It had to happen. The last instantiation of the immortal thread started with underwear, so of course it had to progress to what was under that underwear, and relationships, and other such intimacies.
The only place to go now is anthropomorphized penises.
I'm a little concerned about what Episode XXXVII will be about.
More like this
Here's a solicitation for reader input.
A medical conference in the UK last week was told that the Government's faith in antivirals as the key to combatting a pandemic is misplaced. There was the usual handwringing about the havoc that a pandemic would bring and dueling views as to whether British…
I'm a This American Life junkie - I completely agree with the woman in the TAL ad who says she can't eat crunchy foods while listening to it in case she misses something. I always seem to be doing something else Sundays at noon when it is broadcast on my local NPR station, so I tend to download it…
"Hey, look! I've located my first love! Cool, maybe we can go have dinner or something!" ... precisely the words a newlywed husband was hoping to hear from his wife ...
Amanda was sitting on the couch discovering Facebook, a place on the internet she had been assiduously avoiding until only a…
At last! Here is the much delayed Carnival of Evolution 48!
I must begin by apologizing for my tardiness, especially since John Wilkins managed to post the last one on time. I was traveling in the 2½ weeks preceding the deadline for CoE, and the combination of spotty internet access, extreme…
WWPD*
*What Would Penis Do?
Lynna, I'm in favor of "Poison-pen succubus." it gives you the perfect mix of dangerous, impudent, and irresistable.
hmmm... but what would pussy do?
Yeah, that acronym needs to go on a bit of jewelry.
Lynna, now that's poetry! 2/3 of contemporary German-speaking poets are, so I hear, in psychiatric treatment for depression. Evidently you're not one of those! B-)
And so appropriate that it's comment 666! :-) :-) :-)
Sure it is, if a complete lack of empathy counts. Exhibit A:
He doesn't want love or anything (or if he does, in the long term at least, he hasn't noticed!), he just wants a prostitute, and that for free. And then he goes on to assume that everyone wants this; that the people he has actually encountered don't act accordingly frustrates him to no end, because he just can't grasp it.
Drosophila prefers vinegar over honey any day of the week and twice on Sundays... >:-)
I use my meatspace name out of sheer lack of imagination. Oh, and, because it means I can show off with my publications. I think it was Ichthyic who once pointed out to a creationist that, unlike the creationist, he had contributed to the peer-reviewed literature and linked to a publication – and the creationist just shrugged that off because he had no means of finding out if the author really was Ichthyic. I don't remember a reaction.
The disadvantage, of course, is that I tend to want to talk about TMI like about any other topic... so I have to actively restrain myself because there are things I don't want to have documented in public under my meatspace name...
You mean it's usual for men to have sex with women they don't already care about? :-S
(...sheltered upbringing, sheltered upbringing... anyway, I couldn't.)
I thought prostate stimulation was scheduled for Episode XXXVII?
Or did we already cover that?
Just what I needed to see before I bustle off for my date. Sheesh.
Probably because she'll be treated badly if she doesn't do this. The consequences make the sex seem worthless in comparison.
:( :( :(
badgersdaughter | March 6, 2010 12:13 PM:
Until quite recently, and, even today in most of the world, mistreating woman was (is) well within social norms. In fact - in many cultures men will receive quite a lot of flack if they don't conform to social norms that demand treating women as less than human.
To all who expressed condolences or concern, thank you. Time to retire from PZ's Playhouse and put JeffreyD back in the box he came in. Maybe I will come back new and improved. One can always hope. (smile)
Thanks for all the fish.
Hi Patricia!
Although after having seen this video you will now be obliged to imagine what your date's penis might be thinking the entire time, I hope it doesn't mar the occasion too much :)
Hey, at least the weather is gorgeous! Big Hugs (())
I don't think we want to use "descent" in the same sentence as "penises." Boo.
I suppose it depends on whether the penis is the subject or the object of the sentence, eh?
LOL at the anthropomorphized penis cartoons. However, I think the "brain" looks surprisingly like one of a pair of balls, and that is closer to the correct metaphor for the male approach to sex, IIRC.
LOL. Well, there is that. However, it also makes me sound like a fresh loaf of bread in the appreciative hands of David Marjanović.
PPS for Poison-Penned Succubus does have swagger, but is also a postscript to a postscript, so it would have to be spelled out. I like it because it fits in with the rest of the Pharyngula sisterhood. We, the Committee, will sleep on it.
David M., thank you for your poetry-appreciation comments. I was inspired because today may be the beginning of the end for the snowpack in my yard. The temperature will be well above freezing, and I may even wash my windows just to encourage the first psychotic robin of springtime to bash his sex-addled brains even more than he's already doing. I think he has a crush on me.
I certainly hope not. It's not my question, anyway, although I did my best to make sense out of it. In my opinion, nobody, male or female, is seriously attracted to someone who they believe is totally unworthy of love.
I sincerely hope so. Please be well.
JefferyD - Stay with us!
I got sidetracked by the 'nym challenge and the dangling genitalia*, but Lynna's poem did indeed kick ass.
*btw, PZ, thanks ever so much for the 'Not safe for Saturday morning kitchen viewing' link in #4--Criminy, man! Think of the children!
JefferyD, have a safe trip. We'll hoist a few later wishing for your safe return.
jen @11 - Unfotunately that is exactly what will happen. If my poor gent makes a complimentry remark about my cooking - yeah, but what does penis think, is going to pop into my head.
So he'll go home besotted with your culinary and conversational genius, musing about that Mona Lisa smile that played about your lips throughout the date. A lady's got to have a few secrets, right?
If I was particularly proud of anything I probably would want to show off :P But the link I just added has my name in it anyway. I'm actually pretty open about my identity online. I figure there's more safety in people knowing who you are than in being anonymous.
Besides when I was a kid people could never get nicknames to stick.
Pedantic mode on: At the close of the previous chapter, PZ said it was time to move on to "talking penises". I would like to point out that penises mostly draw cartoons, as evidenced above. When they pretend to talk, little spikes fan out from their heads, but they don't actually say anything. And when they think, they puff up and thought bubbles burst forth. /pedantic mode
Thanks, jenbphillips. Bird suicide does make a good premise for a kick ass poem. As for the dangling genitalia, I'm with you. And did you see the dangling balls as well? Which decor remind me, can't they make more attractive penis rings -- maybe with peacock feathers, or something.
Jeffrey D., I think you should consider taking Leigh Williams up on her offer, made in post #619 in the previous chapter. Take your lovely wife with you and do something totally impractical, but socially satisfying.
This guy's video about God is cute too. Check it out. :)
Later y'll!
badgersdaughter @672 in the previous chapter:
That's just one nice bit out of a thoughtful essay. I'll just add that signs of stinginess and of I-take-but-I-don't-give from either side in a relationship is a real turn-off.
this. even the sluttiest, horniest woman is going to think twice about just fucking some random dude, because said random dude might decide to degrade her afterwards for having had sex with him (what is it with that, anyway?!), spread details of their encounter all over college/the office/whatever social circle they share to ruin her reputation, etc. Men OTOH don't need to worry about such things, so they don't need to test the women for basic humanity first.
The exceptions are women who fuck men from outside their zipcode: you don't need to worry what the dude will think and say of you afterwards, because you'll never see him, his buddies, or anyone else who knows him ever again. Explains the "mysterious" rise in women's libidos when they're on foreign vacations ;-)
erk. there was a whole paragraph with break after this and before the sluttiest and horniest woman :-p
was gonna say that the other side of the coin is that if she does want instant sex, she can't usually have that either.
women's sex lives are ridiculously complicated by the fact that the timing of when and with whom they have sex (or not) determines so much of their non-sex lives. it's pathetic.
When you're a well-known, Pulitzer-Prize-winning ex-mormon like Steve Benson, people call you up and give you a piece of their mind. Steve recounts a phone call he received yesterday morning:
Jadehawk, OM | March 6, 2010 1:26 PM:
It's about reinforcing male dominance.
How true this is. Having had some *ahem* experience with this phenomenon, I think this is a function of some (immature, shallow) men dividing women into two groups: 'the kind who'll sleep with me now' and 'the kind I want to marry someday'. Women who fall into group A, therefore, earn objectification and disrespect for *not* belonging to group B.
just for sex? of course they are. problem is that theoretically fuckable assholes will then go on to make your live miserable afterwards, so they're not really worth fucking for that reason alone. With men not having this problem, I'm sure a good number of them do have sex with women they couldn't love. Shoot, if fucking someone you don't love and have no respect for wasn't possible, misogynist assholes and wifebeaters would never get laid. and we already know that's not the case.
Llewelly @ 6:
I need coffee. I read that as 'probate stimulation' and was wondering what rabbithole we were going down this time.
badgersdaughter | March 6, 2010 12:59 PM:
Not sure what you mean by "seriously attracted", but it is not at all unusual for men to be sexually attracted to women they believe are totally unworthy of love.
BTW, I should add to comment 29 that another ex-mormon, commenting on Steve Benson's post about harassing phone calls, came up with a complaint that the Whine Specialists over at the Intersection would appreciate: he called Benson out for taking on people who are mentally weaker than Benson. In other words, you cannot make fun of people who are mentally weaker than you are.
So, if your harasser is brought to you by god, and is therefore promulgating idiocy with at least one part of his brain, you cannot bring him up short, nor make fun of him in any way. 'Cause that would be the strong picking on the weak.
Really, I should send some of the whiners from exmormon.org to the Intersection so that they can sob and clutch pearls with like-minded tone/civility bullies.
Ah, same here a couple of hours ago, pre-coffee. I thought PZ was sending us to a new thread about "talking pennies" -- boy was I surprised. And I was really looking forward to the talking pennies. Maybe next time.
Please do. It would be...a match made in heaven.
I'm not arguing that people don't, in a practical sense, sleep with other people who are, objectively speaking, unworthy of love. I'm saying that the person either finds something lovable about them, or fabricates something, or rationalizes something. Even nice people can let their emotions color reality, and even assholes can be charming and attractive.
But I don't mean to be all negative. Looking for attractiveness and worth in a partner is a good thing. Sometimes we're just not very good at applying it.
... prostitution.
Re PZ's comment @37: Ok, then, will do. Let the hurt feelings be swollen with an influx of new blood. I will send the ultra-sensitive from exmormon.org to the Whine Fest at moonieville. That will be my good deed for the day.
iambilly | March 6, 2010 1:40 PM:
No no no. That was Victor Frankenstein's specialty.
Eh? The harasser has The Mightly Mythman on his side. You know, the one who is omni-everything. There's no contest here. The harasser has all the power…
To quote the great comedian Robin Williams..."Men are born with a penis and a brain...But only enough blood to run one at a time"
right. and I'm trying to tell you that this is incorrect. it might be true for a lot of people, but certainly not for all.
plus, I think you read my comments backwards. it isn't that no one would fuck misogynists and wifebeaters. it's that wifebeaters and misogynists have no respect and don't love the women they sleep with, so obviously it's possible to fuck someone you hate.
...which is, apparently, not about "serious attraction", but more about self-worth issues and the like. Can't remember where to find it, but some research has been done on this.
If they become so utterly clogged with concern trolls that virtually nothing can be said it could actually become really fun to watch.
Oh, I see what you mean. True, a wifebeater can't be said in any meaningful sense to love his wife, at least not in the way we understand a man to love a woman. He can't have the attitude toward her that a loving man has toward the woman he loves. But such a person is pathological and the exception, right?
Have you been wondering where to go for Easter? Probably not. But just in case, the mormons know where to send you:
Source: http://mormontimes.com/people_news/church_news/?id=13655
llewelly, that ain't male dominance. I'll tell you what is.
I'm about half way through Homer's Iliad.
Achilles & the Greeks are camped outside Troy. Now, Achilles already has at least one girl to have sex with, obtained from some other place they'd sacked.
Achilles has had a bust-up with Agamemnon, the number one Greek king, because he'd pinched Achilles' favourite girl, Briseis, for himself. Achilles & his troops have stopped fighting, & consequently, the Trojans are winning the war.
Agamemnon wants to persuade Achilles back on side. So he offers Achilles seven women now, (all beauties), & another twenty, (the pick of the crop), when they've sacked Troy. And one of his daughters when they get back to Greece.
Now that's what i call male dominance.
Can you explain what "worthy of love" means ?
And how do you know if that person is "worthy of love" if you don't know the person and have hardly spoken with him/her ?
For many men and women, an unwritten rule of casual sex is that you shouldn't have too much of a conversation before sex because that could be a turn off.
In that case, the main "lovable" thing is whether that person makes you horny or not.
hopefully. but really I just used that as the most blatant and crass example. less pathological examples exist, too. unless mere physical attraction without any attraction to the personality already falls into "lovable" for you. moments of "just shut up and fuck me" happen, for women as well as men. I dare say that women simply don't act on them quite as often though, for reasons I explained earlier.
Bringing questionable actions by mormons to the attention of the public succeeds in putting a damper them, at least in this one, small case: College drops LDS-targeted recruitment
quoted for truth, and because it explains the "shut up and fuck me" thing better :-p
Ol'Greg #46 wrote:
No it wouldn't: it would resemble a UU meeting. Or, perhaps, a circle jerk.
"I do not agree with you, but I really respect how you arrived at your position with such thought and sensitivity, and so I would never try to force my views on you, and try to change your mind. I love you just as you are. Hooray for diversity, and this kind of honest, open, respectful discussion!! Okay, now it's your turn."
Does anyone need to know how to resign from the mormon cult? If so, here's a handy video that gives you all the instruction you need, in 8.27 minutes. And as a bonus, the videographer displays mucho cleavage and big tits. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoaBnEeLkZQ
Honestly I don't understand the "shut up and fuck me" anyway.
I also don't understand the virgin/whore dichotomy.
I pretty much just avoid anyone who talks about women like they were a species, even a species with subtypes.
Oook.
What is a UU meeting ?
Sastra @54
Arrgghh. It hurt to read that, but oh how true. That captures the attitude perfectly. It's okay for you to be wrong in your radiant assholiness. Kiss. Kiss.
Well... I was working with the idea that it was different for each person, assuming a baseline state of general functioning mental health. That's probably not satisfactory.
I don't think of it as a black or white, like or love, do I want to treat this person as a friend or as a mate, sort of thing. It's possible, I think, to love someone a little based on first impressions or talking to them. They might smell right, match some sort of mental rightness picture, or say the perfect thing at the right time. It might give you something to stand on when contemplating whether to take the next step.
Gee, am I ever naive.
From my experience most people believe that certain races, classes, social groups, ages, visual types, haircolor, dress-style, degree plan, drink preference... etc.designates a person worthy of love from a person not worthy, or essentially worthless.
I've been mistaken for one of either camp. The funny thing is it's a fence you're always on the wrong side of.
The other thing to watch out for is anyone who is looking for their "soulmate" prefab from the factory.
Bleh...
You're evil, you two. :-)
<facepalm>
What don't you understand about casual sex, just wanting to have sex, nothing else. And it's not something specific to a man/woman situation, but also man/man, woman/woman, men/women, men/men, women/women, men/woman, women/man ...
No, personally I don't... as in for myself I don't. Intellectually sure. I mean I believe that works for some people. I get that it does.
But it doesn't work for me. At all. I'd just as soon get paid then.
And these days I don't trust that people can just be nice to the people they're involved with and appreciate the time spent together either. But I don't project that onto anyone else.
I just, at this point in my life, think relationships are worthless and sex is overrated.
Those people must be extreme extroverts...
We have a winner.
lol, no, certainly not. Though I can see how that would help.
also, I'd like to officially thank SC for introducing me to WWHM. that site is making my belly hurt from too much laughing.
Enough.
Why don't you just wank?
negentropyeater #58 wrote:
Unitarian Universalist Meeting.
The UU's are a very liberal modern church which grew out of a gradual historical coming together of a version of Christianity which rejected the Trinity and believed in universal salvation; enlightenment humanism; and transcendentalism.
Problem is, some of those strands, have elements that contradict elements of other strands. So you get a happy group of Armstrong-style Christians, wiccans, new agers, atheists, secular humanists, and "I'm not religious, but I'm spiritual."
It's not always happy. The mystical, transcendentalist branch is trying to infuse God, spirituality, and the "sacred" back into services, and the atheists feel left out. Unless, of course, they're into the circle jerk thing, and don't really give a crap what people believe just as long as they're really nice and don't try to "force" their views on them by the violence inherent in rational argument and persuasion.
You "share" your truth, and allow others their truth. They have an innate horror of debate -- that is, in religion. All paths are valid, there (except the ones that come out and say other paths are wrong.) In politics, they're usually rather fierce liberals, and outspoken environmentalists.
Don't forget man/cephalopod
Could someone at least trash the study I posted? Honestly, people.
Josh, I refer you to the Russell Brand video link on www.maloneymedical.com under Quackery (now the bottom of the menu, because it isn’t as important). I think “white boy” might be a future official title.
Gracious, if you are going to try and attack someone, at least get the phobia right. It’s needles, not blood. I don’t care about blood, copper, iron or baking soda flavored (have you had that checked out?) I could do minor surgery just fine, I just get a vasovagal response when someone shoves a needle in my arm and decided it wouldn’t be a great thing for me to do office blood draws. The hospital labs do great, and I don’t need to worry about transport. And thank you very much, I could get blood out of a stone. Intense phobia makes one very, very focused on proper technique.
As to the poor person who does the foot baths that I mention on my site, I have already undergone the “ritual” one of you suggested. Yes, most of the stuff in the tub is the electrodes, but the color changes all the time, and when I had her switching the current I could definitely feel the shift. Putting your feet in with live electricity is pretty interesting. I don’t have any data on foot bath benefits, but she does great massage and the foot baths are a side thing for her.
I also list a whole range of other people, primarily as a public service to people looking for someone who does a specific therapy. Why pick on the foot bath person?
Some people pay for bacon, some people pay for foot baths, some people waste their money on snowmobiles. Why do you all care so much? Is it foot bath envy? Admit it.
I have a hard time with that. If all I want is sexual stimulation, I have a very obliging shower head and an overactive imagination. I just can't be intimate with someone and not kind of fall for them, in a way. If it's bad I feel like I failed that person somehow. If it's good I feel like they've become precious to me. I had a few casual encounters in college, and one boy said, "Wow, you do this like you mean it." Well... I did mean it, even though he was the visiting friend of a friend and I had only met him that day; I felt a real connection and it hurt to realize that I just didn't mean much to him.
I guess I'm too crazy to be the kind of person you want for casual sex. I take it too seriously. Fair warning.
You would think, but I'm pretty extroverted actually. I could *talk* to people all damned day. Well actually I usually do.
Because you're a liar and a charlatan who exploits misinformed people in ways that drain their pocketbooks, and lead them away from effective, evidence-based medical treatments. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, but that would require you to actually have a sense of shame.
Am I the only one to notice this in the video? Starting after the working relationship and heading into the bar, the dialogue was something like:
I was just struck that this is what the evil moral relativistic atheists are accused of doing.
Study what? Nothing but nonsense there Quack, Qwack, Qvack, and we know it. I don't even need to look. Why don't you read five years worth of Skeptical Inquirer, and get a real education on how much of a fraud and con man you are. You have nothing to offer to rational discussion, and are a poor excuse for an honorable human being. You could become one by retiring from your alleged profession, and finding a real job with much increased honesty and integrity, like telephone solicitor.
because masturbation and sex are not the same thing, and why would anyone deprive themselves of either one if they like it?
:-/
Those people must be extreme extroverts...
Gee, why so judgemental ? What's wrong with casual sex ?
I understand that many are just not interested, like Ol'Greg said. But what about those who are ? And people can go through different phases during their life. Has nothing to do with being extrovert.
wow, seems we're exactly opposite in that regard. I find that the pool of people worth talking to is significantly smaller than the pool of fuckable people.
maybe it's because of our culture's obsession with looks: a lot of people do try to keep their bodies presentable, but far fewer feel the need to do the same to their brains.
Unfortunately, the heart, the mind, and the penis all essentially reside in the human brain. Love, Lust, and Lagrangians all originate from the same organ.
I'm talking out of my hat, but isn't separating these things (that are not truly separate), even in a humorous context, just another form of objectification?
There is no such thing as a man who has a "brain", but no "heart" or "lust". These categories IMHO are much too coarse for interesting conversations on sex. Maybe Episode XXXVII can be about that.
(Puts his thumb in his mouth and pouts for a bit. Decides to don flak vest.)
has nothing to do with crazy. there is no "one size fits all" sexuality, so what works for you works for you, what works for me works for me, and they don't have to be even remotely the same things.
Quackalicious #70 wrote:
I don't have the expertise to analyze this specific study, but I will give you brief general critique:
First of all, 'chi energy' or some other form of vitalism is an extraordinary claim, and it would take more than one study to establish it, even if this study is all its cracked up to be.
Second; when studies which support supernatural or paranormal claims are analyzed by people who do have the necessary expertise, they are almost always found to have significant flaws, ones which would preclude their publication in top-drawer journals. Those that don't have obvious problems, don't get replicated. Or, can't be replicated by people who aren't already deeply committed to knowing that they're true.
There is a difference between science done to see if something is correct, and science done to show that something is correct. A lot of badly-done studies do not add up to one good one. I seriously suspect that this study fails on this level.
Third; there's the little problem of what Dr. Harriet Hall calls "tooth fairy science." Before you study the effects of healing energy, you need to establish that its practitioners are actually sensing something. This was the import of the Rosa study which you so casually rejected. If, under controlled conditions, people who claim to be able to "sense" chi energy with their hands cannot tell the difference between a human body and no human body, then there is nothing to study.
Fourth; in order to assume that there is a special kind of energy which only a small group of maverick sensitives can feel, you pretty much have to assume a massive conspiracy among scientists in general. Not just pharmaceutical companies, but the entire enterprise of competing disciplines across the board. This is implausible, and more than a little flattering to the maverick sensitives.
Fifth; it is very, very easy to be fooled by "clinical experience" in matters involving health. There are so many confounding factors, and so many ways that bias can color the way outcomes are perceived. Someone once defined 'clinical experience' as "making the same mistakes over and over again, with increasing confidence."
The underlying problem is not with you; the problem lies with the human propensity to err -- particularly when motivations are high and noble. You've fallen victim.
The specific problem which does relate to you, personally, has to do with carelessness, and the subtle form of arrogance that creeps in when motivations are high and noble.
My take.
Heh. Love this! I want it on a bumpersticker.
This is how those OMs happen, people.
I find those are two different sets of people with, thank dog for me, a non void intersection.
Non-sexy left-over from last thread, Sven @#664:
Yes, and yes. I know of two others: My wife is a biologist and DFW fan also...also, I know another botanist, who at least likes IJ. My heart broke a little when DFW entered the Great Concavity.
true that. it's a pretty damn small intersection though, the main two reasons being that the interesting-to-talk set is already pretty small, and that a significant chunk of that set consists of people of a sexually incompatible gender or orientation :-p
Quackalicious #70 wrote:
I don't understand this question. Are you saying that you yourself don't care whether or not any of the alternative modalities really work, as long as they provide a placebo effect, and someone goes away happy? They feel better, and they thank you, personally. So it ought to not matter to anyone else.
It sounds to me like you're advocating fraud, as long as it isn't caught. As others have pointed out, it does matter, and it does get caught, and it does cause harm. If a pharmaceutical company deliberately cut corners, cheated, and put out a medicine they knew was a placebo -- would they get a free pass from you, if they have a nice ad campaign which convinces people they feel sooo much better, just like in the commercials?
You're in an odd territory here...
