitoris, is located where ordinary
>intercourse doesn't sufficiently stimulate it?
>
>Why are the clitoris and other erotogenic areas ideally located for
>cunnilingus and exceptionally intense female orgasms?
>
>1. Evolution screwed up? (After all, we have an appendix and a weak
>back.)
>2. Darwin sees the value of sexual bonding between couples as vitally
>important to the survival of the species, and provided a
>nonimpregnating alternative to intercourse?
>3. God did #1.
>4. God did #2.
>5. Some other explanation.
>
>W Gaius
Women's sexual pleasure:
Many years ago (most of you were not born) I found out that my sweety
had orgasms most readily when she lay on her stomach and I entered her
from the rear. Much later I realized that this position allowed my tool
to stimulate her "G" spot. I hope that this infomation gives my
audience more sexual pleasure.
Bill Clinton's lies:
Ken Starr spent $40,000,000 dollars over a period of six years trying to
nail Bill in any way he could. At the end of all that, he could only
prove that Bill lied about his sex life. He would have brought more
serious charges if he had found any. Bill must be the most honest
president we ever had!