The Logic of Female Orgasm

[MrPepper11]

New York Times
May 17, 2005

A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
By DINITIA SMITH

Evolutionary scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male
orgasm, closely tied as it is to reproduction.

But the Darwinian logic behind the female orgasm has remained elusive.
Women can have sexual intercourse and even become pregnant - doing
their part for the perpetuation of the species - without experiencing
orgasm. So what is its evolutionary purpose?

Over the last four decades, scientists have come up with a variety of
theories, arguing, for example, that orgasm encourages women to have
sex and, therefore, reproduce or that it leads women to favor stronger
and healthier men, maximizing their offspring's chances of survival.

But in a new book, Dr. Elisabeth A. Lloyd, a philosopher of science and
professor of biology at Indiana University, takes on 20 leading
theories and finds them wanting. The female orgasm, she argues in the
book, "The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of
Evolution," has no evolutionary function at all.

Rather, Dr. Lloyd says the most convincing theory is one put forward in
1979 by Dr. Donald Symons, an anthropologist.

That theory holds that female orgasms are simply artifacts - a
byproduct of the parallel development of male and female embryos in the
first eight or nine weeks of life.

In that early period, the nerve and tissue pathways are laid down for
various reflexes, including the orgasm, Dr. Lloyd said. As development
progresses, male hormones saturate the embryo, and sexuality is
defined.

In boys, the penis develops, along with the potential to have orgasms
and ejaculate, while "females get the nerve pathways for orgasm by
initially having the same body plan."

Nipples in men are similarly vestigial, Dr. Lloyd pointed out.

While nipples in woman serve a purpose, male nipples appear to be
simply left over from the initial stage of embryonic development.

The female orgasm, she said, "is for fun."

Dr. Lloyd said scientists had insisted on finding an evolutionary
function for female orgasm in humans either because they were invested
in believing that women's sexuality must exactly parallel that of men
or because they were convinced that all traits had to be "adaptations,"
that is, serve an evolutionary function.

Theories of female orgasm are significant, she added, because "men's
expectations about women's normal sexuality, about how women should
perform, are built around these notions."

"And men are the ones who reflect back immediately to the woman whether
or not she is adequate sexually," Dr. Lloyd continued.

Central to her thesis is the fact that women do not routinely have
orgasms during sexual intercourse.

She analyzed 32 studies, conducted over 74 years, of the frequency of
female orgasm during intercourse.

When intercourse was "unassisted," that is not accompanied by
stimulation of the clitoris, just a quarter of the women studied
experienced orgasms often or very often during intercourse, she found.

Five to 10 percent never had orgasms. Yet many of the women became
pregnant.

Dr. Lloyd's figures are lower than those of Dr. Alfred A. Kinsey, who
in his 1953 book "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female" found that 39 to
47 percent of women reported that they always, or almost always, had
orgasm during intercourse.

But Kinsey, Dr. Lloyd said, included orgasms assisted by clitoral
stimulation.

Dr. Lloyd said there was no doubt in her mind that the clitoris was an
evolutionary adaptation, selected to create excitement, leading to
sexual intercourse and then reproduction.

But, "without a link to fertility or reproduction," Dr. Lloyd said,
"orgasm cannot be an adaptation."

Not everyone agrees. For example, Dr. John Alcock, a professor of
biology at Arizona State University, criticized an earlier version of
Dr. Lloyd's thesis, discussed in in a 1987 article by Stephen Jay Gould
in the magazine Natural History.

In a phone interview, Dr. Alcock said that he had not read her new
book, but that he still maintained the hypothesis that the fact that
"orgasm doesn't occur every time a woman has intercourse is not
evidence that it's not adaptive."

"I'm flabbergasted by the notion that orgasm has to happen every time
to be adaptive," he added.

Dr. Alcock theorized that a woman might use orgasm "as an unconscious
way to evaluate the quality of the male," his genetic fitness and,
thus, how suitable he would be as a father for her offspring.

"Under those circumstances, you wouldn't expect her to have it every
time," Dr. Alcock said.