With a random stranger... can it really be more fun than... :-/
I'm not being judgemental, and I'm not saying anything is wrong. I'm trying to find an explanation for a phenomenon that I can't reproduce in my own mind. Anyway, comment 72 seems to disprove that explanation...
Let's try the next one: I find the pool of beautiful people much smaller than the pool of sexy people (beauty being a property of the face, sexiness one of the rest of the body at and around erogenous zones). I am definitely unusual in how few I find even so much as pretty*, and an ugly face would be a turnoff, so maybe that plays a role...
* I'm told the opposite end of the spectrum also exists. My brother knew someone who fell in love at first sight every 100 meters when walking down a street. The poor guy suffered – he was lovesick all the time.
Great summation Sastra. Not that Qvack will understand it. Qwack, the folks spinning the fables you attempt to treat your victims with need to get serious. If there is real energies being sensed there, prove it. Get the sensing reproducible enough you could publish in say Science or Nature. A Nobel Prize would be waiting with your name on it if you could prove that. But, with appropriate double blind studies (which have been run, but you ignore), there is no energy you are "seeing". Just fraud and fakery. Which is why we condemn your "profession".
it's a different sort of fun, with a hefty dose of adrenaline mixed into it... plus, men smell and taste good. And in that aspect the difference is between imagining foreign and exotic countries and cultures, and actually traveling there and experiencing them. And just like actually traveling, it's obviously not for everyone.
Jadehawk @ 27:
Yep. Otherwise known as the zipless fuck.
No, you're correct. File it under patriarchy hurts men maybe?
All those impulses are parts of some men's brains, and not all men really think that way.
Women also have brains, and thus can also have conflicting objectives as well.
Your relationship could have any combination of genders and may not even be limited to two.
But assuming you have two people you can now have lots of internal conflict.
Now assuming you have two people over a period of time and their brains and objectives both may change over that time... at that point it's not easy math anymore :(
@ Quackalicious --
While you're here (assuming you still are), I wonder if you could answer a question I've wanted to ask you:
What are your feelings concerning Andreas Moritz: is he a cancer quack? Do you condemn his methods, and his "theories" on the causes of, and cures for, cancer?
I find almost everyone beautiful in some way. Really... I find people attractive for the tiniest things. So if I made attractiveness my primary concern I'd be after everyone!
So I've got to discriminate a bit more for the good of my health :D
Argh, I forgot to reply to the big quackalicious quote. Sastra already did most of that in the meantime...
So what?
What shift? The current?
Doesn't surprise me at all.
Translation: I don't even care if it works or not!
So maybe the foot baths are just another form of massage?
Because you are trying to get people to fall for a fraudster.
If you can't understand why that is evil, I can't help you, you'll need a psychiatrist.
Ah, that I can understand. I pretty much lack the desire for adventure, but I think I understand the basics of it. :-)
That makes sense.
Heh. (Sorry, but the dig at botanists needed a retort, and if AE is too classy to do it....:))
Quack... I'm not a scientist. I'm not in the medical field either. I work with computers and I write music. That being said the first thing that jumps out about your study is that the claim is that reiki improves the patients actual illness but the self reporting tests for the patient's perception of their illness and these are not the same.
It is nice that it makes them feel like they are better, but honestly if some one feels like they are better and they are not better then they may even worsen their illness in the long run by overestimating what they can deal with.
The real test for reiki as a real medical treatment would have to be able to show an actual improvement in the illness and not just the patient's state of perceived well being.
Think about it. If it wasn't reiki, but was something else that comforted the patient it might also cause them to feel better. But if the illness is not improved by it then it is nice, but no different maybe then having your friends stop by, or having a therapy dog come through.
Ol'Greg #93 wrote:
Same here. When I was about 10 years old I developed my pre-teenage girl crush on ... Alfred Hitchcock. I loved his sniny wit, when he came to introduce his macabre little shows. This may have set a rather low bar, for the future.
Of course, I'm married now, but pretty much every guy looks sexy to me.
Person A feels horny.
Person B feels horny.
Both persons find it more satisfying to have sex with another person than to wank alone.
Person A and B meet in cyberspace, or via a pink phone line, or in a club, or bar, or sex club, or sauna, or in a cruising area.
Person A and B think they satisfy the criterias each one has in his/her mind.
Person A and B have sex together at one's home, or in a sex club, or sauna, or in the woods, or in the car.
Person A and B leave each other after having had a good time.
They never meet or hear from each other again.
All this sex and no bacon? Tsk.
Dark Chocolate Bacon Cupcakes
12 slices bacon
2 cups all-purpose flour
3/4 cup unsweetened cocoa powder
2 cups white sugar
2 teaspoons baking soda
1 teaspoon baking powder
1/2 teaspoon sea salt
2 eggs
1 cup cold, strong, brewed coffee
1 cup buttermilk
1/2 cup vegetable oil
1 tablespoon unsweetened cocoa powder, for dusting
1. Preheat oven to 375 degrees F (190 degrees C). Place bacon in a large, deep skillet. Cook over medium-high heat until evenly brown. Drain, crumble and set aside.
2. In a large bowl, stir together the flour, 3/4 cup cocoa powder, sugar, baking soda, baking powder and salt. Make a well in the center and pour in the eggs, coffee, buttermilk and oil. Stir just until blended. Mix in 3/4 of the bacon, reserving the rest for garnish. Spoon the batter into the prepared cups, dividing evenly.
3. Bake in the preheated oven until the tops spring back when lightly pressed, 20 to 25 minutes. Cool in the pan set over a wire rack. When cool, arrange the cupcakes on a serving platter. Frost with your favorite chocolate frosting and sprinkle reserved bacon crumbles on top. Dust with additional cocoa powder.
*officially robs Jadehawk of the right to complain*
Argh. I've just slept all day, after being awake for 26 hours straight due to urgent stuff to deal with in meatspace. There are now too many posts on the endless thread to catch up on. But a skim-read reveals that many of them are about sex and relationships, so it's probably best if I don't read them anyway.
I have also decided to upgrade myself to an Extra Special Dumpling of Awesome. :-)
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
When I was about 10 years old I developed my pre-teenage girl crush on ... Alfred Hitchcock. I loved his sniny wit, when he came to introduce his macabre little shows.
A perfect example of how the mind stitches together different eras of a person's life.
Lynna, OM @ 48
And I will be staying as far away* from there (specifically Scranton, PA) as possible.
-----
"Casual Sex"? Like, cut-offs and Birkenstocks? Hawaiian shirt and chinos? Jeans and flannel shirt? I'm confused.
-----
But what about LaRouchians?
-----
* By 'as far away as possible' I do not, necessarily, mean distance. I have been living near Scranton (and working in Scranton) for almost 19 years and it is as far away as possible from just about anywhere.
Haha the women do to as far as I'm concerned. Sexy people, all over the damned place.
I have been a lurker on Pharyngula for almost 2 years now. I like reading the comments as much as I like reading PZ's post. The recent train wreck and pearl clutching going on at Intersection led me to comment here.
Janine, 'Tis, Wowbagger,Knockgoats and all the rest of regulars here - please, keep doing all the good work. I have learnt a lot from all of you. You make my evenings fun, especially reading this never ending thread and its evolving discussion. The only other time I have been glued to Pharyngula as much, is when the trolls come by and I sit back to watch with glee the way you tear them apart (I am in awe of your knowledge and patience).
Thank you.
And PZ, thank you for providing us readers with a platform where content matters more than style, where honest discussion leads to better understanding.
Here you go.
At the time that Miss Cleo's scam went down, I had a roommate who was from Jamaica. She said that Miss Cleo's accent was so very fake, that it was laughable.
:) You're welcome. I had the same experience.
***
By the way, the 1988 movie Casual Sex? was actually pretty cute.
***
I had composed a long comment about sex and the problems with the various assumptions often attached to it, but don't have it in me to post it. Relationships. Hard.
Janine, the only reason I remembered the name "Miss Cleo" at all was the skits Debra Wilson did of her on MadTV.
See, that's already what doesn't happen to me like this. I do get hormonal reactions when looking at certain people*, but so far that's invariably been coupled with an ugly or at least still-not-pretty face; unless it would go all the way to love at first sight**, I wouldn't see a point in making an effort and, erm, extrovert myself. Talking to complete strangers about this kind of topic would be an effort; that's why I thought "extreme extroverts".
So, I've never seen anyone and thought I wanted to actually have sex with that person.
* Often at the same time as another hormonal reaction, that to abject stupidity: how can they dress like this in freezing weather? <headdesk> That's already a turnoff. :-)
** And that would already be off-topic, the topic being sex with people one isn't in love with.
Is it a claim or just an implication too. That's another problem with alt med. Because if it is a claim then it can fail, but if it is an implication then it is preying on people's ignorance.
You see you can back off and say "I never said it would cure the illness" and thus stay away from lawsuits.
But you did drain some one out of money for being a sucker who wanted to believe that it would actually cure them.
At that point it becomes dangerous. Did it really cure them? Did their belief that it would keep them from seeking real treatment that shows an actual testable effect on their illness?
How much money are we talking about? Did they need that money?
Yes to some extent the patient has to be willing to discriminate.
But in order to keep people from making the mistake of doing fun pleasant things and mistaking them for actual medicine then information available has to be accurate. It has to be free of ambiguous implications.
But then the alt med practitioner has to make a real stance. Does reiki actually heal illness? Or is it just a feel good thing?
But then that would cut into profits. So you see people trying to keep patients ignorant so that they can profit from that ambiguity.
But then of course it's the patient's fault for not knowing better when push comes to shove, right?
You see, that is just dirty and nasty.
Keep people ignorant but blame them for the consequences of ignorance? Where have I seen that strategy before....?
The subtleties of sexual innuendo.
When I was an undergraduate I met a young woman who found me physically attractive. We went out a couple of times and then became very sexually involved with each other. After six months I considered our relationship and realized it was purely sexual. I knew little about this woman and much of what I did know I didn't like. What's more I didn't even find her very sexually attractive. So I broke off the relationship. My penis hated me for months.
They had one thing in common,
They were good in bed.
She'd say, "Faster, faster,
The lights are turning red."
-Don Henly & Joe Walsh, "Life In the Fast Lane"
When I met my wife* I made sure I knew her mentally and emotionally before we had sex.
*Someday I'll tell the story about that. It's mildly funny.
In a turn of fair play, the BBC has blocked it in my country.
This talk of "love", I think, misuses the word. It isn't "love" when one has just met, or even "lovableness"; it's the absence of immediate dislike/loathing/negativity. If, half-an-hour into a conversation, the otherwise physically attractive, pheromone-positive potential partner suddenly reveals that s/he is a fan of Glenn Beck, or a YEC or a Birther - well, that would negate any interest on my part, be said person the embodiment of physical perfection or not.
I suspect that, as women are frequently socialised to believe that pure lust is a Bad Thing, that women don't feel it, that a shut-up-and-fuck attitude on their part indicates they've been brainwashed by the patriarchy, etc., there tends to be a greater need to rationalise some sort of emotional connection.
[When a friend of mine went to medical school, there was actually a professor who declared that women only engage in sex for two reasons: They wish to procreate with their husbands or they are forced. A voice rang out from the rear of the auditorium: 'What if she's just really horny?' The professor expressed shock and outrage at such obscenity. Some hours later, the students expressed shock and outrage to the administration, who had the good sense to remove the old goat from the classroom.]
IMNSHO, whilst the madonna/whore dichotomy made a certain amount of sense in Ye Olden Days, when living was hard, birth control non-existent and providing a future for Someone Else's Genes counterproductive, its modern mutation has more to do with the fragility of the male ego and fear of comparisons. That OMFSM! [or, more likely, OMG!], what if her previous lover(s) were bigger, better, more satisfying, etc. is an insecurity-based aversion to a woman with some experience. [And, come on - even a burger-flipper at McDonald's needs some training and experience to be good at the job. Why do we pretend that sex is any different? Two nervous virgins on a wedding night strikes me as a truly bad way to start a physical relationship.]
And don't those fratboys grasp that, should they diss their female companions-in-lust, we ladies can get some revenge on the grapevine? Does any male really want to discover that his name is written on the women's restroom wall, with the caveat 'Don't bother - his dick is 2" long and limp!'? I suspect not.
oh, shaddup :-p
I feel more like crying over the amounts and depths of stupidity in the universe... I had to stop reading after 3 posts or so. :-)
Do it sometime. You'll learn something. I already have.
...How... offturning...
It would certainly be interesting.
And with all that I must go. I'm late late late for picking up a birthday present, wrapping it, and showing up late to a birthday party.
'till later!
He had it on the best authority. That's what his wife told him.
Hit Enter there before I added "To get rid of him."
Damn. So out comes part of my unposted comment:
I've never understood this business about supposedly wrecking a budding relationship by having sex "too soon." If you feel like you had sex with someone before getting to know him or her well enough, OK - get to know the person better. If you're feeling confused about what sex meant to someone, ask. I know a lot of relationships that started as one-night stands or something close and turned into something long-term.
***
I'm not sure what your other story was meant to illustrate, 'Tis. (By the way, did you get my email?) It turned out that you weren't compatible for anything other than a sexual relationship. So what does that mean with regard to the sex?
***
Totally want to hear the story of your meeting. :)
that would require them to remember that women are people, not fuckbots, and as such are actually capable of opinions and even of communicating with other women.
plus, it rarely has the same effect, unfortunately. at worst, you'll ruin their sex-life. on the other hand, at worst, they can ruin all aspects of your life, and force you to move somewhere where no one knows you or them.
Ol' Greg #112 wrote:
Silly; reiki doesn't "heal illness" -- it allows the body to heal itself!
That's one of the standard claims of alt med. If it wasn't for pollution, 'bad' food, and/or negative thoughts, the body would never get sick. The immune system in its natural state cannot fail to keep out the wickedness of the world. We're the ones who have weakened the all-powerful Natural Immune System with our bad choices, and our culture. Reiki (or chiropractry or homeopathy or woo-flavor-of-the-moment) simply gently corrects the flow of vital essence to where it was before, when we felt okay. Your own body does all the work.
It's like when a faith healer says it's not him who cures people, it's the power of God. He's just a humble conduit.
See, that's why us gays have those places called darkrooms. You don't even have to talk or see the people. Can come in handy when the only thing you are looking for is smell/touch/kiss/flesh/adrenaline rush.
Janine @108: For years, I'd respond to TV adverts for telephone psychics with 'if they were really psychic, they'd call me'.
Then, one day, Miss Cleo did. [Well, OK, a tape of Miss Cleo did, offering me a reading if I'd just press 1.] I was so grateful when the Do Not Call list came into existence.
One of my neighbours is seriously into woo; she went to a psychic on the advice of a friend and was amazed and convinced by the psychic's knowing her daughter's Chinese name. Um, thought I, your frakking friend went to this woman first and just may have mentioned that cute little baby called Wei-wei, followed, perhaps, by the psychic suggesting that she "saw" something involving the mother of Chinese baby...
Another of my friends has a sister into reiki. Hell, if I want my qi played with, I'll follow the Marjanović path and do it myself.
Augh, another line that makes me reach reflexively for my wallet and mind, before they are both picked...
Mine, too.
I'll ponder the exact meaning of this for far too long.
don't know if this applies in all circumstances, but all the ones I'm familiar with are either results of the madonna/whore dichotomy i.e. the "losing respect for fucking too soon" idiocy, or resentment for having been pushed into sex before one is ready.
other than that, I'm not sure how fucking for dessert can mess up a starting relationship, for the reasons you stated.
Completely off-topic:
I'm glad I'm not the only person who finds sports fans entirely incomprehensible.
As I understand it, if the Internets sez you aren't in the UK, then you didn't pay the TV License Fee, and therefore are not entitled to see what the License Fee payers paid for.
SC,
My point in the story about the first woman was that some men will walk away from freely offered sex because that's not enough to sustain a relationship. The first woman was a sex object and I hate people who objectify others. Yes, that means I was not happy with myself when I realized the first woman was only a sex object.
As for the rest of the story, I wanted to know my possibly prospective wife as a person. After I was sure I knew her reasonably well as a person, then I was willing to have sex with her. The first time we had sex we made love, we didn't fuck.
SC and David: You should be able to view this version.
Well, hell. Here's another chunk:
It seems to me that people make a lot of assumptions about about others' decision to have sex, especially since there are these cultural tropes out there. So if a woman has sex with a man quickly (whatever that may mean to him), he might assume she isn't interested in a relationship with him (otherwise she'd be following the "rules"), has sex with every man she meets, is interested in a relationship and is using sex to push things to the next level, wants a relationship and is therefore "giving herself" to him, has low self esteem, etc. But none of these need apply, of course. She could just find him attractive and want to have sex, be interested in a relationship and want to have sex, be interested in a relationship and want to be physically intimate as a way of getting to know him better, be impulsive, and so on.
People are from all different backgrounds and have very different ideas about what sex means in different contexts, as this thread has shown. I think people should stop making assumptions and, if they're interested in pursuing a relationship with someone, go for it; if not, not.
(I think there's also a problem with women making assumptions about why a man hasn't tried to have sex, also based on weird cultural ideas that people should work to push aside.)
Huh. I feel like I posted something similar a while ago....
Please say that I was not the only one who thought of this. But I am afraid that implies very nasty things about my fake husband.
Don't we already know what a penis does?
lol
Well, I was shocked to discover that I have an official. . . mmmm. . ."mouthpiece." Don't go gettin' too big for your britches, 'Tis. And no, I'm not paying you either. The expense of upkeep for my Pharyngula Wives is considerable, and I'm afraid I can't spare a shilling for you.
Huh?
What if you were a sex object for her? What you're talking about is a different issue, it seems - if you were using her as an object in a dishonest way, that's a problem. But if both people want sex regardless, why is that a problem?
So what if the fourth/tenth/twentieth time you had sex you were making love? What if the first time had felt like making love regardless of how well you knew her otherwise?
Of course, very wise. Thanks.
If you don't feel confused, but instead suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect and therefore don't notice that the other person ascribes completely different meanings to sex... I can easily imagine that going horrible.
I can't resist ruining the joke: it appears that our immune system is by nature overactive, and that this is the case to compensate for all those parasites that suppress the immune system. We First Worlders no longer have anything much in the way of parasites, so allergies and stuff are on the increase... Our natural state is to be crawling with tapeworms, liver flukes, Schistosoma, whatnots, wossnames, and wossanames.
X-D
Ingenious. Though... how well does that work if you want to be stimulated visually?
I feel like I should blush. But instead I'm laughing.
can I just say, again, that it makes me absotively crazy when people so casually interchange "girl" and "woman"
My twin brother and I were both students at the local college. One day he was coming home on his bicycle when a young woman ran into him on her bike. He fell off and broke his nose.
I was home when the phone rang. My mother answered it and said "It's [your brother] and he sounds very strange. He wants to talk to you." I talked to my brother for about a minute and hung up. I then asked my mother, "Can I borrow your car?" When I had the keys firmly in my grasp I said "[Brother] is in the Emergency Room with a broken nose and wants me to pick him up."
At one point, when I was driving to the hospital my normally calm, reserved mother said, "Can't you go any faster?" I replied "I'm doing ten miles over the speed limit and there's a cop a block behind me. No I can't."
We got to the hospital and there was my brother and a young woman. My brother had two black eyes and blood all down his shirt. The young woman was being very apologetic. She apologized to my brother, she apologized to my mother, she apologized to me and said "Is there anything I can do for you?"
I answered "Would you go out with me Friday night?"
My brother thought it was cold.
Jadehawk:
So right.
As a non-mysogynistic (I think) mostly-straight man who does like casual sex, I get very annoyed with two classes of people:
1. People (often women) who assume that being able to enjoy casual sex is indicative of a pathology, and
2. Mysogynistic men who make it a bad idea for women to indulge in casual sex with guys they don't know well---either because the particular guy will turn out to be more or less misogynistic and fuck her over, or because he'll be careless and indiscreet about his good fortune, which will be bad for her rep because of the ambient misogyny level.
A lot of men who go to prostitutes do it not because they want to dominate and humilate a woman into doing something she shouldn't do without love, but because they want to have sex, and don't want the usual baggage around sex---in particular, continually being judged in a variety of ways, and often found wanting.
They don't want to be judged physically unattractive, and rejected. They don't want to be judged an unpromising mate, and therefore an inappropriate sex partner. And they don't want to deal with a lot of women's hangups about sex and particular sex acts.
A fair fraction of men (not me) who go to prostitutes are reasonable-looking, hard-working guys with no particular wealth or status, and no immediate prospect of a great relationship with a fulfilling sex life. Maybe they're single, or maybe they're married and not getting enough, or maybe they get enough, but just want to get blown without a big hassle and it being a huge favor rather than a fun thing all around. (Some women resent even being asked and think a guy's "selfish" if he wants that, or if wants it more than very occasionally.)
Some are good-looking guys with fine careers who'd be "a good catch," but don't want to lead women on---they don't want to pretend that a woman is a wife prospect just to get laid, or go unlaid. Many women don't want to date anybody who isn't a husband prospect, and don't want to have sex with anybody they're not "serious about." A lot of guys don't think they should have to accept that those are the rules, made by women, regulating their sex lives. So they look elsewhere.
I've never gone to prostitutes myself, partly because I'm phobic about STD's and partly because it's a nasty industry. (Largely because it's criminal. I don't think it should be; it should be legal, well-regulated, and taxed.)
I have had a fair bit of casual sex and liked it a lot, but I've been involved in long-term relationships for most of my adult life, and dealt with the monogamy thing.
When I wasn't in an LTR I haven't always liked "the rules"---or liked being suspected of misogyny for not liking them, and thinking casual sex is a reasonable option.
Why on earth should guys like being judged sexually unacceptable when, say, they're stressed out because their career's going badly? That's always bothered me---it amounts to kicking men right in the gonads when they're down---although I've oftener been on the lucky end of that, with some other poor schmuck going unlaid, compounding his misery about his situation.
I've often felt uncomfortable hearing women talk about those nasty shallow men and their desire for casual sex, in the very same conversation in which they run various men down as romantically and therefore sexually unacceptable, complaining about the shortage of worthy men, and how offensive it is for the other men to express a desire to have sex with them.
Think about it. If you sit around talking about how this guy's ugly, that guy's stupid, this other guys a nerd, and three other guys are just boring, or losers career-wise, or insecure, or whatever... and then you turn around and complain about the shortage of men who meet your standards, how are all the rejected men supposed to feel?
Are they supposed to just accept that they should be celibate because they're ugly, or geeky, or not as smart as you, or not especially talented at anything you appreciate, or don't make enough money, or are rightly insecure because you're so picky about so many things? Are they supposed to just accept that they should lead mostly sexless lives, because they're unworthy of being "serious" about? And are they supposed to be sympathetic when you complain about not getting laid because all the good men are taken or gay, and nobody worthy treats you in the fashion to which you wish to become accustomed?
Many women's standards are often pretty hard on guys, and viciously judgmental and self-righteous about it.
I'm not saying that men's standards don't suck, too. They often do, and that's a big part of a complicated problem. Too many men care too much about physical beauty, and not enough about anything else. And they care about physical beauty as a status symbol, even when it's not critical to whether they'd actually want to have sex with a woman. They look for women who are trophies, and value other things less, even if they'd be happier fucking the non-babe than sitting around not getting laid and bragging about the babe they bagged last year. Ick.
(Sadly, many women buy into that, too. Women judge men by the physical attractiveness of the women they attract, far more than men or women judge women by the attractiveness of their male partners. That leads to a positive feedback of mating success or failure, which is nasty.)
I'm mostly straight myself, but one of the things I've always identified with and envied about the gay community is the fairly widespread acceptance of casual sex. (Not that it hasn't caused problems; some of my friends are dead because of HIV.)
If you look at the substantial fraction of gay dudes who engage in fairly frequent casual sex, I think that indicates that the men-wanting-casual-sex thing isn't mostly a matter of misogyny and wanting to dominate women. It's just men being men, and when you're talking about men who are attracted to men, zooom, you're off!
I'm really glad that when I lived in a mostly gay neighborhood, I was mostly straight and in an LTR with a woman. Otherwise, I'd likely have been one of those guys, like one of my housemates, going off to the bathhouse or a gay bar several nights a week and having sex with scores of people every year, some years. (When I wasn't in a monogomous LTR.) And if I'd been a little harder up for money, I might have been having sex for money (I got offers, and I really don't see anything wrong with it). And I'd likely be dead now, like that housemate, because that was right when HIV was rampant and people didn't realize what was going on yet.
One thing that saddens me is that liberals seem to have lost the sexual revolution. Conservative Christians have more sex, mainly because they're usually married. (They marry earlier, and often either stay married longer, or remarry sooner.)
Liberals are often single, and mostly not getting laid, because they mostly don't have sex outside of an LTR, even though they don't think there's anything basically wrong with it.
We need to do something about that.
Sex is important, and we, as a society, should be having more of it. We liberals and lefties should at least be keeping up with the Joneses---the fundies down the street.
I propose that we establish a Sexual Security Administration, and guarantee a certain baseline standard of sex availability for everyone, regardless of race, sex, income level, or physical disability (e.g., not being hawt).
Everyone who wants to work should be able to find a job. And everyone who wants sex should be able to find sex, too. Hmmm... maybe we can kill two birds with one stone... :-)
*dons flak jacket*
Rejected by whom?
You see... each woman is an individual. You, for instance, have never been rejected by me. I don't speak for any of the women in your life, and what Jadehawk might consider ugly I might find charming.
Oh, look, WWHM has a reference to my home state on the front page:
that's the second time Walton's posted the soccer-fan sketch too. Perhaps teh Thread is entering a time warp of some kind...
Quoted for truth.
Quite true, Paul. I can't remember who it was who hypothesized that gay men's more profligate casual sex habits (in general, yes, it is true) were merely men being able to get away with the sort of behavior most men would want to if they could. Too bad for the straight men, because that's not the sort of thing most women will put up with.
SC, I'm not ignoring you. I've got to make supper now and then I'll have to spend some time composing a reply to your questions and comments.
Aw! I love those stories. If you knew about the guy who just struck up a conversation with me about 20 yards outside my door on my way to the beach, which I was too shy to carry on beyond the first 20 seconds, you'd see why I approve of "accidentally" smashing into people (idiots like myself) and physically knocking them down* as a valid strategy.
Walton! That was funny!
*blocks off the next 15 minutes to read*
*Yes, I know she didn't knock you down. The point holds.
Rejected. Pish-posh. I have only a few not-negotiable criteria for men these days. I want a man to be honorable, more intelligent than me, practical, healthy, and loving. What he looks like doesn't so much matter. I just really want him to be him.
I think you've told that lovely story before, 'Tis.
Or otherwise I've just discovered some hitherto unknown of sense of clairvoyance.
--o--
Not that it matters, but the woman/girl in question from my whine yesterthread, replied kindly, but professionally to my comment on her latest art. I really should just stay away, because it completely overstimulates my imagination. Currently I'm wrecking my brain to remember if "Tom" is a new friend, or someone she mentioned while I knew her. And obviously whether he's a just a friend-friend or something else.
Arrrrgh!
I'd best go find the cat and go to bed. Try to accumulate some sleep points so I won't be late for work again next week ...
Also Paul, I've been rejected too.
Sword cuts both ways, dude.
Absolutely. I'd prefer my healthy self subsistence hunting self to be eaten by a Saber Toothed Tiger.
Paul W, what you describe seems to be significantly worse in the U.S. than in Europe (though it can be a problem there, too). certainly the aversion to casual sex is greater there, for all sorts of reasons (at the top of that list would be toxic belief that sex is an inherently misogynist game in which the women goal-tend and the men try to score). Certainly for me, casual sex in he U.S. has completely stopped being appealing, because watching some guy try to "trick" me into fucking him is off-putting.
You posted that already, and I liked it very much :-)
It's the same category mistake as the one behind patriotism.
Yes, but I can only guess at what "Oo er, Mrs?" might mean (what the one in white says almost at the end). Fortunately I understand what the other one says before and after... been too long on Pharyngula, it seems... ;-)
Ah, the gaps in my classical education. :-) I immediately went on to watch the first related video... :-D so true, so true...
Would you fuck absolutely any woman, regardless of her looks, intelligence, or whether you even liked her?
Jaehawk @123:
How in hell can they do that? Given that one doesn't engage in one-night-stands with co-workers or bosses or professors [never a good idea], how can a random male effect such a necessity? Brag to his comrades, posture, start rumours? That's what boys do, and it's not that difficult to play on immature insecurities. Half of them will know that he could be lying, as they have lied. The other half, should they makes advances, can usually be fobbed off with a suggestion that, if, like their pal, they want to engage in sissy-maid role play, you're just not into that and that's why you rejected him... That will get disseminated [as it were] amongst the males of his metaphorical clade.
OTOH, I was raised as a brain, not a girl, never learnt how Real Women™ were supposed to play sex games. [I keep hearing allusions to the 3-Date-Rule on sitcoms. WTF?] My father's mistresses were all very bright women who were straightforward; I suspect I took cues from them. Maybe I just don't get it.
I'm not sure if I have or if I just think I have, though. Of course, there's bound to be some repetition.
Well, in my case that's not possible.*
Or desirable.
*:P
Conservative Christians have more babies. I don't know if they have more sex.
I'm British and have never lived in the US. Yet the part of Paul W's post I quoted at #148 is entirely familiar to my own experience (though I don't necessarily agree with the rest of his post).
the premise was names scribbled on a bathroom door, thus implying a circle of people who know each other.
as such, rumors about a man's sex-life will ruing his sex-life. rumors about a woman's sex-life can do damage to every area that social circle touches upon. this has fuck-all to do with "how Real Women™ were supposed to play sex games", and everything to do with the anti-woman society we live in. unless you can completely isolate yourself from it and spend your entire live in an egalitarian, liberal enclave, having stories about your sex-life spread in your environment is toxic, regardless of how you personally react to or feel about such rumors.
SC, I am sure it would be difficult for you to find a man more intelligent than you. :) I'm just sick and tired and reactionary from trying to bring up babies who want me to take care of all their emotional, physical, and sexual needs without giving me very much in return. And to me the sexiest guy is one who has fun teaching me something, quite as if he thinks I'm worth bringing into his mind and heart. (And no, it's not a Daddy thing. My father didn't teach, he dictated. He was arrogant and contemptuous and belittled me for wanting to go into his line of work.)
and? it's still worse in the US than it is in Europe.
Paul W. @ 144:
I agree and I'm on the distaff side. Perhaps it's simply a product of the time I came of age, ('70s) but I had lots of casual sex (with both men and women) and enjoyed all of my various partners. Attitudes have changed so much since then though, I think it's damn near impossible to have joie de vivre sex life when it comes to casual sex.
Damn, this thread has been really, really depressing today.
:-(
OK, so Paul W.'s post seem largely a cultural critique with an emphasis on the pernicious effects on women. Mine was a cultural critique with an emphasis on the pernicious effects on men, so who am I to judge? However, it really is important to look at which sex benefits and which suffers in broad terms from this culture, especially if we're going to talk about sex work.
SC, I am sure it would be difficult for you to find a man more intelligent than you. :)
Ahem. I think I said impossible.
I agree with Walton. I'm going to go do my hair and go out and bloody stop calling both ends of the stick the short end.
Oh, no! First time I've hit "Submit" accidentally! Please add an emoticon to (and replace "im-" with "not" in) my last comment.
That's pretty impressively idiotic. I once had a professor who had been a Catholic priest who left to get married. After she divorced him, he decided he didn't understand women and chose to relieve this by diving head first into extremist feminist literature. I felt very sorry for him. But even he didn't have such a bizarre notion of female sexuality.
Sure. Do you also want a guy who thinks he can learn from you? If not, why not?
Well Walton, and PaulW too... if you try empathizing a little with us on these things you might go further with us!
We face the problems you do. Not finding people we like, not finding people we are attracted to, having the people we like or are attracted to not feel mutually... etc.
You need a different stick then.
Ah, you already told us this, probably several years ago. I remember. :-)
Note the etymology of "fuck over".
I don't understand that. But then, I never thought I would ever "meet the standards" of the vast majority of girls/women in the first place; the only reason I didn't just estimate that majority at 100 % and (who knows) quietly jumped out the window is that the world population is so large nowadays that there must be some statistical fluke in there with standards I might fit. (I still was totally taken aback by the Mad Women of Pharyngula phenomenon.)
Is it just because I got bullied early enough (starting long before puberty)? :^)
What is the lesbian community like?
What would any community be like if you simply took the last thousand years of culture away?
While that's true for me, LOL, I'd still like to see numbers.
LOL! :-D
Of course I want a guy who thinks he can learn from me. I rather like the description of Chaucer's clerk: Of studie took he moost cure and moost heede./ Noght o word spak he moore than was neede,/ And that was seyd in forme and reverence,/And short and quyk, and ful of hy sentence;/ Sownynge in moral vertu was his speche,/ And gladly wolde he lerne, and gladly teche.
@ Caine #99:
ROTFLMAO!
Oh great. You have really done it now. Sweet Jebus help me... HELP ME! (Help... meeeee...)
*Begins unloading sacks of all-purpose flour and gallon jugs of buttermilk from the (stolen) fork lift. Climbs fence and starts searching for next-door neighbor's pot-belly pig. Here Violet... Violet, where are you sweetie?*
God damn it, SC. I have spent the past hour reading the train wreck of personal ads featured on WWHM. I am hermetically sealed to the chair - I cannot stop reading. Sweet fuck, that blog is funny.
I apologise. I didn't mean to suggest that women didn't face these difficulties too. (And my own problems are more complex than my posts on this thread might suggest. I don't want to go into detail here, but feel free to email me.)
Sorry my posts haven't been especially coherent today. As I mentioned earlier, I was up for 26 hours straight (for various reasons), then slept through much of the day and am now bleary-eyed.
Did you miss the "shut up" part?
Whether that implication holds depends on the "bathroom" (...silly euphemism, though still better than "restroom", argh). I know a bathroom that features... I think it's not a name, but a telephone number, under which is written bonne suceuse ("good sucker, and female" – I'm not familiar with the vocabulary, but this can't help being a reference to That Which Comes After The Spanking). Now, that bathroom belongs to the cafeteria, where hundreds of people from the entire campus (if not beyond, like me) eat every day. Probably the entire male half of them has seen that bathroom at least once.
Jadehawk @163:
Somewhere along the line, I got the impression that the scenario was a college campus.
And yes, it completely has to do with "how Real Women™ were supposed to play sex games" - RW™ are supposed to hold out, to refuse to engage in anything until they've been wined and dined and wooed, are supposed to play hard-to-get, thereby indicating that they are worthy of Being Taken Home to Mother and not Sluts. And that, of course, is indicative of a society that still, for the most part, fears women's sexuality. [An aside: Study the predominant joke subjects of a micro-society and it will become apparent what worries them most. In the Ozarks, for instance, it's women's wiles and city folk.]
Just what kind of environment do you live in? One doesn't need to live in a utopian society to acquire a social group that thinks similarly on certain subjects or to avoid screwing about with anyone in the workplace, where issues of favouritism, power and competition are in play.
I think I read this issue as primarily a college [or high school] campus problem simply because I couldn't see the immature + diverse acculturation + closed society scenario taking place elsewhere.
I'd be much more embarrassed if it got round that I couldn't finish the Times crossword than whom I fucked on alternate Tuesdays. But that's in my social group of choice, where sex isn't taken nearly as seriously as mental prowess.
SaintStephen, no stealing pigs! ;p
But of course. Through the internet generally and in your field specifically you can communicate with women who have time to recognize how amazing you are and may be compatible. (I think you're phenomenal, but in a totally different way.) Use it!
Paul W.:
Maybe, but how satisfying are repeated five-minute episodes of grunting in missionary position, knowing the whole time that jesus is looking over your shoulder and frowning?
I would, but it looks like you don't have time to answer.
And I didn't get anything done today. <headdesk>
No. I understand "extroverted" as "acting on one's feelings in the presence of other people", not as "logorrhea".
In relation to your earlier comment, I don't get it. You want to be the relationship equivalent of a well-appreciated clerk?
***
It really is. "Brilliant Idiocy," which I linked to a few weeks ago, was my favorite.
@ Paul W. #144:
I now understand why you were given the Molly Award for January. I enjoyed your post immensely. I'm definitely in there somewhere, in and around Item 2, and besides #144 is a perfect square, and a truly great number. (For those of you scoring in math class).
I must admit my eyes have never automatically locked onto your name as Pharyngula scrolls down my screen, but they will now.
Bravo. Take the rest of the weekend off. ;)
I think it's just the last sentence: "And gladly did he want to learn, and gladly teach."
LOLMAO. No... I don't want to BE like that, though I will not turn down well-appreciated. But I just liked the idea of a guy who is smart, serious, well-spoken, honorable, tactful, happy to learn new things, and not afraid to make a good well-founded argument in support of what he thinks.
oh, ffs. it doesn't have fuck-all to do with how you feel about it! if people you're geographically stuck with have zero respect for you, it becomes very difficult to live a normal life. that's what I'm trying to explain here. and no, college campus isn't the only place where this happens (though, since this started as a question about fratboys, that's where it's most relevant), the same applies to small towns and rural areas, neighborhoods in cities, even some internet communities, especially when they bleed into meatspace (otherwise, you can just neatly excise them when they start getting too toxic)
Haven't seen any study on the frequency of casual sex amongst gay men and women. So what I'm about to say is purely anecdotal, but from what I've gathered, lesbians have on average significantly less frequent casual sex than gay men. To be checked (too lazy to check now).
That's always been a question I had, what would it look like if we could do away with all the different ridiculous social norms about sex that have been imposed upon us by religions ?
If we could just follow our natural propensity towards sex (orientation/frequency) and could we separate this from the LTR/family/child making+education constructs ?
I don't know if this makes any sense, it's getting time when my brain needs a rest.
actually, I'm wondering about that, too, if only because often when I try to explain to someone that women can want and be capable of causal sex without getting all emotional about it, I get the "gay men fuck everything that moves, gay women move in together on the second date" thing thrown at me.
Anyway, this thread is making me feel like a gay man stuck in a woman's body, and not just because my first reaction to negs mentioning darkrooms was "ooh, why can't we have those?!"
I don't think either of those is quite right. As I understand, extroverts like to seek out social interactions, have an easier time doing it and often thrive in large social gatherings. So someone who enjoys casual sex would have to be a little bit extroverted by definition, since it involves establishing a new social interaction, but I wouldn't say they have to be "extremely" so. Some people might have an easier time making that sort of connection than having a meaningful conversation with someone they don't know. And casual sex usually involves only having to interact with one person (no offense, neg), so it is not necessarily more stressful for introverted people than, say, mingling at the department social event.
sorry this is a pretty long one
OK so way back in Episode 33 I dropped a big stinky bomb of an intentionally provocative* comment about how to think about human phenotypic variation (following up on a reference to a recently published study, which afaict only Marjanović ever addressed).
And then I disappeared for a few days, and then sort of reappeared, and that was all several subThreads ago now. But I didn’t forget and I feel like I owe those who took my bait, as it were, an honest response. So here goes, stream-of-catching-up-on-comments style.
Thank you to David Marjanović, Pygmy Loris, SC, RevBDC, Ol’Greg, and Antiochus Epiphanes for responding. All blockquotes are copypasta from comments in Ep 33.
For context, here is DM’s response to the Woodley abstract:
I questioned (more out of ignorance than argument) the veracity of the “separate cline for every gene” assertion, saying that it was my impression that, to the contrary, quite a bit of genetic variation was correlated and geographically clustered. Then later I stepped in it completely by claiming that “The old categories of ‘race’ lack clear boundaries, are social constructs, etc. but they were not based on nothing. They were based on geographically covarying, more-or-less fixed phenotypic traits,” and then PL sez**:
And so that’s what I was responding to with the bomb-post linked above (Ep 33 @#555). And so now I am going back and reading what followed for the first time. So here we go.
Crappy, but that was the whole point of it. Self-identifications of cherry-picked contemporary Americans? Racial categories are social constructs, I get it. Red herring: I was explicitly talking about something else. [For that same reason, I am not going to respond here to any of the interesting and well-written comments that discussed classical categories of “race.”]
No, I was specifically NOT talking about skin color; there’s a difference. It’s the easy case. I will grant skin-melanin-content as an adaptation to latitudinal variation in solar radiation.
Your implication here and in what follows is that a) gene-flow is and has never been ‘limited’ among human populations (small-island exceptions aside), and that b) every phenotypic trait that varies among humans represents adaptation to local environments. I can’t tell whether by “environmental influence” you’re talking about natural selection, or alluding to phenotypic plasticity, but I am skeptical that either can be supported for most traits.
(Thank you, PL, for the recommended reading, and in particular the link to the issue of Am. J. Physical Anthropol. Bookmarked and I am planning to have a look tonight.)
And, yes, reading along,clines of local adaptation seems to be the consensus view…I guess that’s what windy means by “ecotypic”? Locally adapted demes of a larger metapopulation as it were? But all you-all wish to deny a role for limited gene flow…why? Got data?
Next AE weighs in on the pop-gen tip:
Well, that would have been my point if I knew at the time that people were dealing with the apparent paradox of clear geographic variation despite putative panmicticism (panmixis?) by positing strong selection gradients for every individual phenotypic trait.
Don’t have to bookmark that, since I still have it bookmarked from, probably, like, the time before last. OK, now I feel bad. Naw I never did read that stuff. After I get through these direct responses I’ll go over there next.
Sure, in theory. Yes I was negligent in not acknowledging the possibility of selection in the first place (sort of ironic if you knew my reputation elsewhere, specifically Larry Moran’s blog, as a superduperadaptationist—windy knows)(and of course I already knew about melanin, UV and rickets). But to be clear: you are claiming, for the kinds of visually assessed phenotypic traits we are talking about, selection coefficients and gradients of a magnitude comparable to the sickle-cell hemoglobin allele in malarial regions? Really? Because I find that a remarkably strong claim as an assertion like that.
yeah. Look, I really do promise I’ll read that stuff tonight, and I’ll start with Lewontin’s, but for now I gotta tell you that he’s probably not the best population geneticist to cite when you’re talking to someone who is already explicitly suspicious of ideological motivations behind some of these ostensibly scientific claims. No, I haven’t read this particular piece yet (I will, really), but I’ve read plenty of Lewontin, including Not In Our Genes and probably everything he’s written on adaptation, and I even [kw*k] took a grad course from him way back in the day when he was doing a visiting gig [/kw*k]***. So I’ll admit surprise at this point if the guy who signed his name to the spandrels paper and has always mocked just-so stories whenever given the opportunity is signing off on the all-geographic-variation-is-adaptation thing…but I guess I’ll find out later.
Please with the skin color and blood-groups. OK? I am thinking way past skin color; see above, and blood-groups is irrelevant. My entire point here is that—and again, I could be wrong—but my claim hypothesis is that there is geographic clustering of phenotipic variation. I am questioning the every-trait-with-its-own-independent-cline assertion. I haven’t looked for any data, but nobody’s shown me any either. Other than reading recommendations I mean.
and I think that was about it.
OK, I’ll go read some stuff, and look for some data. Thanks, seriously and sincerely, for the input.
*with the explicit intention being to learn something about the way other people are thinking about the subject by provoking knowledgable responses from the local natural and social science-types
**(and also the somewhat remarkable assertion that “There are very few, if any, phenotypic traits that have no adaptive value.”)
***I was brand-new at the Big U and callow as hell and he scared the shit out of me to be honest
shit all that and I forgot:
I also am surprised that nobody mentioned sexual selection. Wasn't that Darwin's explanation for lots of human geographic variation? I'm sure I recall Jared Diamond talking about it in the Third Chimpanzee, too. Is it not part of the conversation any more?
OK, now I shut up and read for a while.
So broad as to be obvious and meaningless.
No kidding. What that has to do with "more intelligent" than you I can't imagine.
Uh,...
OK.
SC OM #139
No, we weren't dishonest. Both of us were using each other for sex. While the sex was great there was nothing but great sex. We didn't do anything with each other besides having sex. I had been with this woman for months and I didn't know anything about her. We rarely talked and never talked about anything consequential. I knew more about her roommate than I did about her. Six months of one night stands does get tiresome.
When I met my wife I knew "this is a woman I want to know." We talked about everything and anything. We learned about each other. We discovered we were compatible in the major things and willing to compromise about certain minor things. In short, we got to know each other. I never did that with the first woman.
By the time we got around to having sex, and it was me holding back, we had fallen in love with each other. The first few times the sex wasn't as good as I had experienced with the first woman. But we discussed sex just like we discussed everything else. We taught each other some things to enhance both my pleasure and hers.
Sure, my wife and I have fucked as well as made love. But the fucking is good and the love making is excellent. Even now, when I'm in my 60s and my wife is mumblety-mumble years younger than me, we have an active and pleasurable sex life.
Ack! I should have said "I'm located somewhere just below Item 2 in Paul W's #144."
Just re-read it. No misogynist here. Pain isn't a turn-on for this country boy.
(*Out for a while to enjoy the day*)
Hey, don't lump me in with the all-variation-is-clinal-types. That's not what "ecotypic" means anyway. I think isolation and selection may have created interesting "clusters" of phenotypic differentiation even if the "clusters" are connected by intermediates.
Openly? Fine. (Didn't seem to be what you were saying, though....)
SO?!
Again - so? If you had wanted to know more about her [than sexually], you could have asked. If not, not. Who cares?
So?
I don't know karate, but I know caaa-razy
Sven, your link fu in the beginning of comment #195 is weak.
Long questions to 'Tis short:
If you had had sex with your now-wife on the first date/meeting, would you now be married? If not, why not? What difference would this have made?
I can only give examples of traits that don't covary. If you go from Sudan over Rwanda to the Congo, one "racial" feature after another – skin color before nose shape, hair shape somewhere within the skin color gradient... – changes from "white" to "black". If you go from Turkey to China, the variation is so continuous as to be imperceptible on the ground as far as I know.
Even with sexual selection*, I can't see how anything but a serious geographic barrier could restrict human gene flow enough for phylospecies to emerge. It doesn't take many Jadehawks or scooter**s to get the genes flowing.
* It clearly exists, and probably explains the spread of things like blue eyes – all blue-eyed people are descended from one person that lived some 6,000 years ago, IIRC.
** Hasn't been present in this thread, but has said in another that he's "sexually adventurous" and that he has pretty successfully... sampled as much of human phenotypic variation as possible (well, female only, I think, but still; doesn't matter here anyway) just for the sake of having tried it once; doesn't seem to have known that not every man is "sexually adventurous" like him.
That the usual American classification isn't tenable, or that the same person can be "black" in the USA, "colored" in South Africa, and "white" in Brazil, doesn't mean that no such categories exist at all.
From what I know, they still don't exist, but for different reasons.
SC:
I hope it's clear that I was posting what I posted largely for balance. I do understand that women get screwed over in many of the same ways.
I also think that the problems that result from different statistical trends between the sexes cause problems for both sexes, though in different ways because of the asymmetries, and that women often get the shorter end of a stick that's short on both ends.
Absolutely.
One of the things I think is pathetic is how much of a market there is for female sex workers, and how horribly stigmatized they are. Many guys would buy sex from a woman, but would never marry a woman who'd ever sold it. (Which is just a more extreme version of the "slut/stud" asymmetry which hurts everybody.)
I also see downsides to legalized sex work. For example, if we don't do something about the difference between men's and women's attitudes with respect to looks vs everything else, many guys may go for paid-for casual sex with nice-looking prostitutes, and leave many not-as-nice-looking women with other (undervalued) virtues having little to "trade on" in finding a mate. If we can't make the differences in values go away, sometimes it's advantageous if people have to trade one thing for another, at least in the short run, rather than opt out.
The utter ickiness of that thought is one of the things that convinces me that ID is false, and there is no God.
BTW, the Sexual Security Administration proposal was a joke, but I hope a thought-provoking one.
If we could just follow our natural propensity towards sex (orientation/frequency) and could we separate this from the LTR/family/child making+education constructs ? - negentropyeater
I don't think that's possible even in principle: we're socio-cultural animals, and sex for us is unavoidably entangled with all sorts of other aspects of that.
However, there's an obvious reason why straight women on average might be less willing to go in for casual sex than straight men, that doesn't need to be down either to innate propensities or social conditioning: they would generally risk more. Most obviously, pregnancy; also, as men are usually physically stronger, being coerced into something they do not want, injured, or even killed.
I've long been happily monogamous, but I do wish I'd had more partners earlier in life. However, as far as I recall, I never wanted a one-night stand; certainly, the couple of times that seemed to be on offer, I didn't take it up - although this may have been sheer fear I wouldn't be able to "perform" as expected.
Hm. I was looking for a one-night stand (or one week, whatever) when I first met my husband, and I think he was, too.
We were both a little freaked when we turned out to really really like each other.
Pitfalls of casual sex, five years this month.
Nitpick: you would hit (DR) Congo first from Sudan.
But that gene (OCA2) is apparently connected to skin color as well, so it could also be a side effect of selection for light skin.
redrabbitslife @ 210:
:D When I met my husband to be, the sexual attraction between us was damn near electric. The only thing on our minds was sex. Lots and lots of sex. We'll have our 31st anniversary the 11th of this month.
Yes, there was a vicious attack on men. Not.
Bullshit.
Plantinga? That you?
Yes, poor, poor "everybody."
I don't know. All I do know is that I had recently got out of a sex-driven relationship and I didn't want to get into another one.
Jadehawk @191
If this has been your experience, I'd suggest that you need to develop better taste in men or at least go out of your geographic/social area to find fuck buddies. I've lived in all of the above geographical places [including a rural town of 200] and haven't found the same problems you describe, even during the course of a 17 year open marriage that we weren't shy about.
And, whether you like it or not, whether one cares about others' lack of "respect" is important in sorting out social strata. Present as weak, and you will be attacked. Present as strong, and there are those who will change their minds.
Well, I hate to sound like a fuddy duddy, but I'm with 'Tis, sort of, on the sex-planation. Sex is better, as in excellent over quite good, when I also have other emotions such as caring, sharing, and growing (in both knowledge and self-awareness) to bring to the physical act. And, I guess I'm just more relaxed in such a situation; and relaxation is more of a turn-on for me than is novelty. Can't say I've always been this way, but I am this way now.
Which is not to say that I don't also enjoy fucking just for the fun of it. Yay! Celebrate and honor the human body. Whoo, boy!
So why do I prefer a caring relationship, (doesn't have to be Love with a capital "L", but at least some level of mutual appreciation), to casual sex? Because the sex is better that way for me. And I so adore a good sexual relationship.
To each his or her own.
I certainly don't attach pseudo-moral constraints associated with definitions of sluts, whores, madonnas, marriage-only and so forth to my sex life. Most of the people in my community do attach those ideas to sex, and they would display and perhaps act on condemnation of me if they knew about my life as a single woman. So I don't tell them.
In my area, the self-appointed morality police are in a position to destroy one's income.
Lynna @ 217:
Yep. Discreetness counts.
Epikt:
Maybe, but how satisfying are repeated five-minute episodes of grunting in missionary position, knowing the whole time that jesus is looking over your shoulder and frowning?
Apparently reasonably satisfying---the study I saw said that the conservative christians reported higher satisfaction with their sex lives, as well as more frequent sex.
That could just be low standards; the study wasn't detailed enough to tell.
My impression is that most conservative people are less conservative about sex than they used to be. They mostly still think homos shouldn't have sex with each other, and that promiscuous women are sluts, but they're less hung up about sex within marriage. (Sex for fun being okay within marriage, more of them thinking oral sex is okay, etc.)
Whatever. (And still no email. :|)
And all I do know is that I have no idea what this has to do with what I asked.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p_tvjqSrBk
(This is not the sexiest scene from the film. Is it on YT?)
oh sure, because I'm talking about myself, and only myself here [/sarcasm]
seriously, fuck off. my own sex-life doesn't need improvement. I'm however not so blind as to assume this shit doesn't happen. I've seen it happen often enough to all sorts of people in all sorts of places, so I'm not going to be in denial about the fact that sexual rumors make women's lives difficult, but not usually men's lives.
Jadehawk, OM | March 6, 2010 6:26 PM:
Better watch out. If you're not careful, you'll develop an addiction to hardcore gay male porn!
Knockgoats @209:
All of which they are at risk for in "relationships". And keep in mind that not every instance of casual sex occurs with a total stranger - it's perfectly possible to do the one-night-stand thing with a friend.
Oh. FFS. Because others have been arguing to the contrary. Right. Can you stop with the friggin' strawmen, please?
Paul W. | March 6, 2010 7:59 PM:
But imagine how satisfying they are knowing God is present and Mary intercedes.
The Redhead and I knew each other a long time before getting intimate (we met in Jr. High, and finally consummated our relationship in my Jr. year as an undergraduate). We've been married for 35+ years. We offer no moral judgments upon those who behaved differently. Every person is slightly different, and their urges/timing is different. We find the logic of the frat "boys" (whore/madonna) to be laughable. What ever works for you. I drink to that...
And that's what actually matters. Of course there is variance among individual MPs. The relevant issue is what that variance sums up to.
Obviously I was asking you, Walton. You concede that the Liberal Democrats are more secular than your party, and to the left of your party. You also offer that the Green Party and the Socialist Workers Party, both actively secular parties, represent the left. And we may note that a great many people who left New Labour when it became too right-wing have chosen the Liberal Democrats as a more practical vehicle for reformist leftism.
To debate the "natural home" of secularism is a semantic distraction, but clearly any secularist in the UK looking for a home will find it more easily to the left of your party.
When the subject has already been known to beat the spouse in the past, it's a legitimate question.
You're dismayed, Walton? When I criticize you, I have the goddamn decency to explain myself and answer your objections. Now let me repeat:
Really. Citation needed, Walton. Exactly which misconceptions do you suppose that I have, and where are the quotes that suggest I have them?
Again, citation needed. Exactly what was I wrong about? Quotes, please.
This is not the first time you've made vague and inflammatory criticisms of me and then ignored my requests for clarification or evidence.
Rather, you won't be bothered, just like you've never bothered to address these points in the past:
"A number."
Would you care to tally the numbers then? This will also require showing the percentage of recently incoming MPs that have voted against the abortion restrictions.
Yes, it does. The institution is the people. The party does not hold some higher and purer goals than the people who make it up.
Campaigning for Conservatives in general, as you do, will result in more restrictions. You don't merely vote. You advocate.
So helping all their candidates, including all the anti-choice MPs. It might be another matter if you'd quit quacking about "a Conservative government will be better for the UK" and stick to evangelizing for a particular pro-choice candidate. But you won't.
A "free vote" doesn't mean what you want it to mean, that the Conservative party is not anti-woman. A stance doesn't need to be party policy if it's nevertheless shared by 80% of MPs.
And a new criticism: you seem to think that because we don't recognize the concept of a conscience vote here in the United States, I don't understand it. No. I am simply not fooled by it.
In practice, all votes here are conscience votes; it would follow from your reasoning that no matter how many Congress Critters of one party vote for an issue, it cannot be considered party policy. An objection equivalent to yours would be that only what's listed in the party platform can be considered party policy. Both of these are absurdities.
Yet you apparently fall for such absurdities. Time and again you try to tell me that conscience votes can never be indicative of party policy. Has it never occurred to you that one of the most effective ways of achieving policy without taking responsibility and criticism for it is to enact that policy by free vote? Even without such collusion, it's our actions that define us, the same for groups as for individuals. Are you so shallow that a party can draw a supposed distinction between official policy (words) and action, and you'll happily agree that only words matter, not actions?
You recognize reality when you admit the Lib Dems hold official policy you agree with yet have members whose votes make you wary. Yet you appear to fall for the smoke and mirrors when David Cameron does his act. I'm dismayed, Walton. You're a far more gullible creature than I'd previously imagined.
Of course it does mean that the Conservative Party approves of their positions, when they had the alternative of remaining in the European People's Party instead of joining the extremist European Conservatives and Reformists, a tiny minority faction, of which Law and Justice and the Tories make up 75%. The group is not broad, and the choice was not arbitrary.
That it did in fact mean the Conservative Party approves of their positions was well understood when Edward McMillan-Scott was assured "that the new group contained nobody whose views or activities one could find objectionable," and the other members had been so vetted for approval by the Conservatives.
Are you fucking serious?
It is established fact, on video obtained by the BBC, that Michał Kamiński called gay men "pedały" at a time when even mainstream Polish society -- not just gay men -- recognized the term to be hateful. The interviewer even tells Kamiński that the term is offensive, and he repeats it: "well, what can I say? They are pedały."
The word has been translated in the British press as "faggots," since both terms are derogatory homophobic slang. But this does not do the word justice. It actually means "pederasts," and invokes not just hatred of gay men, but the pogrom-instigating legend that we are sexual predators who rape little boys to "convert" them into sodomites.
One might reconsider Kamiński if he acknowledged that he had hated gay men but has since changed his ways, truly apologized and recognized the gravity of his error, and had since worked hard for LGBT equality. Of course he has not done even the slightest; to this day he lies and denies that the word was offensive when he used it, a lie betrayed by the interviewer's own interjection in that very video.
There can be no doubt that when someone does something unequivocally homophobic, and then will not even admit that it was homophobic, that person still hates gay people.
For Iain Dale to deliberately overlook this is unconscionable. Iain Dale is either self-loathing, having internalized homophobia so completely that he believes he deserves to be called a boyfucker, or he is a Liar For Cameron. Either way he cannot be trusted.
What bullshit! Edward McMillan-Scott is a loyal Tory. He brings this danger to light not to hurt the Conservatives, but to help them avoid disaster. What thanks he gets -- they threw him out of the party for standing up for what's right. It's a damn shame that shallow Cameron partisans like yourself are unwilling to listen to your few moral guides.
As I've tried to tell you, avoiding responsibility for the consequences of your choices -- choices like advocating for the Conservative Party in general -- only hurts you. To deny your responsibility is to deny that your life is worth taking seriously, to deny the only opportunity for freedom that a human ever has. It's just going to make you miserable.
Why I give a shit about your happiness, while you offer apologia for someone who calls me a child molester, I don't even know.
Uh-oh, I just realized that I inadvertently intimated that 'Tis Himself is a fuddy-duddy. Not what I meant. I meant: I agree with 'Tis Himself about the importance of getting to know someone if you want to have a relationship that includes great sex, and that also extends beyond sex. And I realize that this attitude may come off as fuddy-duddyish in some circles -- so I emphasized that I operate that way because it works best for me, and not because I feel that there is some moral law that dictates my way as the best or only way.
All of which they are at risk for in "relationships". - DominEditrix
True, but not relevant to my point as far as I can see. Why the scare-quotes around "relationships" BTW?
And keep in mind that not every instance of casual sex occurs with a total stranger - it's perfectly possible to do the one-night-stand thing with a friend.
Not sure I'd call that "casual sex"; it's certainly a different situation, and if I'm right, there should be less difference between the sexes there, as people are more likely to trust a friend than a stranger - even though they can be mistaken.
And that's what actually matters. Of course there is variance among individual MPs. The relevant issue is what that variance sums up to.
Obviously I was asking you, Walton. You concede that the Liberal Democrats are more secular than your party, and to the left of your party. You also offer that the Green Party and the Socialist Workers Party, both actively secular parties, represent the left. And we may note that a great many people who left New Labour when it became too right-wing have chosen the Liberal Democrats as a more practical vehicle for reformist leftism.
To debate the "natural home" of secularism is a semantic distraction, but clearly any secularist in the UK looking for a home will find it more easily to the left of your party.
When the subject has already been known to beat the spouse in the past, it's a legitimate question.
You're dismayed, Walton? When I criticize you, I have the goddamn decency to explain myself and answer your objections. Now let me repeat:
Really. Citation needed, Walton. Exactly which misconceptions do you suppose that I have, and where are the quotes that suggest I have them?
Again, citation needed. Exactly what was I wrong about? Quotes, please.
This is not the first time you've made vague and inflammatory criticisms of me and then ignored my requests for clarification or evidence.
Rather, you won't be bothered, just like you've never bothered to address these points in the past:
"A number."
Would you care to tally the numbers then? This will also require showing the percentage of recently incoming MPs that have voted against the abortion restrictions.
Yes, it does. The institution is the people. The party does not hold some higher and purer goals than the people who make it up.
Campaigning for Conservatives in general, as you do, will result in more restrictions. You don't merely vote. You advocate.
So helping all their candidates, including all the anti-choice MPs. It might be another matter if you'd quit quacking about "a Conservative government will be better for the UK" and stick to evangelizing for a particular pro-choice candidate. But you won't.
A "free vote" doesn't mean what you want it to mean, that the Conservative party is not anti-woman. A stance doesn't need to be party policy if it's nevertheless shared by 80% of MPs.
And a new criticism: you seem to think that because we don't recognize the concept of a conscience vote here in the United States, I don't understand it. No. I am simply not fooled by it.
In practice, all votes here are conscience votes; it would follow from your reasoning that no matter how many Congress Critters of one party vote for an issue, it cannot be considered party policy. An objection equivalent to yours would be that only what's listed in the party platform can be considered party policy. Both of these are absurdities.
Yet you apparently fall for such absurdities. Time and again you try to tell me that conscience votes can never be indicative of party policy. Has it never occurred to you that one of the most effective ways of achieving policy without taking responsibility and criticism for it is to enact that policy by free vote? Even without such collusion, it's our actions that define us, the same for groups as for individuals. Are you so shallow that a party can draw a supposed distinction between official policy (words) and action, and you'll happily agree that only words matter, not actions?
You recognize reality when you admit the Lib Dems hold official policy you agree with yet have members whose votes make you wary. Yet you appear to fall for the smoke and mirrors when David Cameron does his act. I'm dismayed, Walton. You're a far more gullible creature than I'd previously imagined.
Of course it does mean that the Conservative Party approves of their positions, when they had the alternative of remaining in the European People's Party instead of joining the extremist European Conservatives and Reformists, a tiny minority faction, of which Law and Justice and the Tories make up 75%. The group is not broad, and the choice was deliberative, not arbitrary.
That it did in fact mean the Conservative Party approves of their positions was well understood when Edward McMillan-Scott was assured "that the new group contained nobody whose views or activities one could find objectionable," and the other members had been so vetted for approval by the Conservatives.
Are you fucking serious?
It is established fact, on video obtained by the BBC, that Michał Kamiński called gay men "pedały" at a time when even mainstream Polish society -- not just gay men -- recognized the term to be hateful. The interviewer even tells Kamiński that the term is offensive, and he repeats it: "well, what can I say? They are pedały."
The word has been translated in the British press as "faggots," since both terms are derogatory homophobic slang. But this does not do the word justice. It actually means "pederasts," and invokes not just hatred of gay men, but the pogrom-instigating legend that we are sexual predators who rape little boys to "convert" them into sodomites.
One might reconsider Kamiński if he acknowledged that he had hated gay men but has since changed his ways, truly apologized and recognized the gravity of his error, and had since worked hard for LGBT equality. Of course he has not done even the slightest; to this day he lies and denies that the word was offensive when he used it, a lie betrayed by the interviewer's own interjection in that very video.
There can be no doubt that when someone does something unequivocally homophobic, and then will not even admit that it was homophobic, that person still hates gay people.
For Iain Dale to deliberately overlook this is unconscionable. Iain Dale is either self-loathing, having internalized homophobia so completely that he believes he deserves to be called a boyfucker, or he is a Liar For Cameron. Either way he cannot be trusted.
What bullshit! Edward McMillan-Scott is a loyal Tory. He brings this danger to light not to hurt the Conservatives, but to help them avoid disaster. What thanks he gets -- they threw him out of the party for standing up for what's right. It's a damn shame that shallow Cameron partisans like yourself are unwilling to listen to your few moral guides.
As I've tried to tell you, avoiding responsibility for the consequences of your choices -- choices like advocating for the Conservative Party in general -- only hurts you. To deny your responsibility is to deny that your life is worth taking seriously, to deny the only opportunity for freedom that a human ever has. It's just going to make you miserable.
Why I give a shit about your happiness, while you offer apologia for someone who calls me a child molester, I don't even know.
SC, I've just sent you an email.
Meaningless.
I know what you meant, Lynna, but probably because I feel the same way. My fornicatin' days were pretty high-volume, but I cannot honestly say I enjoyed most of the sex I had back then...mostly because it was all about validation for me (am I attractive/interesting enough to get X into bed? Am I the best he's ever had? Am I making the right noises?) rather than any physical fulfillment on my end. Being in a LTR (married for 13 years, together for 17) gives me the security I need to let go of every inhibition I ever had, to ask for what I want, to fully give myself over to the experience in a way that wasn't possible when I was so preoccupied with...posing. So while it's admittedly less frequent than either of us would like, it's eminently more satisfying.
(Oh, and for the record, I'd never fuck this guy--not even back in the day)
To you, maybe. It's obvious that Lynna and I agree on this point so for us it's quite meaningful.
Jadehawk #221: Oooh, clearly hit a nerve there...
You're naive if you think that males don't suffer from sexual rumours, true or false - think "X is gay" in a homophobic community - say, that jock frat, perhaps. And there's a reason the suicide rate is higher amongst gay teens/young 20s than amongst straight kids.
My point was that it's a lot more complex than your posited women-can-be-destroyed-by-sexual-rumour-men-can't. You've "seen it happen often enough to all sorts of people ["people"="only women", from your previous asseverations] - really? Hordes of women, from all over, having to leave town?
BTW, should you ever to a big city, there are het sex clubs with appropriately dark atmospheres where you can find that anonymous fuck-in-the-dark you want. They're not just for gay men anymore.
I'm lost. What is this Intersection place and where is it and why would I want to go there? And what is WWHM? Honest, I try to keep up with the never-ending thread, but it's just not always possible.
SC @ 232:
I don't see why. Myself, I had much casual sex in my earlier years, and as noted upthread somewhere, I enjoyed all of it. While I've never had any personal difficulty indulging in it, I've known a great many people who don't want to indulge that way, especially if they are looking for a LTR. As they are looking for love, meaning and substance, they initially put sex farther down on the priority list. Different strokes and all that.
Yes, you're deeply spiritual. So answer my earlier questions.
Yes, you're deeply spiritual. So answer my earlier questions.
To be clear:
Please respond to my suggestions about getting to know people better and so forth.
I have meaningful sex with someone I love all the time.
Me.
Wait
tmi?
Rev. BDC, you're well below boygenius's tmi level, so you're fine. ;) BTW, bacon recipe at #99.
Then they don't care that the person they're fucking is not attracted to them and not enjoying the sex, and they don't care that they're exploiting the prostitute's economic insecurity to get what they want. This is to treat the prostitute as an object for one's own ends, not a subject with preferences of their own.
On the sad, unfuckable john.
How tragic that a man should have to try, like other people do, to make himself interesting and attractive.
How tragic that a man should have to search, like other people do, to find someone who shares his interests and is interested in him.
sex + beyond sex = good
A bit deep into the thread now, alas, but I see (as it were) your anthropomorphic penis and raise you a rampaging army of them:
Oh nice.
I've been thinking about how much i liek chocolate and bacon together. Now cupcakes. Oh yeah
Do you need to know Jesus?
leepicton | March 6, 2010 8:39 PM:
It's a hang out for concern trolls. You don't want to go there.
http://whywomenhatemen.blogspot.com/
That's very serious. Inability to keep up with the never-ending thread is a symptom of accomplishment.
Rev. BDC, I had bacon chocolate cookies for the first time several months ago. Oh boy, that's serious deliciousness. :D I think I might have to wander off and cook something with bacon now.
If you're trying to pick a fight, SC, sorry, I'm not playing.
Actually, it looks more like a tautology to me. Obviously, to have a relationship that extends beyond sex, you have to extend it beyond sex. And I'm not aware of any ways to do that that don't involve "getting to know someone".
I think SC was protesting the implicit assumption that you should get to know that someone first? (see #122 and the question about having sex "too soon") It would be helpful if you clarified this, since it's hard to tell what you are disagreeing about.
and typos
Coast Brewing Smoked Porter is affecting my typing....
yes the beer,
no seriously.
Paul W.:
I prefer to think that it's because liberals are obsessive and tireless sex machines, and impossible to satisfy. Or something.
Yes, windy. Exactly.
Even if you cognitively understand this, the section you quoted sets women and men in a fundamentally antagonistic arrangement, where women are simply gatekeepers of the pussy which men are already rightfully entitled to.
This error is of course not your own invention, but a patriarchal meme that you've learned. It's still going to set you up for disappointment.
If you aren't interesting to women, make yourself a more interesting person. Broaden your interests, learn how not to dominate the conversation, and put yourself out there where the women already are.
Whatever it is you want, there's thousands or more likely tens of millions out there who want the same thing. As long as you're imagining yourself as unfairly rejected by the gatekeepers, you won't be understanding this as a two-way dynamic.
As a general truism, you are only interesting to others to the extent that you are interested in them.
I don't have a clue about what SC is disagreeing about. I made a post giving part of my past history, she asked some questions, I responded, Lynna made a couple of comments, then all of a sudden she's writing stuff like "meaningless" and "Do you need to know Jesus?" My guess is SC is trying to pick a fight. Why she's doing this I don't know, but that's what it looks like to me.
@Sven #195, 196: I seriously don't know jack-all about human evolution, but nearly every other widespread species demonstrates geographic-genetic correlations, and I can't imagine why humans wouldn't*. I never really think about sexual selection...can you (or anyone...erm, Marjanović? Pygmy Loris?) explain why sexual selection may have resulted in geographical-races**?
*Its so common actually, that people who want to test some other hypothetical cause of genetic correlation must first falsify this null in many cases.
**That's what we call it in plants...metapopulations that vary as a function of latitude and longitude.
really? you're going to use lines from the troll-toolkit now? "ooh, you're reacting strongly to my wild incorrect accusations, therefore I must be right"? really?
nice goalpost shifting. we were talking about taking "revenge" on a dude by spreading the same messages about him that are spread by them about women, and why this doesn't affect them as much.
I have never claimed anything about any other sort of rumors, but nice try.
nice, except I didn't write any of what you're railing against. I was writing about worst-case scenarios as a result of spreading sex-stories about men among women, vs. sex-stories about women among men. later you seemed to imply that negative effects don't happen at all, so I broadened the scope and explained that I see it happen all the time, and that women have to guard against that in casual encounters. I also never said that it can't affect men. I said it usually doesn't. and yes, rumors of gayness are a major exception, but that's not what we were talking about in this case.
thank you, big powerful city woman, for explaining these things to an ignunt little prairie muffin like me.
My questions:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/03/episode_xxxvi_the_predictabl…
strange gods before me (#255)
Don't forget hygiene. Learning not to smell like something that died a week ago is always very helpful. You'd think this would be obvious, but apparently it's not.
Knockgoats @228:
Oh, I dunno - I guess I don't consider those "relationships" [y'know, the ones where X assaults/batters/kills Y] to fall under the connotation of relationship as people have been using it herein [all that stuff about love, intimacy, etc.]. And something about X regarding Y as less-than-human not equaling a relationship.
And yes, it is relevant, if you're positing that women are at a greater risk during casual sex; statistically, they're more at risk with a partner with whom they have ongoing interaction.
I think we may have different definitions of casual sex - mine is pretty much le ça-va ça-vient pour le ça-va ça-vient [or, to sound less melodious*, the ol' in-and-out for the sake of the ol' in-and-out], rather than something with potential to become anything else. An example: There was a quite gorgeous young man who hung out at the bar near Columbia where a bunch of us went to drink ourselves into oblivion, would that were possible with tea. Absolutely scrumptious and very sweet, but without a brain in his head. I think every woman in my group had a lovely tumble or two, but there was no way in Hades it would ever be more than very, very casual, as he was the male equivalent of the dumb blonde. But we all stayed friendly and ran into each other frequently at the bar. None of us had expectations of more.
Smart fuck-buddies also fall into that casual category for me. YMMV. I prefer bright, TBH, but I try not to discriminate. /grin
*French, a language in which one can ask one's lover to empty the cat box and still sound romantic...
Oh, now you tell me!
Jadehawk, hey, I'm the prairie muffin, bein' all rural and stuff. You're the city chick, at least when it comes to us ignunt Dakotans. ;D
I believe that is spelled "pron"
Unbelievable. I stayed away for a couple of days and you filled up an entire thread and are at #263 here as I write this.
I'll never catch up at this rate.
Oh, A. Noyd, while you're here, I want to apologize for being a shithead to you on the Danish cartoonists thread. Our disagreement did not justify my attitude. I'm sorry.
Still waiting
... Hrm... Bitta back and forth... That's all right, sure...
But y'know, I think what this thread needs is some comic relief...
(/I'd meant to post this in the previous/objectifying men subthread, but seem to have missed that by a bit. Pity.)
jenbphillips
I applaud your judgment. What a dishonest creep.
I really hope no one here tonight is a UNC fan...
ouch
Good grief you've all been busy!
Tis Himself - Thought about you today during my outing. There were large white sail boats all over the Columbia river. For some reason they were all leaning to the left, and so far over that you could see the different colors their bellies are painted. Lovely to watch!
!!! Rocks! (No way that cowbell can be human, though.)
They always have problems playing my songs. So...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgSVTdAtNYE
Hey Patricia! Did you have a good time?
Sounds like another good time Patricia.
That's because the wind was coming from the right.
It's called "heeling."
It's considered a feature, not a bug.
Although it can be overdone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6LO3LEk_bw
What do you mean, the sail wasn't underwater. That's overdoing it...
http://listen.grooveshark.com/#/s/Swamp/sUAUf
When the boat's heeling that far, things can get exciting and the boat can start making expensive noises quite quickly.
Janine & Nerd - Well...yes I did actually have a good time. Besides watching the sailing boats, I had a couple of shall we say 'breathless moments'. *smirk*
The brass breastplate is all well and good, dear, but don't wear it so tight!
Don't doubt it. My understanding of any boatmanship is: rule 1, keep the boat/ship afloat. Rule 2, see rule #1.
Tis - One of the boats had lots of people up on the deck, and their expressions were of pure joy. The boats were going FAST!
Good for you, Patricia. Glad to hear it.
SC, don't worry about the government.
Oo-er missus?
(Nice going!)
Josh, Remarks regarding the heft of the brass bosoms can get you marched stiffly to the rear of the spanking couch line. *snort* ;)
Yes.
http://listen.grooveshark.com/#/s/Swamp/sUAUf
As far as I'm concerned, sailing is the most fun you can have with your clothes on.
My first love, E Scows.
Damn, I miss sailing E Scows.
First boats I ever raced.
Yay, an actual attack as opposed to random threats and swear words! I feel so validated. You should all know that I don’t really make Therapeutic Touch, Reiki, or foot baths a focus in my practice, but I will act as their spokesperson here.
Nerd of Redhead wanted a Nature article. Even homeopathy has appeared in Nature, but got immediately pounced on by the skeptics. Here’s the defense link (old news, Benveniste for those who know this one already): http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/view,123 How about the Annals of Internal Medicine. Cochrane? I’ve got both below on Therapeutic Touch
For Ol’Greg, we’ve got large studies of long term, hospital based results for Naturopathic medicine, but I refer you to Dr. Novella’s “homeopaths on the run” comments page for my comments, the research link, and Enzo trashing the link without reading the study. I’ve finally got Dr. Novella to come out and play, but my really cool ALS idea was put in “wait mode” instead of just posted. I guess he wants to read it through before it goes on the blog. I must be that scary.
I didn’t casually throw away the Rosa study on Therapeutic Touch. Other people have thrown it away for me: Altern Ther Health Med. 2003 Jan-Feb;9(1):58-64.A nurse-statistician reanalyzes data from the Rosa therapeutic touch study. Cox T. “Based on this reanalysis, the authors' recommendations against the use of TT can and should be challenged because of inappropriate design and analysis as well as incorrect statistical assumptions and conclusions.” PMID: 12564352
In the meantime, the Therapeutic Touch nurses didn’t stop doing research just because Dr. Barrett yelled “boo!” Nurs Clin North Am. 2007 Jun;42(2):243-59, vi. Energy-based modalities. Engebretson J, Wardell DW. “Research on touch therapies is still in the early stages of development. Studies of Therapeutic Touch, Healing Touch, and Reiki are quite promising; however, at this point, they can only suggest that these healing modalities have efficacy in reducing anxiety; improving muscle relaxation; aiding in stress reduction, relaxation, and sense of well-being; promoting wound healing; and reducing pain. The multidimensional aspects of healing inherent in patient care continue to be expanded and facilitated by our understanding and application of energy therapies.” PMID: 17544681
I know, they are “only nurses,” (give me a veteran nurse over a snot-nosed doctor any day) so here’s the latest Cochrane answer to whether touch has any effect on pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Oct 8;(4):CD006535. “Touch therapies may have a modest effect in pain relief. More studies on HT and Reiki in relieving pain are needed” But we all knew that. Moms kiss and make it better. People need a hug. There are chemical pathways fed by human touch.
Distance energy work is a different matter. Let’s call it prayer because that’s the most common form. I’m citing the 2007 Cochrane because the 2009 Cochrane has other Cochrane researchers yelling at them. “The evidence presented so far is interesting enough to justify further study into the human aspects of the effects of prayer. However it is impossible to prove or disprove in trials any supposed benefit that derives from God's response to prayer.” Can you guess the prejudice of the author? The 2009 Cochrane writers think prayer studies are a waste of time, can you guess what they believe? Researcher beliefs flavor every medical study, which is really difficult for hard scientists to get their heads around. Medical researchers don’t just massage data, they throw data in the garbage if it doesn’t fit what they want to prove.
In terms of nondenominational “noncontact” therapeutic touch: Ann Intern Med. 2000 Jun 6;132(11):903-10 “The methodologic limitations of several studies make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the efficacy of distant healing. However, given that approximately 57% of trials showed a positive treatment effect, the evidence thus far merits further study.” Ernst posted later on to say he thought it was more placeboey now, but didn’t redo the analysis.
I think Ol’ Greg wanted me to stop hurting people and here’s the reality: we don’t, at least in the kind of holistic practice I do. Good study on holistic practice: Int J Adolesc Med Health. 2009 Jul-Sep;21(3):281-97 “Interpretation: Intensive, holistic non-drug medicine is helpful for physical, sexual, psychological, psychiatric and existential problems and is completely safe for the patient. The therapeutic value TV = NNH/NNT > 5,000. Altogether about 18,000 patients treated with different subtypes of CHM in four different countries have now been evaluated for effects, side effects and adverse events, with similar results.”
David M. wanted to know if the foot bath is a kind of massage and did I feel the current. Yes, I did feel the current, but only slightly, otherwise I would have been a cooked duck. And yes, a warm foot soak is a kind of massage, with or without electrodes in the water. The point about the water changing is that even though the electrodes were the same, sometimes the water was an oily black and sometimes it was frothy. So some sort of chemical interaction is taking place with the feet. In terms of studies, of course warm foot baths decrease adrenal “fight or flight” activity and increase “rest and digest” activity. Nothing on the electrode component, but it does keep your mind from wandering and you get to watch a chemical reaction while you relax.
I think that’s everything. Oh, yes, Sastra wanted to know how much I know about Andreas. Honestly, I met the man through Hawkins’ site, briefly when I was shut down and was busy blogging everyone. He’d been trying for months to get Hawkins so was glad to take credit. When Hawkins went down a huge number of other Wordpress sites went down. He was down for the weekend and back on Monday. Hawins never lost his Without Apology blog site on Wordpress, which doesn’t make any sense if they were actually shutting him down. I’ve emailed Myers several other fun facts, but he doesn’t take responsibility for things he starts.
Is Andreas a Cancer Quack? I’ve never even looked at his website. I’ve got enough to do defending myself here. Ask him.
Patricia @ 280:
Ooh, sounds grand! I still say he's going to follow you home and camp on your porch now that you've fed him all that delish food. ;)
You're a liar, Maloney, and a fraud. "Distance energy work?" Jeezis, can even you be that stupid?
Yes, why stop putting yourself out as a gigantic moron quack now?
Quackman, go prick your finger and have a faint.
Crossedeyed And Painless
Was there an outfit better than the big band version of the Heads?
David M. wanted to know if the foot bath is a kind of massage and did I feel the current. Yes, I did feel the current, but only slightly, otherwise I would have been a cooked duck. And yes, a warm foot soak is a kind of massage, with or without electrodes in the water. The point about the water changing is that even though the electrodes were the same, sometimes the water was an oily black and sometimes it was frothy. So some sort of chemical interaction is taking place with the feet. In terms of studies, of course warm foot baths decrease adrenal “fight or flight” activity and increase “rest and digest” activity. Nothing on the electrode component, but it does keep your mind from wandering and you get to watch a chemical reaction while you relax.
Oh you're an idiot.
Don't worry Qvack, you presented no data from Skeptical Inquirer, which is what is required to really get my attention. You need to understand why your are a con man, and the data will be found there. You have nothing. You are a fraud. You bilk your victims. You have nothing cogent and scientific to say on the subjects. Try becoming a telephone solicitor. Your honesty and integrity will increase dramatically, even though you are still in bottom of the honest jobs category. That is how fraudulent we think what you are trying to defend is. So, get with the program, and shut the fuck up.
Blockquote fail up there.
And no Janine. No there wasn't.
I've linked to it before, but
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cqg_ZGcuybs
Nerd - You should refrain from having a nasty toxic pet like Quack.
Caine - It's the deviled eggs, and beer.
That would definitely do it, Patricia.
Wow, 'Tis, those E Scows look like a blast!
Like a Laser on steroids!
Don't you miss it!
Don't you miss it!
Some of you people just about missed it!
Qwack a pet? Toxic stoopidity, yes. Lack of honesty, yes. Con man treating victims of his idiocy, yes.
If he was my pet, I would see a neck wringing in his future, followed by being cooked with plum sauce, and then the dish being tossed in the garbage before being eaten. So the question is, to let the 'coons and 'possums have a go at the carci before the trash is picked up. Nah, somebody would turn me in for all the dead scavengers...
Well, OK, I spent a bunch of time reading the Social Science Research Council zone on 'Is Race Real?' Apparently this was all prompted by an editorial by Armand Leroi ([kwok] we were postdocs in the same department at the same time [/kwok] but doing such different stuff that we very seldom interacted in any way).
Social construct.
Got it.
Most of the short articles there are themselves basically opinion pieces. Most of them are hacking away at the classical concept(s) of race. Lewontin and Marks make long series of assertions without even a reference in sight; many of them differ from Leroi's assertions. *shrug* Data? What does "85% of genetic variation" even mean? Not much help.
The best one, in terms of addressing the things I was talking about in the first place and referencing its claims, was Graves:
That's pretty much what I said in the first place. Geographic variation due (in part) to limited gene flow. Here's an example of geographically correlated human genetic variation.
I'm not even sure what the argument is about anymore if if there is one.
Don't be this guy
http://steelcloset.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/AnimalsWithAfros-20.j…
Nerd, perhaps sturgeon bait, we can always use more of that.
Sven: Thanks for the link. I wouldn't have expected Europe to be a very good example of geographic-genetic correlation, but like I said...I don't know anything about human evolution. I will have to wait until I'm back at school to read the Nature paper, linked within your link.
All this sexy talk and quacking...
Nerd @ 305:
Toss extra hard so qvuacker ends up here in ND. The vultures always look kindly on an extra meal.
Alright> I need more Adrian Belew.
It does not take a scientist to see
That any clever predator can get a piece of me
If you hear any noise
It's just me and the boys
Starchild heeeeeeeeere
Quackalicious #290 wrote:
No, the alternative health journals have not managed to either undermine the Rosa study, nor address the basic problem with Therapeutic Touch: in a controlled situation, practitioners cannot demonstrate its existence. For example, they cannot tell which hand is injured, and which hand is not injured. I realize that you don't care for James Randi, but you should realize that getting the $i million prize should be a simple thing -- if the TT practitioners can really sense energy fields. If Randi is not liked, then all the better when you walk away with the money. He does not set up the tests himself, you know. They are set up by mutually-agreed upon, neutral experts in designing controlled studies.
I think it's interesting that you both conflate TT with actual massage (as when you talk about the benefits of touch), and extol the virtues of TT's ability to reduce stress and anxiety, aid in relaxation, and so forth -- all normal benefits of massage. It sounds to me like placebo.
It also sounds to me like you're advocating a mishmash of science-based medicine, common sense, useful placebos, useless placebos, dubious remedies, and out-and-out nonsense, and don't quite know how to distinguish between them -- and assume we can't, either. We're just 'against everything.'
And, again you bring up the idea of the evil conspiracy of mainstream researchers throwing out genuine results, and ignore the problems inherent in journals which were formed for no other purpose than to show that alternative medicine works. Alt med journals are not trustworthy sources. And random studies in better journals need replication ... and can't get it.
Really? Given that your names are now coupled together because of this incident, I would have thought you'd at the very least be curious. I asked because I'm trying to figure out whether you will always defend anyone who is "alternative" -- or whether there are some limits, even with you.
Well, sturgeon aren't the brightest things. Might work. Probably depends on how far the stoopid energy radiates, and whether they can sense it. I feel my IQ going down just thinking about cooking Qvack. Time for bed.
Reading this Bilbo? NoR means to cook and (for some reason) not eat another commenter! Report immediately to the Intersuction!
Cross-post from the Nice Sign thread:
I'm not attending the convention unfortunately, but if any of you godless hoard are planning to do a bit of traveling feel free to stop by. My wife, 2 year old daughter and I live in a big old farm house with plenty of beds to spare. We own a bike store and would be happy to loan bikes to anyone who wants to toodle along the Murray to Mountains Rail Trail. The shop is in Myrtleford BTW. Feel free to contact me: info at myrtlefordcycle dot com.
Oh, and we live 100 meters from the local pub where they have Guinness on tap, if that makes a difference to you hedonists.
Aww, isn't it cute. They have their own little make-believe journal. Adorable.
Jadehawk @258:
Let's see: You took a discussion that had started re: frat boys spreading tales of sexual encounters that damaged women's reputations, stated "[me]n OTOH don't need to worry about such things", dismissed a suggestion that vengeance could be had, expanded the argument to women everywhere being forced to leave town because of ruined reputations, repeatedly rejected the notion that women had any power at all in a kiss-and-tell situation, evinced a fair amount of emotion re: said contention, declared the whole of society to be anti-woman, thereby causing all sexual rumours about women to be toxic, and, oh, yes, expressed a desire to have het darkrooms in order to have anonymous sexual encounters.
Given the above, and your subsequent OTT reaction to a suggestion that fucking boys who treat women as toys was a lapse of taste with a highly defensive snap, it's no wonder that I interpolated a sore spot.
I continue to contend that it is not only possible to get one's own back at an errant fratboy, but that more women should make the effort. That kind of male tends to have issues with his masculinity - hence, his boasting of his conquests - and that can be taken advantage of. You, OTOH, continue to contend that you see women being damaged "all the time", whilst the worst you can come up with for a male to suffer is the inability to get laid thereafter.
Then, of course, you start whingeing about troll tool kits, try to deny you've said half of what you've said and pretend I'm the one who changed the "goalposts"? Oh, puhlease. My suggested forms of revenge were never restricted to "the same messages about him that are spread by them about women". [What? That he was hot to trot? That he couldn't get enough? Sheesh!] My suggestions were all precisely aimed at the types of insecurities prevalent in the immature and insecure fratboy mentality - penis size, ability to get an erection, feminisation fetishes. That writing-on-the-bathroom-wall can be very effective - there will always be some woman who will tell her boyfriend, and he'll mention it to his friends because he thinks it's amusing or it validates his sense of sexual self-worth or because he just doesn't like the guy gossiped about. The competitive nature of young males pretty much guarantees the story will get about for all of the above reasons.
I said "a big city" because small cities don't tend to have het/pan sex clubs. NYC does, SF does, LA does, Chicago does. I somehow doubt that, say, Orlando FL does, despite having a quarter of a million residents. You took that wrong, as well. [I know nothing about prairies, but in New England farm country, "muffin" is a euphemism for piles of bovine excreta.]
I'm also unclear where you think other women are in these scenarios. Is there no sisterhood? No rallying to the defence of someone whose reputation is being attacked by some foul-mouthed male? No solace, no understanding? Or is it only men's opinions that count?
DominEditrix @ 319:
Oh, puhlease yourself. You went out of your way to be a condescending twit. You did succeed at that. You seemed to be the only person who couldn't comprehend what Jadehawk was talking about. That doesn't reflect well on you. You can get over yourself about what goes on in "big cities" too, because *gasp* most of us have lived in them, ya know. I live in ND. However, I'm a native Southern Californian who lived most of her life there. I've also traveled extensively. This is why making assumptions is not a smart move.
Oh, and us ignunt ones, yeah, we know about the muffin thing. Idiot.
DominEditrix - No one's views here are immune from criticism, and many of us (who like each other) often disagree, sometimes vocally. But even Pharyngula is not an etiquette-free zone. It's poor form to show up at a blog with a fairly regular set of members and commenters, and start going off aggressively on one of the well-respected regulars. No, Jadehawk's (or anyone's) views aren't right or wrong, or off-limits, because of her status as a regular. But you don't exactly invite a receptive audience to your ideas by seeming to barge in that way.
@ strange gods before me (#266)
I was a bit perplexed by how much issue you took with what I was saying, but I've noticed that's just one of the things that happens among regulars here. And since I'm blunt and socially insensitive* by nature, I tend not to pick up on another person's attitude unless he or she is calling attention to it, nor do I fault others for their attitudes unless they're being hypocrites. Neither of those were the case there, though. If you feel you had something to apologize for, I accept it, but there weren't ever any hard feelings on my part.
......
*I guess that's to make up for being hypersensitive towards absolutely everything else.
~*~*~*~*~*~
Sastra (#314)
People who can't understand their own limitations aren't everyone else's limitations end up rationalizing their way into conspiracy theories and other wackiness. It's pretty much required. I don't see any polite way to disabuse them, either, because it's breaking a big-ass taboo to stop pretending we're all mental equals. Maybe that's just my limitations speaking, though.
And wouldn't the world be a truly odd place if we accorded everyone respect based on what they thought they deserved?
A. Noyd:
I think we'd enter into egotistical dementia on a huge scale, were that to happen.
If we're going to talk about "high standards" and being "picky," I often wonder about those guys who place personal ads which say something like:
SWM, 35, looking for hot blond with long hair. Must be slender, 5'5" or shorter, 18-25, college educated, employed, in excellent physical condition and health. No fatties, tattoos, or kids.
Christ all Friday, Yahoo does the same damned thing Google does when I try to sign in with it! Ergh!
Point one: Some of us (as I think at least two others so far have said) start with the sex part and then get stuck on each other. Just about the first* thing the Lord of the Pies and I did alone together was have sex. Then we realized the housemates would show up and got off the parlor floor and jumped on the bed and did it some more. Having sex with someone is a great way to get to know them.
Maybe things were different in the early '70s, when even ugly women like me could get laid. Also, sex is (for some of us... Maybe just old hippies?) a friendly thing, even with strangers.
*OK. Before that he showed me his slides. I had to almost-insist. There's such a thing as geek signals.
Point Two: DominEditrix, I do believe, if memory serves, you're not a stranger here and I'm all madly in love with your 'nym, but:
No solace, no understanding?
Like what you've offered?
Or is it only men's opinions that count?
Depends on who runs the company/has the money/connections/power locally, doesn't it?
Ron Sullivan
http://toad.faultline.org
Rubbish !
It's poor form and intelllectually dishonest to let something you think is wrong fly by just because it's being said by someone who has some street cred with the in-group.
More rubbish. This is just tone concern, pure and simple.Address the argument, not the style it is presented in.
But...but...but..."guy falling in love with a hooker" is a frequent plot in films and on TV.
Great, conversations about sex. Since I can add basically nothing at all to this discussion I guess I'll go sit in the corner with Walton...
Well, well! I have been truly told off by Rorschach-an honor, indeed.
This thread has seen some bizarre comments, that's for sure ! This statement is so wrong, I don't know where to start .To me it is, anyway...:-)
I find that. . . oddly pregnant with possibilities.
Oh, dear.
Ron Sullivan @ 325:
Hee, I made that point somewhere up above (ah, there it is, #166). Considering all I've read, I'm pretty happy I came of age when I did. I also mentioned the zipless fuck but perhaps the time for that is way long gone.
Slides of what? This geek must know.
Yeah, I think I better sit that one out in the corner as well, some of the things said have weirded me out too much...:-)
My understanding is: Rule 1, don't go near the bloody things. Rule 2, if you had followed rule 1, then you wouldn't have be sick/soaked/drowned/eaten by a shark/kraken/other beastie.
SaintStephen,
144 is gross.
--
SC @259, if you link within a thread, you can just use #comment-2328755 as the link. I did thus with the SaintStephen link above.
Josh, OSG wrote (about myself and Walton in a corner together):
No, I'm pretty sure that - even if we both swung that way - there's no possibility of anything happening because neither would be able to initiate it; that's the damn problem for both of us.
At least Walton has the excuse that he's young and sheltered; I, on the other hand, should know better.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/
And there's no reason you'd want to go there except if you miss commenters who ended up in PZ's dungeon, and you'd like to see them in a circle jerk.
Caine said:
:) :) :)
I do like to set the bar pretty high! Although, there are a ton of talented, diverse folks here who could best me, I'm sure.
As to the incident in question; on the list of Things I Did In My Youth For Which I Feel Shame Or RemorseTM, it's pretty far down on the list. Most of them fall into the category of "Nothing happened, and it will never happen again".
BTW, Caine. Thinking back, one of the people I was partying with on that fateful night was from Glen Ullin. That's in your neck of the woods, innit?
Not to criticise the content of Bastion of Sass's post in any way (to be clear, I agree) but a subtle spelling difference gives this ad a perhaps unintended twist. If the copywriter wanted to meet a lady, he should instead have spelled it blonde. ;)
Like this?
For some reason, these "yo Mama" jokes reminded of Pharyngula .. for example
More here http://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/b9ssz/nerdy_yo_mamma_jokes_ill_s…
strange gods @#227 et seq.:
I don't, in any way, defend Kaminski's comments about gay people. They were inexcusable and deeply offensive. And virtually all the other Conservative activists I know - many of whom are themselves gay - would say the same.
Being part of the same group in the European Parliament does not imply approval of their leader's homophobic remarks. It just doesn't. The party groups in the European Parliament are not comparable to domestic political parties.
The Conservative Party is serious about gay rights. We have a gay shadow cabinet minister, Alan Duncan, who is one of the leading figures within the party. And, incidentally, your comments about Iain Dale are ridiculous. Calling him a "Liar For Cameron" is absurd, considering that he is often very critical of Cameron and of the party's position on several issues. And he has repeatedly spoken out against homophobia in British politics, so I don't think you have any basis for calling him "self-loathing" either. Google him, and look at his record, before you make sweeping statements that are entirely inaccurate.
Regarding abortion: I am perfectly happy to pledge that if, following the next election, a Conservative parliamentary majority lowers the 24-week limit for elective abortions, or imposes any other new substantial restriction on abortion, I will cease to support the party. I will do this even if the restriction is enacted on a conscience vote, if a substantial majority of Conservative MPs vote in favour of the restriction. I am, however, entirely confident that this will not happen.
Let's talk about sex baby (Salt N' Pepa)
Sex bomb (Tom Jones)
Je t'aime moi non plus (Serge Gainsbourg and Jane Birkin)
I now want to say something which I was too tired to express coherently last night, regarding the discussion on sex and relationships.
It's all very well to argue about whether casual sex is a good thing, if you're privileged enough to actually be in a position to have casual sex. For a not insignificant proportion of the population, this never happens. And there's a reason for that.
Societies like ours, which are relatively sexually liberal and where promiscuity is widespread and accepted,* are inevitably also very competitive in the sexual arena. Where people have a free choice of sexual partners, they are going to reject unattractive people. I therefore suspect that, for many of those who engage in it, frequent casual sex is largely about ego; it's about proving, to themselves and to others, that they're attractive and sexually successful people. The flip side of this is that those who fail in the competition for sexual partners inevitably feel inadequate, unattractive and worthless.
In short: a sexually liberal society is great, for those who are naturally attractive and socially competent and find it easy to attract partners. For unattractive people, it's not so great. I'm not making any sort of broader political or social point here, and I'm certainly not advocating a less liberal society.
I do see it as analogous in some ways to economics. In a free market economy, the struggle for jobs and resources is competitive; some people will succeed and become very wealthy, and others will lose and suffer poverty and deprivation. This success or failure will often be based on arbitrary and unfair factors. This is analogous to a sexually liberal society, in which the struggle for sexual partners is competitive, and some will succeed and have many sexual partners, while others will lose and be involuntarily celibate - again, based on arbitrary and unfair factors. By contrast, a statist economy allows citizens less freedom but, conversely, guarantees some level of financial security to everyone. I'm not sure exactly what a sexual counterpart to this would be: perhaps some conservative religious environments, where young people are under a lot of social pressure to marry early and start pumping out children as quickly as possible, and hence virtually everyone manages to get married.
*(For men more than for women; I certainly don't deny that there is an unfair inequality of treatment in this regard. But even so, male and female promiscuity is much less stigmatised in the 21st century UK than in most other societies around the world and throughout history.)
Neg @ #343
Mr Bean, Sex Bomb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHpZ8BhbQfo&feature=related
why do i get the feeling Walton just spent an hour writing:
"I'm too chickenshit to hit the dating scene"
Ichthyic | March 7, 2010 5:38 AM:
Because you're a sneering asshole who is incapable of providing useful advice.
You just did. Do you understand what an apologia is? Do you understand that's what Iain Dale did? Do you understand that by offering Iain Dale's apologia for Kamiński here, you have offered an apologia for Kamiński? These are tautologies. I'm just asking if you can grasp a tautology.
Then do they evidence that he is or is not a homophobe?
Except for Iain Dale. I'm sure you're right about the rest of them.
Keep repeating that mantra if that's what you need to convince yourself. In reality, the Conservatives vetted all the members of ECR for their own approval and relayed that to Edward McMillan-Scott. These are facts. If your interpretation of those facts is that such explicit approval does not actually mean Approval, you're welcome to keep making a fool of yourself.
Except that in this case, the domestic polices of constituent parties were supposed to be considered and found unobjectionable. This isn't my opinion. This is what the party assured to McMillan-Scott.
I don't see any evidence of that. Wait, were you about to give evidence right now?
Ha! You are kidding.
But I am serious. Some of Hyperon's best friends are Asian. I do not doubt that he was being truthful about this. Now, what was his point? And what is your point?
Some of the Conservative Party's best MPs are gay. Great. Now you should try to tell me that because Arnold Schwarzenegger meets with the Log Cabin Republicans, the Republican Party is not anti-gay.
Iain Dale denies that a homophobe is a homophobe. He is either lying to you, or lying to himself. If he's lying to himself, he's self-loathing. If you're suggesting that he should more properly be understood as a Liar For The Tories rather than a Liar For Cameron, I'll take your word for it.
But as for the actual substance of what he's saying, he's unequivocally full of shit. So, fuck Iain Dale, and fuck you.
See how impressed I am that you are willing to gamble with women's lives.
Oh Walton
..honey, if you think sex is any way like economics then you're never going to get any.
Apologies to any economists out there but Walton, sex is (or at least should be) fun, exciting, tittilating, magical, erotic, sweet, hard, stomach churning, passive, aggressive, humorous, dirty, clean, noisy, seductive and sharing. In other words it's nothing like economics.
Why is it, whenever I see our good not-doctor posting here, I keep thinking of this scene from Holy Grail:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGFXGwHsD_A
"You're not foolin' anyone, ya know."
You're dismayed, Walton? When I criticize you, I have the goddamn decency to explain myself and answer your objections. Now let me repeat:
Really. Citation needed, Walton. Exactly which misconceptions do you suppose that I have, and where are the quotes that suggest I have them?
Again, citation needed. Exactly what was I wrong about? Quotes, please.
This is not the first time you've made vague and inflammatory criticisms of me and then ignored my requests for clarification or evidence.
Because you're a sneering asshole who is incapable of providing useful advice.
lies and slander i say!
why just yesterday I linked him an excellent article explaining CO2 forcing in detail.
sorry if i seem less than interested in endless rationalizations of the young dating scene.
...OTOH...
*looks at thread title*
why DID I come here?
I'll come back when the thread topic changes back to bacon, or food, or food with bacon in it.
And yes, it is relevant, if you're positing that women are at a greater risk during casual sex; statistically, they're more at risk with a partner with whom they have ongoing interaction. - DominEditrix
You could try actually reading and responding to what other people write rather than your own steroetypes - you know, just for a change. What I was "positing" is that (straight) women are at more risk than men in a casual sexual encounter. So the relative risks for women in casual sexual encounters as opposed to relationships (with or without scare-quotes) are not relevant to my point.
As for the scare-quotes, thanks for explaining what was not clear. Maybe you've heard the term "abusive relationship"? Rather implies that the term "relationship" does not, in itself, exclude the possibility of abuse, no? You could have meant that the very idea of a relationship is a mirage, we're all just using each other, or men are all just using women; one or the other of those was my guess, but I didn't want to make false assumptions, so I asked.
I am glad to hear that. Thanks, A. Noyd.
I think you tend to assume subconsciously, despite knowing on a conscious level that this is not the case, that those in Britain who use the term "conservative" to describe themselves are in some way comparable to those in America who use the term "conservative" to describe themselves.
In the US, so far as I understand it, the term "conservative" is increasingly strongly associated with the authoritarian religious right: people who are in favour of patriarchal and anti-gay "traditional values", and the enforcement of said values by government. Not to mention the undercurrent of xenophobia, and the fact that some conservatives today (Tom Tancredo) and some in the past (Nixon) have exploited popular racism and prejudice for political gain. It's therefore understandable that you, as an American (and one who has personally suffered from the policies advocated by American conservatives), have an instinctive revulsion to the term "conservative" and those who use it of themselves. But this revulsion has no legitimate place as regards British Toryism, which is a completely different political movement and has little or nothing in common with American conservatism, despite sharing the word "conservative".
Don't get me wrong. I realise that, intellectually, you understand that British Conservatism is different from American conservatism; I'm not accusing you of ignorance, or of lack of research. But I'm saying that since you have never been immersed in British political culture, and since you have so much reason to dislike those who call themselves conservative in America, you have an instinctive negative reaction to the term "conservative" which, perhaps, you can't help but apply when looking at parties by that name in other countries.
I will admit that I myself, for a long time, committed the same error in reverse; being a British Conservative, I assumed that American conservatives were my natural allies. It was only when I went to the US myself, and attended a conservative political event, that I really saw the uglier side of American conservatism and what it actually stands for. As such, I no longer see the bulk of American Republicans as my natural allies, and I would probably be a moderate Democrat if I were ever to move to the US. I don't know how much time, if any, you've spent in the UK; but while you have a perfectly good theoretical knowledge of British politics, your view of it is still coloured by American cultural and political assumptions.
..and what's more, it actually IS good advice.
sitting here on an internet forum rationalizing the economics of dating is NOT the best way to actually really learn about how humans interact, and being 45, I'm well old enough to know that looks alone aren't that important to *ahem* getting laid.
that aside, yes, this month I am a sneering asshole, fair cop, and no apologies.
I have my reasons.
Hell, if you can even vaguely reference a time when you thought I said some such thing, I'll google it for you. Just afford me the intellectual honesty of either substantiating your claims or retracting them.
As such, I no longer see the bulk of American Republicans as my natural allies
Walton, it has gotten so fubar in the States wrt to what the Republican party platform is any more, I doubt you could find ANYONE who actually can predict where it will be next month.
I've met older republicans who are seriously thinking that the larger body of extremeophiles like the "teabagers" might actually spin off and form a real 3rd party with some political clout, leaving the current republican party "dead center" as it were.
I dunno man, seriously, I tried to figure it out for years and finally just gave the fuck up and got out before it all imploded.
strange gods, at #356 I was referring to a general undercurrent implicit in all your posts about British Conservatism, not to a specific factual claim. As I said, I'm not accusing you of ignorance, nor of lack of research; indeed, whenever you make a concrete factual claim, you tend to go to great lengths to substantiate it. Rather, I just think that you haven't really internalised, on a deep-down emotional level, the differences between what the word "conservative" means to a British person and what it means to an American.
Ah, so this is all about your gut feelings, unsubstantiated but still compelling to you. Fair enough, why didn't you say so earlier?
The truth is I feel about the Tories as I feel about Merkel's CDU. And what I feel about the CDU has nothing to do with the word "Christian" or the word "Democratic" or the word "Union."
I am a Yankee in the American sense, a Unionist. I am a democratic socialist who provides material support to the Democratic Party. And I have only the mildest of disregard for Christians per se, as evidenced earlier by my indifference to Christians-who-are-socialists.
I do have a little sympathy for your "argument from shared terms," but very little. But as long as you admit it's nothing more than your gut feeling, I suppose it's not a big deal.
But wait, what's this?
That's again another substantive claim about me, not just your impression of me, and will require quotes to evidence.
Mmm.
If you're going to backpedal this far, then I think you shall have to admit you had no substantive basis on which to say strange gods was wrong.
The fact that you accused Iain Dale of being either self-loathing or a "Liar For Cameron" is sufficient evidence of this. If you were familiar with Iain Dale's personal history, or read his blog regularly, you would know that both these claims are entirely laughable.
Homophobia is more-or-less dead in the Conservative Party. There used to be quite a few Catholic Conservatives who were not keen on gay rights - John Gummer, Ann Widdecombe, Baroness Young - but most of them are now either dead, retired, or retiring at the next election. Furthermore, one can say exactly the same about some leading figures in the other main parties (Ruth Kelly, a former Labour Cabinet minister, is a Catholic and a member of Opus Dei; there was some considerable controversy when she was given a portfolio that included responsibility for equality). Today, there is a growing secular and humanist group within the Conservative Party, and most of those Tories who are religious are able to refrain from seeking to enforce their personal beliefs on everyone. There is a broad political consensus in Britain in favour of gay marriage and equal rights for gay people.
As to abortion, I am entirely confident that a Conservative parliamentary majority will not seek to impose further restrictions. As I clearly said, if I turn out to be wrong about that, I will cease to support the party. That is a promise which you can expect me to keep.
You were, and are, wrong to argue that my support for the Conservative Party is incompatible with my expressed principles.
This doesn't mean you're wrong, as such, to personally oppose the British Conservative Party. Your economic views, as a professed socialist, are incompatible with those of the Conservatives. If you were to say that you understand why I support the Conservatives, but wouldn't do so yourself because you disagree with their stance on economics and taxation, there would be no need for us to have an argument. But that isn't the point you've been making. Rather, you've been claiming that my support for the Conservatives is incompatible with my own views on social issues - a claim which is simply wrong. And you did at one point go so far as to tell me that I should vote Lib Dem instead.
Ichthyic | March 7, 2010 5:58 AM:
In that case I apologize for my previous comment.
No, Walton. Fuck Iain Dale, fuck you, and fuck your argument from authority.
The honest way to engage this argument would be to point out where I have erred in my reasoning. Shall I walk you through it?
Michał Kamiński is a homophobe.
Iain Dale is willing to deny that Michał Kamiński is a homophobe.
Iain Dale is therefore lying.
Iain Dale is either lying to you, because he is a Liar For Cameron The Tories, or,
Iain Dale is lying to himself that Michał Kamiński can call him a boyfucker without being a homophobe.
There's the argument in plain English. You're welcome to engage it logically.
Argument from "Iain Dale is so very gay and Iain Dale is so very Conservative" will not stand. It's a non-sequitur to jump from there to "Iain Dale is therefore not lying," or "Iain Dale is therefore not self-loathing."
Then your support for the 80% of Conservative MPs who vote anti-choice is compatible with your principles. Your support for a party leader who has declared he will not hold a referendum on EU participation is compatible with your principles. Your support for a party that will not end detention without trial is compatible with your principles. Fine, but now who is this Walton fellow?
And you had only one policy-based reason, CAP, why you should not. Compare that with an anti-choice voting record and an assurance there will be no referendum on the EU during Cameron's term of office, two reasons why you should not vote for the Conservatives.
#356 Walton etc.
I freely admit to not having followed this thread and I may have missed something important but I agree with what Walton etc. has to say about the Tory party (UK) vis-a-vis American Conservatives.
In many policy areas there is almost no difference between the current incarnation of the Labour Party ("New Labour") and the greener Tory Party.
There is also not a lot in common between the Labour Party of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and the Labour party of its founders. Labour Party electoral manifestos have not contained the term socialism since 1992 and I think it HIGHLY unlikely that they will this year. The death of Michael Foot was the death of the last visible remains of Socialism.
Since the election of David Cameron as leader, Tory party policy has increasingly focused on 'social' and 'quality of life' issues such as the environment, government services (most prominently the National Health Service) and schools.
There is a great deal of overlap between the parties as they both strive to accomodate the "swing voters" on the "middle ground". The concept of the two parties being as different as Michael Foot and Margaret Thatcher is long since gone. You can't put a piece of paper between them because of the overlap.
The efforts by all 3 parties to make themselves appear different to the voters is a waste of time: they aren't different. Labour took the Tory clothes under Neil Kinnock, John Smith and Tony Blair. Instead of Labour Union leaders having beer and sandwiches at No. 10 we went over to canapes, sharp suits and filofaxes. For 2 years the Labour government under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown (as Chancellor) did nothing at all to change Tory financial policies
In return, the Tories who were painted as mired in sleeze (they were in large measure but no more than the whole lot of them today) have moved away from the few Right Wing policies they held. The Tory symbol changed from the torch of Freedom to a stylised oak tree (symbolising who knows what) and its official party colours from red, white and blue (the colours of the torch and, of course, of the Union Flag) to blue and green.
IMHO the biggest difference in UK politics is betwen those in favour of membership of the European Union and those who want out. However, when push comes to shove, all 3 parties support membership of Europe (although the Tories would like it to be looser) while the majority of the public appear to want as little to do with Europe as possible.
Single issue anti-Europe parties such as UKIP are too small to have any impact and UKIP in particular has been financially gutted by the legal system manipulated by the Labour Government (IMHO).
All parties want to claim the high moral ground - none of them are in a fit state to take it in the public eye.
All of this is simplified. You can find old style Tories on the back benches and you can find Socialist MPs in the Labour Party. Political expediency has evened out whatever were the differences. A case might be argued to paint Tories as Right Wing (with all the negative connotations that might have on this site) and Labour as Left Wing or Socialist (with all the positive connotations that might have - or vice versa depending on your point of view). But it would not reflect reality.
More sneaky tentacled creatures.
Soon they'll be mimicking us. If they aren't already.
Labour and the Lib Dems are much more strongly opposed to holding a referendum on EU membership or on the Treaty of Lisbon. So I'm not sure why you're holding this out as a reason why I should not vote Conservative.
As you very well know, in a representative political system, none of us can expect any party's views to completely correspond to our own; we have to choose what we consider to be the least bad party. It is perfectly true that the Conservative Party will not implement everything I believe in, just as the Democratic Party will certainly not implement everything you believe in. But the Conservatives will be a mild improvement on the current government, from the perspective both of civil liberties and of the economy.
#364 Walton etc said:
Whether or not the writer holds such views, from my previous contribution I think you can see that " ... economic views, as a professed socialist", are incompatible with those of the Conservatives and those of the UK Labour Party.
Labour has moved from Red Socialist to Centre (very slightly Left) Democrat. The Conservative Party has changed from Blue Capitalist (with a bit of white and red but only because of the Union Flag) to Centre (very slightly Right) Democrat.
If you really want Old Fashioned Red Socialism you need the Communist Party of GB or the Socialist Workers Party, the latter being the largest Socialist party in GB. Both are tiny political nonenties.
I've mostly skimmed, but I think this is the second weirdest thread of the series yet*.
Walton, viewing sex like economics is almost as bad as the Catholic view, which Paul Begala summarized :
"[Catholics are] taught that sex is a dirty, vile, disgusting act that you save for the one you truly love."
______
*The weirdest thread, IMHO, was the one where Alan Clarke linked to an article from a paranormal journal and RogerS kept insisting some rocks were giant fossilized clams.
What can this possibly mean in reality? How can anyone be more strongly opposed to holding a referendum on EU membership or on the Treaty of Lisbon than the guy who said explicitly that there will be no referendum on EU membership or on the Treaty of Lisbon?
#373
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5pkkAhETYg&feature=related
Bride of Shrek and Feynmaniac: You misunderstand me. I was not saying that the sexual act itself is in any way like economics.
Rather, I was pointing out that the pattern of sexual interactions between people in society, and the fact that (to put it bluntly) some people get more sex than others, is in some ways comparable to the pattern of economic transactions between people in society, and the fact that some people make more money than others.
In both cases, the downside of freedom is inequality. Economic freedom gives rise to great inequality between the wealthy and the poor; some people are, often due to unfair and arbitrary factors, much less successful at making money than others. Similarly, sexual freedom gives rise to great inequality between the attractive and the unattractive. In societies where people have a free choice of sexual partners, and there is little stigma attached to casual sex, people will choose attractive partners rather than unattractive partners. As a result, attractive people get lots of sex while uanttractive people get little or none.
This is just an observation. I don't think this problem can be, or should be, solved; it's an inevitable byproduct of human nature. But it is an instance of natural unfairness (and, incidentally, just more evidence against the idea that humanity was created by any sort of benevolent deity).
("Attractive" here doesn't just refer to physical appearance. Other factors, such as wealth, talent, social skills, class and status are also relevant factors.)
strange gods @#375: What's your point? I support the Conservatives, but I don't find the Lib Dems especially objectionable, and would support them in preference to Labour if it were a race between the two. Neither the Conservatives nor the Lib Dems perfectly represent my opinions - nor does any party in existence - but the Conservatives are slightly closer to the policy agenda that I support. None of my statements on this stand in contradiction to one another.
Let's try some evidence about the British Conservative Party. I do realise that only anoraks and the terminally bored will actually read it but for completeness the whole debate is here. The debate begins at Column 173 on 23 February 2010.
For those with better things to do, there was a debate on how to tighten up procedures so that children already known to be at risk should not inadvertently be beaten to death for lack of action or a failure to share information among those paid to protect them.
Into this relatively sensible discussion rides William Cash, Conservative MP for Stone, on his hobbyhorse - or one of them. Cash first appears at Column 196 several pages on.
This particular hobbyhorse? Cash's sacred mission is to protect the right of as many people as possible to smack children - in principle only of course - and he was quite prepared to hi-jack the whole afternoon to repeat what he has already said a million times!
Because I am that sort of anorak, I watched the debate. I can therefore confirm to all and sundry and especially to Walton that I am further convinced in the following views:-
That for every nice bloke sitting on the Tory front bench there are probably three right-wing nutters right behind them - either on the green benches already or waiting to appear as soon as they get the chance.
That Cameron has completely failed to take on and persuade by argument the right wing of his own party, even on the self-interest only basis. With a bit more intellectual muscle, even, would he have done it?
That the alliance with the Kaminskis of this world was a very smelly bone thrown to that same neanderthal right wing, even at the risk of destroying the party's attempt to be seen as either a serious or a modern party.
Right, back to the knitting!
You know my point. The Conservative Party's voting record is anti-choice and anti-woman, the recent vote on restricting abortion was 233 in favor of further restrictions against 304 in favor of choice, and the Conservative Party may gain enough seats to swing that vote the other way. Cameron will not hold the referendum you want. So all you're left with is that CAP is more important than women's rights, yet CAP is an EU policy unlikely to change significantly for the better, while the UK's abortion policy obviously can shift for the worse quite easily. Fanciful notions that you can change the direction of a party while that party is in power are always more important than women's rights.
Another recent example: [Tory MP c]andidates trained by rightwing group that rubbishes NHS, dismisses global warming and backs waterboarding.
Now, Walton, an explanation is still in order.
Quite sure I've made this clear about two hundred times, but I'm happy to explain it again, because I don't want you to have the wrong idea about precisely which terrible opinion I had of you.
I never believed you had a burning hatred for women. I said you were disinterested in their lives and exhibited a cold contempt for their needs. (Pretty much those exact words; I hope they sound familiar.)
For example, at one time you said late-term abortion should be illegal simply because "Is it not more horrific for millions of people to die with the blessing of the state than for them to die through crime?"
You said this in direct response to the presentation of WHO data demonstrating that limitations on abortion caused more women's deaths.
In effect you were trading women's deaths for the sake of making a morality play about a larger number of fetal deaths.
You look back on this now and agree it was a horrific stance to take. But consider what it meant. You had to be indifferent to -- or shall we say inconsiderate, as in truly not considering -- these women's suffering to adopt that position.
You had to view them as something less than full persons, because you were literally trading their lives for the lives of something else -- fetuses -- which really are less than full persons.
I think you finally got over this when I made you think about how, regardless of whether a fetus has sensory input, the woman has more to lose: memories, desires, lovers, hopes, friends, plans and dreams. Thinking about it that way, you can so easily see how one is a full person and the other not, yes?
But you were previously willing to trade on their lives against something less than full persons. Now, how is this not cold contempt? Aquaria put it in slightly more direct language. You understand now, I hope, what we were getting at.
Again, it doesn't mean that you made a conscious decision to be that way. It means you grew up in a misogynist culture, and since you had the benefit of obliviousness granted upon you by male privilege, you didn't have to think about what you were absorbing. (Same for me, by the way, when I was much younger and held similar opinions, to my mother's lament.)
So, what else do you want to call it? What word would you apply to the choice of privileging a barely sensorily aware entity over the real life of a grown woman? If that's not misogyny, then what is it? and if that's not misogyny, then just what does it take for you to call misogyny?
You asserted what you claimed to be a major character flaw, and I responded with my reasoning why I believe that moral integrity demanded no less. You ignored my response. Take what time you need when it's a matter of some remove, but when you've publicly made this criticism of me, you ought to respond or retract it.
I'll see if you have anything when I wake up.
blf @381,
Yeah, saw that. Good evidence indeed but hardly a surprise.
The Tories' new European alliance, the ECR, includes not only the Polish Law and Justice Party, but also the Latvian For Fatherland and Freedom Party, whose leader, Roberts Zile, takes part in the annual commemoration of the Latvian contingent of the Waffen SS. More about Kaminski's past - and quite recent past at that - can be read here. If you support the Tory Party, Walton, you are supporting these people, whether you admit it to yourself or not.
SHIT - nearly 400 already!
just saw this good? news
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/article/14381
Thanks for the feedback to pevious post
Oh, this is good. Excellent.
A subThread all full up with discussions of British politics and sex-'n'-relationships.
*yawn*
A subThread I can safely ignore completely and get some grading done instead, then.
see ya
I wasn't trying to pick a fight. windy explained what I was getting at @ #251:
What I'm saying is that if there's any general proposition being made about the supposed pitfalls of "early" sex (something beyond just a personal preference), then I take issue with it. Having sex doesn't preclude getting to know someone in other ways or making love in the future. I'm not saying people should or shouldn't have sex "quickly" - just that the notion that people can ruin what would otherwise turn into a solid relationship by having sex makes no sense to me. If you're not arguing with that, or presenting your experience as some kind of lesson learned (that people in general are well advised to wait), then we're not arguing.
Bride of Shrek OM #349
But ex-BoS OM, you've just explained what it is that I love about economics.
A subThread all full up with discussions of British politics and sex-'n'-relationships.
*yawn* - Sven DiMilo
Ha! You won't be laughing when the Reclaim the Rebellious Colonies for Her Britannic Majesty and Ban All Research on Turtles Party sweeps to victory!
On the previous itteration of the Never-Ending Time Waster we (or you (I just tossed in a couple of sequitors)) migrated from underwear to sex. On this thread, we have gone from sex to economics and EU politics.
[Long Pause]
Can we, pretty please, go back to sex? Or underwear? Or bacon?
Please?
If not at work (yes, federal worker working on Sunday) I would look up and post the link to Arlo Guthrie performing "Reuben Clamzo and His Strange Daughter in the Key of A". Since I cannot, I will simply suggest searching for it. The song is mediocre (unless to are into well-harmonized shanties) but the 15-minute introduction is not only hilarious, it fits in nicely with the idea of giant rocks being giant fossilized clams.
Except for the rocks. And the fossils. And this narrative makes sense. If you look at it sideways.
So not only are tax dollars going to support jet-setting atheist professors and their Trophy Wives™, the few remaining tax dollars are then being spent to pay federal employees to prop up pinko european political gays discussing their facist welfare states.
Walton ESDA, I have lurked here and enjoyed watching your growth in many areas. I usually skip the long exchanges you have with SGBM and others about politics for two reasons: One, I know nothing about UK politics; Two, the arguments seem to be circular.
However, your comment on sex caught my eye, especially your clarification, "("Attractive" here doesn't just refer to physical appearance. Other factors, such as wealth, talent, social skills, class and status are also relevant factors.)" Sigh. Where to begin?
I have followed this whole thread, as much as possible consistent with having to eat and sleep, and come across a great many generalizations and expressions of, “this is what I think, so it is right”. Of course, most are not that simple or obvious or even conscious. To make my own generalization, many of us tend to think our behavior was right if it worked out for us. For example, “casual sex was OK, but empty, once I waited I found my soul mate” or “casual sex was how I found life mate” or “never had sex till I found my soul mate" and variations on the theme. All are true. Sex is a very personal thing and, I believe, a personality thing.
Walton, and not only talking to you here, I disagree that Attractiveness is most important and my belief is that the factors you mention do not really cover it. The closest is your inclusion of social skills. I am a less than unattractive man by normal, mid to late XXth Century standards (that being the time in which I dated), but never had trouble finding partners for movies, theatre, dances, or sex - casual or otherwise. Why is that? In my case it is because I am outgoing, but also because I was always willing to find dates in less than obvious places. Yeah, bars, mixers, hookups from friends worked, but so did being in galleries, museums, and libraries. In fact, some of my most memorable dates/relationships were found in such places and for the most trivial of reasons. Also, I always wonder if self professed unattractive people do not often ignore unattractive people in turn. I seldom notice looks, just not that important to me. A ready laugh and a wicked sense of humor got me every time. This is not the “fuck ugly” advice that some cynical and crude people employ. You might wish to look at who you are attracted to, and why. There are trolls with hair growing out of warts on their noses who are getting dates. If you are not, stop blaming those who find you unattractive. That is just such bullshit. Figure out the real reason you are not dating.
Tried not to over generalize above, but may have. Point is this, billions of people out there. With rare exceptions they are unique individuals. Many want different things at different times and for different reasons than the neighbor raised in the same way, same place and at the same time. Cut the generalizations about what people want, believe and need and just get out and date. You have to ask someone to go out with you, that is pretty much the start of it. Worst that can happen is you hear “no” once or twice, sometimes rudely. Best that can happen is you find love, second best is just a little fun.
Sometimes you just end up alone for a while. When that happens, remember that masturbation is cheap, clean, convenient, and you never have to walk home alone in the rain. Well, sometimes, maybe, but probably best to masturbate at your own place.
Pinko?
We're fucking red T&T!
Arlo Gutrie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uo9TxeqeDCE
The Bacon Song (apologies if it's been posted before).
And we can't type worth a damm
Scum, filthy degenerate Scum, every man Jack of 'em'
Christ, Walton, sex to economics?
At the risk of being cliched, there's someone out there for everyone. Or, more to the point, if the people on Jerry Springer can have enough sex partners that they don't know "who dis baby daddy is," a person who wants to have sex will find a partner.
Not that I think you are a toothless dude in a wife-beater...
Your assertion that people on this side of the pond equate the American Republicans and conservative Christian right to the British Tories doesn't wash. From strange gods' own statements, and others, they (we) despise the British Tories on their own merits, or lack thereof.
The Tories' record on abortion rights, gay rights, immigration, and human equality in general, party policy or no, is more than enough reason to those of us who value these things above all else, to want nothing to do with the Tories. Your top values lie elsewhere.
New Labour being equally crap doesn't really lend support to the Tory argument.
Sightly dated, also about bacon—and donuts!
I'm not Walton, but this:
This really resonated with me. They say you never forget how to ride a bicycle. But after 12 years in an exclusive relationship (and not a very good one) that started, in the first place, online, I have utterly forgotten how to date. I was never that good at it anyway. You're right, I need to forget what everyone else says, and find out what works best for me. Trial and error, OK, I'm terrified of making BIG errors... the outcome of which might be worse than being alone... but you don't win if you don't play, right?
A commenter, nym of astrounit, over at Coyne's has issues with teh Thread:
um.
ouch?
For the sake of clarification, I have never worn a wife-beater in my life, and I have more-or-less perfect teeth.
I don't know what you mean by claiming that my "top values lie elsewhere". I take gay rights very seriously, and am an outspoken supporter of gay marriage and of allowing same-sex couples to adopt. I'm in favour of more-or-less open immigration (something which, sadly, will not happen under any British political party in the foreseeable future), and of closing asylum detention centres and providing more protection to the rights of refugees and asylum seekers. As to "human equality in general", that all depends what you mean; there are lots of different kinds of "equality", some of which I support and some of which I oppose.
And I don't know what you mean by the "Tories' record" on these issues, either. Abortion has been legal in the UK since 1967; the Conservatives were in power for a large number of the years between 1967 and the present day (including 18 years from 1979-1997) and did not seek to ban or restrict abortion in any way. As to gay rights, as I explained above, the Conservative Party today has a gay Shadow Cabinet member (Alan Duncan) and a number of gay MPs, peers and supporters, and is progressive on gay rights. I agree with you that the current party policy on immigration is awful, but the policies of the other major parties are very similar.
Yes it does, because we essentially have a two-party system in the UK. It is extremely unlikely that any party other than Labour or the Conservatives will form a majority government in the foreseeable future. The Lib Dems might hope, at most, to be a minority party in a coalition.
The Conservatives are better than Labour in a number of measurable areas, especially civil liberties. For a start, Labour want to implement compulsory ID cards and a national identity database, and are already well on their way to doing so. This is a very, very bad idea, both from the perspective of civil liberties, and in practical terms (since it will do absolutely nothing to reduce crime, will cost a lot of money, and will make identity theft much easier). Conservatives are strongly committed to opposing ID cards and the ID database. The Conservatives have also opposed Labour's numerous attempts to increase the period of detention without trial for "suspected terrorists" (at one time, Labour tried to increase the detention period to 90 days, which is frighteningly authoritarian).
I think, after reading through most of the comments on this thread, I've never been quite so pleased to NOT have waded into these roiling waters of discussion. Particularly the sex parts, because it would have taken far too long for me to remove the rust from my arguments, let alone my equipment.
That said, I'll put my waders back on - just in case.
re: #400
That's quite a starfart.
hmmmmmm
'astro-unit'
'star-fart'
eerie coincidence? Or something...more?
Re #400, we did have a person using the nym Astrounit posting here during 2009. (S)He even had a mention as a possible Molly nomination. I reread a few of his/her posts, and I don't see where that rant is coming from if it is the same person.
Actually, I wonder if it is starfart. The styles are similar, long rants with random capitalizations. And he/she says:
starfart:
And some of the things we wrote about that epic rant would cause someone to be a bit pissed with us.
A response to nym of astrounit, on Coyne's blog (Linked at SvenDM#400): This is the internet. No one here has any idea how young* or stupid you are until you write something. I am not so young, but often very stupid and I haven't cried myself to sleep hugging my pillow since I started commenting here. As it turns out, having your stupidity pointed out by a stranger on the interwebs is hardly a traumatic event...you might ven learn something. If you feel that maybe you are too stupid and sensitive to gain much from the interaction, there is always Facebook. Or you could read a damned book and maybe at least work on the stupid.
*How does young even enter into it?
Aaaand... economics.
Walton, you probably don't remember; I went by a different handle at the time, but I spent a brief while here trying intensely to defend basic libertarian ideals from Aristotle to Ayn Rand to Von Mises to Ron Paul, and I threw a few ideas of Hayek in there to support a personal theory that they enhanced the stew (Chris Sciabarra, incidentally, was shocked to find he agreed with me in a class I once took from him). The strong voices among the commenters here (notably Knockgoats, who I am grateful to, and 'Tis, who is treating you better than he treated me) had great fun piling on me in a flurry of incredulity and invective, and since like you I'm fairly thick-skinned and not averse to thinking hard about things, I was able to separate some of the diamonds out of the shit. I came away with a great many things to think about.
I took a look at what I'd been told, in a kindlier light than the gloom shed by the teachings of my father, who dramatically escaped Communism shortly after the Hungarian Revolution, and my patriotic right-wing history teachers in an Atlanta high school. Did the "liberals" indeed broadly agree with me in the things I thought most important? Well, let's see... support of personal choices, check. Rights of individuals, yes. Freedom of commerce between individuals, partly, but where they differed was in the practical aspect of how bad actors hurt others in the name of freedom... even libertarians say that your freedom to wave your fist stops at the other guy's face. Freedom of religion, yes. Support of the Constitution, typically, yes (if you look at who generates most of the propositions for anti-liberty amendments, you get a hint of who doesn't support it). Economic theory? Frankly, I haven't seen anyone propose a viable alternative to the corporation yet, but then again I haven't seen anyone here actually propose overthrowing them, just reforming them (although the details are sketchy here too). Hayek pointed out some interesting ways in which excess government entanglement exacerbated corporate abuses, by the way, and I think that even Rand dramatized how corporations not run on liberal humanist principles could descend into toxicity within and outwith their own immediate spheres of influence. In short, the liberals commenting here and characterizing their position did indeed believe in freedom, godlessness, and human potential.
If I was to have to criticize libertarianism in the simplest terms, I would have to say that libertarianism errs in its very simplicity. It's just not an adequate model. It's more of a "what if" scenario, a more eloquent way of saying, "wouldn't it be nice if everyone could do whatever was best for themselves, and if this automatically resulted in a good outcome for everyone". At some point I realized that it reversed the "is/ought" dichotomy and tried to turn its "ought" into an "is" by sheer force of will and optimism.
So, I got tired of reading about Libertarian writers pointing out how things should work theoretically and I started to try to think practically. When I did this, I found I agreed more and more with the more thoughtful commenters here and I started to look into things I had been avoiding. I'm not in possession of the full truth about economics, politics, and sociology now, but I am certainly in possession of more of the facts in a more realistic way than when I thought I had all the answers down pat as an Objectivist libertarian.Now I see that any philosophy that fears contact with conflicting ideas has something of a "self-esteem problem" based in a fundamental weakness somewhere.
I think you're doing well to defend your ideas in a tough forum like this. Just please don't make the very defense your ultimate aim. Keep looking into reality and seeing what fits it and discarding what doesn't. That's the most honest and courageous thing a man can do.
And the legend of teh Thread was way hard core....
Of course when people come to investigate astrounit's story they'll run into a solid wall of economics. Oof.
HI Sven! I replied to you on the other thread before it closed. How's that grading coming? ;)
OK, I didn't witness this, I read it in a book, but the subject was men spreading stories about women's sex lives around their mutual workplace, as in this comment he'll tell everyone except that in the anecdote I read she had turned him down nevertheless he went around telling people she had had sex with him. As the story was told, the female employee found it useless to deny, so she started admitting it to his pals who were rude enough to ask her for confirmation. But she added that it hadn't been much fun because he wet the bed each time. In the tale, he was the one who quit, hoist by his own petard because they were talking about him and he couldn't just admit that he'd been lying in the first place. I'm just saying I'd be interested to know if anyone has heard of it or tried it.
Shorter astrounit:
Waah, they judged my stupid ideas harshly instead of coddling my feelings.
Regarding Britain's two-party system- Labour was a third party. It takes work, but given that a substantial minority of the country will never vote Tory after the Thatcher years, and that Labour is drifting to the right, there's not much choice for some but to support a third party.
Regarding my assertion that your top values lie elsewhere, I suppose it's more that they seem to lie elsewhere. Your non-negotiable from what I have read appears to be EU/ CAP. I can't argue with that.
My non-negotiables are women's and gay rights. Gay cabinet ministers, well, strange gods addressed that above. It really amounts to little more than "some of my best friends... I let them use my bathroom."
You folks ought to have a national ID card, if for no other reason than to protect your NHS. I was visiting the UK, with no travel insurance, and wound up needing a visit to a clinic. I tried to pay, but wasn't allowed to. I don't pay taxes over there. That's not right and is horrendously open to abuse. The NHS is brilliant, it's yours and you need a system to protect it. Health tourism exists.
My provincial health card provides me with the right to free health care anywhere in my country. My province pays. I keep it with me. My British husband loves it, as it protects his investment in Canada.
Re- abortion rights, to be honest, I was relying on the statement above that 80% of Tory MPs are voting to restrict abortion rights. That's a fucking huge deal for me.
Oh, look, a whole web page about sexonomics. With graphs and everything. (Note: I don't endorse the opinions on that page, it just amuses me that it exists.)
Also, yes, Labour are wrong on lots of things. The default opposition position is often correct. I don't buy into the premise that what the Tory party claims it would do is what it actually would do in terms of anti-terrorist laws. It's possible, but again, I suspect there is a third party who I would trust more to protect freedoms.
Oh, and I'm sure you're very cute in the tux you once mentioned. The wife-beater toothless thing wasn't a dig, it was a (crap) joke about the Jerry Springer people.
badgersdaughter @ #399, The comment was for anyone. It is a cliche, but one that bears repeating - Babe Ruth led the league in both home runs and strikeouts. Yes, it sucks to have to start dating again, did so myself. I always remember that most people you would ask for a date are just as scared of rejection as you (the general you) may be.
Go forth and have multiple orgasms.
Hi Jen B. I saw your earlier message but was too busy trying to meet my perceived obligations from earlier subThreads to chat.
I just typed a much longer reply into the Leaveacommentbox but then cut it out as way way TMI. (One of my students admitted to finding my pitiful 'weblog' recently and all I could think of to say was "uh...don't tell the Dean, please".) I'm going to try to figure out how to e it to you via privater tubes.
Suffice it to say that the grading is not going well. It's not going well at all. But it never, ever does.
Gossip from the Daily Mail says that Christopher Hitchens was once assimilated by Locutus of Gay and may still be part of the Bi Collective (the link also has some great photos of the young Hitchens).
Re: astrounit, I wonder what young, bright commenters he was talking about. There was one we all jumped on, alex.asolis, because he was an asshole in a couple of threads, but other young atheists have had prominent placement on the blog like Justin. And I'm with Sven and Feynmaniac on the parallels between astrounit and starfart's names and writings. Damn wacky registration system.
Sven DiMilo #400
I've just posted the following on Jerry Coyne's blog:
This thread is hurtling by so fast, I need to dampen everybody's spirits with THE WORST UK #1 HIT EVER.
It's for your own good.
Sven: Will be grading today also. Normally, I keep bourbon on hand for just such occasions, but my guts have been rebelling of late, and I might have to do this in my right mind. No matter how many semesters pass, I still get my feelings hurt by very stupid answers. I mean, I work really hard to create organized, informative, and entertaining lectures...when a student has sat through all of them, and apparently not learned anything, my first response is to loathe myself, my second to become vindictive, and my third to have a belt o' the bourbon and wade in.
Still, I hate grading like a muffucka.
Weird. The Thread seems to me to be eminently egalitarian -- there are no prerequisites for entry, and you can talk about anything you feel like, and no one can shout you down as being off-topic. If he thinks this thing is for the "academically or intellectually inclined", I wonder what he thinks of ordinary talk down at the sports bar.
MrFire #419
I was afraid you'd post this song as "THE WORST UK #1 HIT EVER."
We compare unfavorably with the chat down at the sports bar?
Dear Sastra,
I’m not using alt.med journal citations. I didn’t even use holistic nursing citations. As far as I know, http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/ are the standard by which evidence-based medicine is judged. A statistical expert goes through all existing studies, crunches the numbers and gives a recommendation. A close second are the annals of internal medicine, where a respected expert on alternative medicine, in this case Ernst (who hates alternative medicine) is asked to give an analysis of all existing studies.
What I showed you was the best evidence available on TT. It trumps a single, small scale study by Barrett. And, no, it’s not all positive studies, but there are moderate benefits to pain, which makes perfect sense. The other study was a nursing review of the multiple other TT studies.
It’s the Cochrane Collaboration, not James Randi, that decides what is evidence-based medicine and what is not. When I emailed him a few years back, he claimed he knew better than Cochrane or any other researcher. The man is a magician, not a statistician, and he’s created a bubble around himself by ignoring that reasonably intelligent PhDs around the world might actually be able to give a better picture of alternative medical effects than something he sets up himself in a lab. If I somehow managed to jump through all his hoops I seriously doubt I’d get paid.
You mentioned the placebo effect. What is that, really? According to The Cochrane Collaborative Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Jan 20;(1):CD003974 the “sugar pill” placebo effect doesn’t really exist anymore. The researchers compared all active drug to placebo to no intervention patient trials and concluded that placebos no longer outperform no intervention. There is some effect in terms of pain, but even that was highly variable, and the pain decrease seen in the TT study I cited before was greater than what could reasonably be expected from a placebo.
We don’t live in the fifties anymore when patients believed anyone in a white coat would fix them with a pill, and today patients are more likely to experience a nocebo effect (side effects, nausea, etc.) from an inactive pill.
But the placebo effect is alive and well if you define it as hope and trust build up in a good doctor/patient relationship. It motivates patients to do a variety of changes that affect their health, improving outcomes despite the activity or inactivity of whatever was given. This is taught in medical schools as a good bedside manner, and is the basis of good medicine. Often an effective drug treatment is not available for an illness, but the doctor continues to see the chronically ill patient and the patient benefits from the care. In our ever hurrying world, the shortening of patient visits undermines that relationship, ultimately harming the patient through incomplete histories and clinicians who don’t really have time to care.
In response to your interest, I did look at Andreas’ site. I cannot defend him. Art and art objects are fine, books are fine, but I have difficulty with anyone broadly prescribing basically one set of cures for everyone. Andreas’ had some interesting things to say about chemotherapy, but it all hinges on Abel’s chemotherapy review in 1991. Maybe Abel wrote a letter to the Lancet in 1991, but he didn’t review chemotherapy, so whatever he wrote was not peer reviewed, and doesn’t justify disregarding an entire field of medicine.
I would also not defend chemotherapy in a number of adult cancers, because the outcomes data doesn’t support it, but I have been incredibly impressed by the child leukemia collaboration, where they are getting better and better results because they act as a group rather than as independent researchers competing for research dollars.
In terms of my “conspiracy” theories, I cited two Cochrane studies on prayer, 2007 and 2009, where respected researchers came to different conclusions, apparently based on their personal beliefs. It is hardly a conspiracy theory to point out that medical researchers are capable of dumping studies they don’t like in favor of those they do. I believe we have legislation now to force pharmaceutical companies to reveal negative studies rather than simply not publishing them. Vioxx’s producer evidently had some idea of what the drug was capable of doing prior to wide release, but suppressed the data.
Finally, I think it’s time we got back to bacon. Anyone see this recent study? J Agric Food Chem. 2010 Jan 13;58(1):465-72. Production of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) enriched bacon. Evidently, good for you bacon will not be widely available because of “problems of off-odors and off-flavors.” Bacon that smells like fish…mmmm.
Oh, and Monty Python…spam, spam, spam, bacon, and spam. Why did those two float in and out of that sketch? I never got that part.
I think Myers should dress like a Viking and sing the spam song on Youtube as the start of the next thread. I have a children's Viking hat he could borrow. It would be tres chic.
Sven @ 416
I'm logged in to these comments via my gmail account, so you can put '@gmail(dot)com' after my user name for direct access.
Absolute must-do goal of the day for me: finish the blog post I've been procrastinating over for bloody weeks. But first: BACON.
Oh, for the sake of fuck. In the US, the federal Food and Drug Admninistration has recalled half the products produced by the processed food industry because of salmonella contamination in one of the most commonly used food additives ever:
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/HVPCP/
cool.
I know that tube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVtCdZLtCj4
There's certainly more farting, beer-drinking, sex, shouting, insults, bacon, lesbians, and pinko atheist nazi libturds here than at most sports bars. And worse music.
Quack, quit trying to convince us you aren't a con man. You are. That's what the real and reproducible evidence says. So, take the time you futilely spend trying to convince us you aren't a fraud, faker, and all around idjit, and get a real education. And stop treating bilking your victims. That is the first stop toward honesty.
Sorry, that might have seemed a little hyperbolic; there are only 94 named foods as part of the recall on the list at the above link at the time I write this. But the recalled ingredient comes from a factory that does indeed supply it to the vast majority of the processed food industry.
oh god...
Here's an antidote, hopefully.
(The subtitles are in Hebrew too, for added awesome)
Dang, in #429, next to last sentence. The italics should be strikethrough.
aratina cage @417: Thanks for he link. I envy Hitchens the ability to bring the word "louche" to the minds of journalists everywhere.
Great pics of him as a young man. Wicked charmer.
#419 MrFire
Are you really sure? Have you forgotten (in no particular order - they are all dreadful):
Orville's Song - Keith Harris and Orville
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGnuMxFnc1k&feature=related
Mr Blobby - Mr Blobby
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvNbAxsbK8Q
There's No One Quite Like Grandma - St. Winifred's School Choir
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsXJcIODLtQ&feature=related
Grandad - Clive Dunn
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KJGJRd8pGE
Long Haired Lover From Liverpool - Little Jimmy Osmond
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YriPIujLtsA
(There are others I can use if I am provoked!!)
"Real Climate has an analysis of the methane release paper up, which is at least partly reassuring - partly."
On another topic or three, comment 255 bears repeating.
In all the (ehem) excitement, I forgot that I already knew about one more possible reason: I once read (in a popular science magazine, I think) that the testosterone which is (interestingly) contained in sperm makes women happy.
That's one advantage of the pill over the condom, I suppose. But while I am at it, the pill also has a disadvantage that condoms don't share: I've read it changes which men smell good (...taste wasn't mentioned, but I suspect it actually is smell). During the hormonal state of pregnancy, it's one's biological relatives that smell good (an evo-psych explanation about protection in the family was inserted); otherwise, unrelated men smell good. The short article ended in a (...perhaps shortsighted...) recommendation to heterosexual women: if you're in love, stop taking the pill for a while and wait if he still smells good.
I didn't want to go in a straight line.
True. Looks like I misread this article with its somewhat confusing title; I failed to follow the link to that one.
Well, self-reporting comes with a lot of problems...
(Also, comment 253.)
WTF. They're not in the European People's Party!?! That's scary!!!
Even the Bavarian CSU (Christian-Social Union) is in there. Their godlike founder figure said "there should not be a party to the right of our party", and implemented this by expanding the party to the right. It's open-ended on the right side, it has a bell-curve tail instead of a right fringe, and from that tail seriously whacked-out statements occasionally bubble up through the media. Still, the mainstream of that party is conservative, close enough to the center that the EPP is an appropriate home. And the Tories are to the right of that!?!
What next? McPain/Failin'?
If there's not too much gene flow, random geographic (probably cultural) variation in the goals of sexual selection should be able to discretize geographic phenotype variation the same way natural selection does... right? Sven? windy?
Tu vides la litière, chéri(e) ? :-þ
(Had to look that word up. I don't know if it's in common use or if people actually say boîte à chier, boîte à crottes, or something along these lines. Does crotte still sound romantic? :-þ )
Jacques Benveniste is the only person so far to have won two IgNobel Prizes. He fully deserves both of them. Look it up.
So, they're all indistinguishable from a hug?
This, sir, is an incredible insult to the scientists you're talking about. You will either support your claim with evidence or retract it – you will put up or shut up.
<headdesk> It was a slight current, so you felt it slightly. Please.
And/or with the dirt on the feet and/or that in the water. Yes. That's normal, that has to be expected of electricity. What, if anything, is your point?
You also get to pay through your nose through it.
You are helping fraudsters pull money out of people's pockets for a cheap little trick. If I lived in the USA, I'd go to the police and report you for aiding fraud.
What's so difficult to understand about this?
About how much alleles of different genes covary geographically.
Sastra for the win as usual.
"Oooh, clearly hit a nerve there..." is something I've only seen trolls say so far. This should be obvious even if you've never seen a troll boast of their trolling.
And while it wasn't clear if Jadehawk was talking about experiences of her own, that wasn't the only possible interpretation, even in the context of darkrooms.
DominEditrix is in fact a (rare) regular herself...
Never mind the internal contradictions in that ad! :-D College-educated at 18? Both college-educated and employed at 25? Riiiiight. <mock> <mock>
"Many guys" doesn't mean "all"...
Contribute your bewilderment like I'm doing, sit back, and learn. :-)
ROTFLMAO!!!
Not nice, dude, not nice.
Walton, I gave the argument from large numbers... be optimistic in the long run. Not everyone's tastes are the same.
Schwarzenegger still does. :-)
...Wow.
Sidebar quote...
"Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love."
– Butch Hancock
Interesting fossils of Triassic land vertebrates have been found near Lubbock.
<headdesk>
Impressive. My default reply is this.
I have it on very good authority that the Louvre works very well for this. (That said, the guy in question already was into "the artsy types".)
You know, this reminds me of the peer pressure I felt under in school: to get a girlfriend – someone, anyone – for the single purpose of having one. But mere existence alone isn't what I'm looking for.
I'm not Walton, but I really can't guarantee your advice will resonate with his mind at all.
Personally, I wouldn't try to date – I'd try to have a conversation about something interesting, just like what I'm doing here right now, and simply wait for this effect to kick in. (Haven't found anyone in meatspace to try this with, so far.) The worst-case scenario is that it would be interesting. :-| But again, I'm not Walton.
Okay, 'Tis Himself, Alan B, and Mr. Fire, I surrender. Please don't post any more songs certified to be bloody awful. Thank you.
BTW, in reply to the astrounit rant on Coyne's blog, one of the main points of the rant is that young people are routinely blasted out of the water here. I went back and made note of the ages people gave for themselves recently. Without names attached, here they are:
34
64
40
25
50
mid-20s
21
60
43
27 going on 28
mid 30s
60s
35
55
almost 30
52
43
40
38
38
50
47
32
43
43
So, it seems we have a wide range of ages, and they're all talking to each other. How young do you have to be in order for the regulars to sniff you out as young, and then to kick you the fuck out just for being young and ignorant? I don't think we've established a rule, but we could start with astrounit. Get off our lawn!
Bleh. The Welcome mat is big, the topics unlimited. And astrounit was not dissed for the sin of youth as far as we can discern.
Yay! A nine-screener (on the laptop) that took six hours to write, during which I did the laundry, swept the floor, had dinner, went for a walk... but I caught up with Teh Thread!!! Yeehaaaah!!!
:-)
#436 Lynna
To be fair, I did say what they were. If you chose to go to them then you can hardly complain!
Mind you, I hadn't considered Eurovision Song Contest. There is a cesspool wealth of songs to enjoy there ...
#436 Lynna
I can't deny the "64" on the list:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3HAJ4DjMhY
Perhaps I'm the one causeing all the trouble although I cannot remember any time I blasted anyone out of the water - except perhaps Alan C but even then I tried to be gracious.
Hmmm, I forgot PZ in the list, and he is, I believe 53 or 54 -- close enough.
Yes, I was warned about the awfulness of the posted tunes, and then I clicked on most of them anyway. Morbid trait of being drawn to disaster.
Alan B,
If I remember correctly Alan C is in his mid-40s. So while several people, including you, blasted him out of the water, it wasn't due to his youth.
inevitably? no, not really. but I'm sure that's the direction it goes for brains trained up on competitiveness.
Actually, I wonder if that could explain why the scene is so much more toxic in the US (and the UK?) than in Continental Europe, and why it was less toxic in the 70's? hmmm....
note to self: next time you're single, fuck your way thru Sweden to test hypothesis
:-p
Apparently, the Beatles thought of themselves as still staying out 'til 3 AM when they finally made it to the grand old age of 64. Will you lock the door?
#438 Alan B
Having considered a bit more, how about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcaxHdiMAVE&feature=fvw
Excellent plan, Jadehawk. Let me know how that goes, and give me a call if you need a fellow researcher.
boygenius @ 338:
Yes it is, a whole 18 miles away. Drinkin' and partyin' are serious business around here. :D
#443 Lynna
I'm tucked up in bed with my horlicks by 10 p.m.
(NOT - more likely trying to catch up with "The Thread")
This thread needs more bacon.
Bacon and Chili Cornbread
1 tablespoon corn oil
12¼ oz. smoked streaky bacon, diced
2 spring onions, finely chopped
4¼ oz. corn kernels
½ teaspoon dried chili flakes
10½ oz. polenta
12¼ oz. plain flour
1 tablespoon caster sugar
1 teaspoon baking powder
½ teaspoon baking soda
½ teaspoon salt
13½ fl oz. buttermilk
2 eggs, lightly beaten
1 tablespoon maple syrup
½ teaspoon ground black pepper
2 tablespoons unsalted butter, melted
Preheat the oven to 200C/390F/Gas 6. Lightly butter a cake tin. Heat the oil in a frying pan and fry the bacon until it is crisp and releases its fat. Add the spring onions and cook for five minutes, then add the corn kernels and chili flakes and stir to combine. Allow to cool slightly. Combine the polenta, flour, sugar, baking powder, baking soda, and salt. Add the bacon mixture, the buttermilk, eggs, maple syrup, black pepper and half the melted butter. Mix well. Pour the batter into the prepared cake tin and brush the top with the remaining melted butter. Bake until golden (about 20-25 minutes). Serve warm.
While there are some really bad songs coming out of the UK and the Eurovision Contest produces some really bad stuff, let's not forget The Heart of Rock And Roll Is In Cleveland.
Ah, another study on coffee. Coffee is Generally Heart Friendly
for casual sex?! absolutely not!
any man who even suggests this will be dropped like a hot potato, since the suggestion alone makes them that much more likely to carry at least one STI (because I'm not a special snowflake; if he asked me, he asked everyone, and some of them might have agreed).
Admittedly I wasn't alive in the 70s. But I find it implausible that it was actually easier for unattractive people to get laid then than today; we have only anecdotal evidence for this.
In any sexually-liberated society where people have a free choice of sexual partners, they are likely to choose more attractive over less attractive people. This self-evidently explains why the "dating" scene in modern society is such a competitive, self-esteem-crushing process. I don't see how any liberal society could be different in this regard.
You should add this to your pseudonym. I quite like "Jadehawk, Special Snowflake, OM". :-)
Walton,
You are getting your understanding of sexual relationships mixed up with your understanding of politics and economics.
They are not the same, believe me.
Walton @ 452:
All I have is anecdotal, but I was alive and well and having a lot of sex in the '70s. I'd never win a beauty contest, never even get close. I've generally been considered to be quite attractive however. One thing you always leave out of your "what makes a person attractive" equation, Walton, is personality.
As for the '70s, it was still the age of the sexual revolution, ya know, sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll. A whole lot of people simply weren't hung up about having sex.
because "less attractive" and "more attractive" don't actually mean shit except when sex is considered a competition for the most "high-quality" partners. it only matters when keeping score matters, and having sex with an unattractive partner will lower your chances of attracting more attractive partners.
Other than that, lust is really not as picky as you think, and sex is not competitive since it's not a limited resource. it can obviously be made competitive though.
Penis knows that testoterone is a neurotoxin...that will shut up that ole brain.
Anyway - does anyone have a link to an interactive tree of life? Studying for my biology test and being able to track down kingdon/phylum/class/etc in some kind of interactive and graphic way would be really helpful. Thanks, I'll keep googlin but hoped someone would know.
k
#441 'Tis Himself, OM said:
I thought I treated him pretty well, considering.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdZqQ5C7pN0&feature=related
or, the more expanded version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zbz6Oa5PQuA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC9_VKdzv9w&feature=related
Cross-posted from the "Jerry Coyne Gets Email" thread:
Okay, I admit I'm stumped. A Christian sent an email to Jerry Coyne that included this, "I beat the shit out of people like you, you cock smoking douche nozzle."
My problem is that I'm having trouble visualizing a "cock smoking douche nozzle". Is it just me, or are christian insults incoherent?
or, in other words, the only time someone can be "objectively" more or less attractive is when fuckability is decided by society rather than by individuals; which in sexually liberal societies only happens when it's a competition, because competitions require "objective" ways of keeping score.
otherwise, being less or more attractive would be entirely subjective and, since personal tastes vary extremely, fuckability would be far more evenly spread across the population :-p
Makes sense.
:-D
That goes without saying. I should have made clearer that I was engaging in topic drift.
For hippies, with other hippies, it may well have been.
Seconded :-)
Nonsense Walton, I screwed my way through the 60's and 70's when I looked even less handsome than I am now (distinguished grey and silver so I am told - laughing). Of course, the drugs may have had something to do with it. Hmmm, thinking back on it, following the Dead for a while, I learned to like body hair on women, including legs and pits (to hearken back to an earlier thread). You have not had casual sex until you wake up three days later wearing strange underwear and your...uh, lower extremities covered with Henna tatoos.
All kidding aside, my recollection of the crowd that ran with Woodstock and the Dead cared a lot less about physical appearance and more about personality. Still, there were a lot of drugs and I did have the bitchin' mutton chops and 'stache of a classic porn star. Boom chicka wow wow.
Caine is right, it is personality. If you have trouble with yours of a real kind, like terminal shyness, seek a therapist. If you are happy to be alone, drop the subject. Stop making excuses, though, please.
#459 Lynna said:
Blockquote>A Christian sent an email to Jerry Coyne that included this, "I beat the shit out of people like you, you cock smoking douche nozzle."
My problem is that I'm having trouble visualizing a "cock smoking douche nozzle". Is it just me, or are christian insults incoherent?
My problem is recognizing this as having anything whatsoever to do with Christianity ...
My other problem is hitting the submit key when I wanted to preview ...
#459 Lynna said:
That said, in relative terms at least, remarkably ugly women regularly win most, perhaps all, beauty contests.
...But that's just me. De gustibus non est disputandum.
http://tolweb.org/tree
However, this one doesn't deal with the ranks (kingdom, phylum etc.). That's because the ranks aren't facts, they are... conventions at best, and always arbitrary ones.
Obvious brainfart for "coke-".
Subthread won.
(Was about time, LOL! In a few hours it'll be over! X-D )
Kellach, once a hippie, always a hippie, eh? :D
Christopher Hitchens has an interesting article up on Slate's website about Democratic Seismology
Alan B, you are right that the insult to Jerry Coyne is not christian behavior as defined by the pink fluffy god version of christianity ("pink fluffy god" phrase is from Leigh Williams), but it is, unfortunately, of a piece with the thugitude of many christians/mormons I have met. They wouldn't use those words in conversation with their fellow christians, but they think anything is allowable when combatting Satan or The Adversary. They are quite nasty when the mask slips.
And some of us, Kellach, managed it perfectly well without either drugs or a band to follow.
Unless Tetley's Bitter counts ........
Alan B
You must have repressed this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFacWGBJ_cs
I only wish I could
#469 SteveV
I was saving it up ...
Alan B @434:
I agree, those are bad. The reason I think Lady in Red is worse is that it had potential*, but Chris de Burgh's lyrics and vocals are so utterly pedestrian that it feels like an ordeal. With a decent voice, it sounds somewhat better.
For truly, irredemably awful, this is hard to beat.
*despite the first three bars of the melody being practically the same note: "Never seen you looking so lovely as you..."
"I beat the shit out of people like you, you cock smoking douche nozzle."
My problem is recognizing this as having anything whatsoever to do with Christianity - Alan B.
I think it's a direct quote from Paul's Letter to the New Atheists isn't it?
Caine at #466, damn straight, got Sugar Magnolia blaring as we speak on the laptop. Of course, in the interest of full disclosure, was listening to Offenbach right before that. Winamp is on shuffle, and it just kicked into Wagner. (hits skip button, brings up Spencer Davis Group, Gimme some lovin'.)
maureen.brian at #468 - Tea? Tea? Tea!? You drug addled reprobate. Do you not know that tea is the gateway drug to cookies? ;)
Little Richard now blasting as I chair dance. Ok, time for some lunch.
#467 Lynna, OM
In that case it is time they learnt a bit more about the Bible and what it teaches them:
http://bible.cc/jude/1-9.htm
http://bible.cc/matthew/5-44.htm
(and similar passages)
Somebody ought to call them on their dis-grace-full attitudes! It has nothing to do with Christianity.
"Love your neighbour as yourself" does not mean using threatening behaviour or behaviour likely to lead to a breach of the peace.
(But you know that, of course!)
Kellach-
Tetley's Bitter is beer, the gateway drug to pizza. :)
Sorry to be so slow, but I've only just found this
http://bbc.co.uk/i/q9ypy/?t=38s
And if it dosn't work for you:
I'm sorry
I'm really, really sorry
I'm so fucking sorry...
MrFire, that young fellow with the divine voice who covered that awful song... I have died, I am dead. I'm listening to him cover "The Shadow of Your Smile" right now, and feeling a sense of awe that borders on fear. Wow, wow, wow.
Check out the rest of his covers: http://www.youtube.com/user/aldo0blaga#p/u/19/dUx8X3rSfTA
I'm an inveterate tea drinker. Back in the day, we just drank tea made out of a certain plant.
:-D
I'm having some. Actual English tea. It says "brew 3 to 5 minutes"; I did 8, but for 2 mugs instead of 1 cup, so it's still weak enough I don't need to pour milk in it. Delicious with honey.
No cookies here at the moment, but reverse cookies: milk chocolate with rice crisps.
But between tea and reverse cookies, I must have my milk. Tea is acidic enough that I can feel it roughening my tooth enamel. A source of calcium and a sink for acid (or alternatively a pretty long time, like 1/2 h or 1 h) must be applied before I can eat anything.
This, perhaps together with the theobromine from chocolate, might be the secret to the Walton-like state of my teeth. <g>
This, and the Sermon on the Mount, is missing from American fundamentalism.
(At least the kind of fundamentalism that makes news; the quietistic sects like the Amish could be another matter.)
#471 MrFire
I agree but it is interesting to see what the person who put it up thought of it:
7 words - 3 grammatical mistakes. Is this a record?
Answer: Yes - and a bad one!
boygenius #475
'beer, the gateway drug to pizza. :)'
Pizza?? what sort of nancy boy are you?
It's the gateway drug to curry or kebab!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cuSUSPbLSg
#476 SteveV
I'm not sure which I found worse in the first minute*: the televangelist or the British PM.
As far as I chose to go.
#481 SteveV
That's an Ozzie beer advert. Try the British version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2keX3felmQ
No.
I have been working on converting a twenty-year-old slide to a usable digital file so it can be used in an exhibit. This involves, of course, a shitload of scratches, dust scratches (even smaller than scratches) and dust fused to the transparency (not to mention the fading and colour shifts). Graphics is not part of my job description. Therefore, my government computer is not a high-end graphics computer. Therefore, when I tell PSP to filter the file in some way, it can take up to fifteen minutes. During the time that the computer is finding it's anus, I duck over to Pharyngula (or any of the other science-y and history sites I frequent) to catch up on what is new. I am not (nor was I) wasting tax payers dollars. The computer was (is) handling that all on its own. Of course, the agency could buy the computer I need to do my assignments, but then some fiscal hawk (hard to even type that with a straight face) will complain that the agency bought an expensive computer rather than the minimum off-the-shelf dreck we normally get. The lesson? Sometimes cutting funding can lead to less effeciency. Remember that next time you are at the DMV.
boygenius at #475 - Ah, thanks for the clarification, did not recognize the name. Must be one of them furrin' beers. :> Pizza, in my not humble opinion, is a food group all in itself, but it was the gateway drug to my fat ass.
David Marjanović at #479, I can handle the cookies and will even eat chocolate once in a while, but not the cow juice. Lactose intolerant from birth or soon after. On those rare times I have hot tea, I must have lemon. Mostly I stick with coffee, black as the face of night, strong enough to float an iron wedge, and innocent of lacteal adulteration.
Merging this thread's sub-themes of bad music and sexual etiquette, all gentlemen can take a lesson in subtlety and non-objectification from these fine young men.
Snap!
Have you ever tried diagramming the sentence "See Dick run"?
Thanks Alan B - I'd forgtten those!
iambilly @ 484: Or, you could emulate that IT legend, and outsource your graphics work to a smart artist in Mumbai willing to do the job for what you spend on lunch.
SteveV #476
#486 MrFire
I must be missing something (maybe something to do with the cider (8.2% alc volume)).
"See Dick run" stands on its own with a clear meaning, except for the lack of a full stop (period in American). Somebody is asking someone else in direct speech to see/watch/view Dick (diminutive form of Richard) carry out an action - run.
What do you mean "diagramming"? Drawing an outline picture??
Thought as much - did apologize in advance
Try this about 35 secs in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iVAZKreer8
MrFire,
Sentence diagramming appears to be a solely American teaching perversion.
Ed Yong has a new post up: Beer makes humans more attractive to malarial mosquitoes
Uh oh.
Two problems with that:
1. Do you have any idea the paperwork required to do a contract with a foreign company?
2. With our internet connection here (I interpret steam technology (and I don't (necessarily) mean the steam locomotives)) that would take far longer.
#492
"American teaching perversion."
Fascinating - tell me more ...
I have googled diagramming sentences and came up on the second link with this quote:
With all due respect, madam, you may have lived a sheltered life. Either that or I have wasted many decades of my life.
iambilly, I work in IT, which means I am a specialist in the arcane discipline of the "workaround." I didn't say you wouldn't get in trouble if found out, exactly; I meant something more like you shouldn't, ahem, draw attention to yourself. You would, of course, use a different Internet connection.
This is more widespread than you think, in official work in and out of the US. I have a Hotmail account that bears the name of some British official who works in the agency responsible for housing standards. Some of his co-workers kept sending me official mail meant for him. Once they sent a PowerPoint presentation about required modifications to ancient buildings used for low-income housing. To say it was so execrable it broke my heart would be understating the case. I took it upon myself to give the poor neglected thing a thorough restoration job that included building an entire new slide master schematic, correcting countless grammatical and spelling errors, and standardizing font, format, and line spacing according to the best practices that I've learned. Without asking awkward questions about why I was receiving internal government paperwork through a public web-based e-mail account, I sent it back with a saucy "reply all." Funny how after that I never received any other stray mail from that agency.
Paperwork? Oh, yes, I know about paperwork; we just had to do hours of coursework at my jobsite about not doing business with proscribed countries, and I'm attempting to train the Trade Compliance group while second-guessing myself before I let a word leave my lips.
(The IT legend in question, as the story goes, subcontracted all of his work to his Mumbai counterpart for a fraction of his salary, sat back, and merely acted as an occasional, part-time proofreader.)
@Caine- I thought that was common knowledge amongst travellers. Beer makes your blood vessels dilate, which makes you easy prey for mozzies.
Plus you're buzzed, so you don't notice the buzzing.
Everyone I knew took fansidar for a hangover anyhow.
badgersdaughter #497 wrote:
Ha!
I like this anecdote, and think it would have been even funnier if, after you fixed their misdirected Power Point presentation, you started receiving even more mail from the government agency. I hope you don't mind if I now imagine a nice little heartwarming movie scenario, maybe with a romance added.
It's just too awesome a story, not to. ;)
I secretly hoped some such thing might come of it, incurably desperate romantic that I am. :) Alas, it was not to be....