Among the theories that Dr. Lloyd addresses in her book is one proposed
in 1993, by Dr. R. Robin Baker and Dr. Mark A. Bellis, at Manchester
University in England. In two papers published in the journal Animal
Behaviour, they argued that female orgasm was a way of manipulating the
retention of sperm by creating suction in the uterus. When a woman has
an orgasm from one minute before the man ejaculates to 45 minutes
after, she retains more sperm, they said.

Furthermore, they asserted, when a woman has intercourse with a man
other than her regular sexual partner, she is more likely to have an
orgasm in that prime time span and thus retain more sperm, presumably
making conception more likely. They postulated that women seek other
partners in an effort to obtain better genes for their offspring.

Dr. Lloyd said the Baker-Bellis argument was "fatally flawed because
their sample size is too small."

"In one table," she said, "73 percent of the data is based on the
experience of one person."

In an e-mail message recently, Dr. Baker wrote that his and Dr.
Bellis's manuscript had "received intense peer review appraisal" before
publication. Statisticians were among the reviewers, he said, and they
noted that some sample sizes were small, "but considered that none of
these were fatal to our paper."

Dr. Lloyd said that studies called into question the logic of such
theories. Research by Dr. Ludwig Wildt and his colleagues at the
University of Erlangen-Nuremberg in Germany in 1998, for example, found
that in a healthy woman the uterus undergoes peristaltic contractions
throughout the day in the absence of sexual intercourse or orgasm. This
casts doubt, Dr. Lloyd argues, on the idea that the contractions of
orgasm somehow affect sperm retention.

Another hypothesis, proposed in 1995 by Dr. Randy Thornhill, a
professor of biology at the University of New Mexico and two
colleagues, held that women were more likely to have orgasms during
intercourse with men with symmetrical physical features. On the basis
of earlier studies of physical attraction, Dr. Thornhill argued that
symmetry might be an indicator of genetic fitness.

Dr. Lloyd, however, said those conclusions were not viable because
"they only cover a minority of women, 45 percent, who say they
sometimes do, and sometimes don't, have orgasm during intercourse."

"It excludes women on either end of the spectrum," she said. "The 25
percent who say they almost always have orgasm in intercourse and the
30 percent who say they rarely or never do. And that last 30 percent
includes the 10 percent who say they never have orgasm under any
circumstances."

In a phone interview, Dr. Thornhill said that he had not read Dr.
Lloyd's book but the fact that not all women have orgasms during
intercourse supports his theory.

"There will be patterns in orgasm with preferred and not preferred
men," he said.

Dr. Lloyd also criticized work by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, an emeritus
professor of anthropology at the University of California, Davis, who
studies primate behavior and female reproductive strategies.

Scientists have documented that orgasm occurs in some female primates;
for other mammals, whether orgasm occurs remains an open question.

In the 1981 book "The Woman That Never Evolved" and in her other work,
Dr. Hrdy argues that orgasm evolved in nonhuman primates as a way for
the female to protect her offspring from the depredation of males.

She points out that langur monkeys have a high infant mortality rate,
with 30 percent of deaths a result of babies' being killed by males who
are not the fathers. Male langurs, she says, will not kill the babies
of females they have mated with.

In macaques and chimpanzees, she said, females are conditioned by the
pleasurable sensations of clitoral stimulation to keep copulating with
multiple partners until they have an orgasm. Thus, males do not know
which infants are theirs and which are not and do not attack them.

Dr. Hrdy also argues against the idea that female orgasm is an artifact
of the early parallel development of male and female embryos.

"I'm convinced," she said, "that the selection of the clitoris is quite
separate from that of the penis in males."

In critiquing Dr. Hrdy's view, Dr. Lloyd disputes the idea that longer
periods of sexual intercourse lead to a higher incidence of orgasm,
something that if it is true, may provide an evolutionary rationale for
female orgasm.

But Dr. Hrdy said her work did not speak one way or another to the
issue of female orgasm in humans. "My hypothesis is silent," she said.

One possibility, Dr. Hrdy said, is that orgasm in women may have been
an adaptive trait in our prehuman ancestors.

"But we separated from our common primate ancestors about seven million
years ago," she said.

"Perhaps the reason orgasm is so erratic is that it's phasing out," Dr.
Hrdy said. "Our descendants on the starships may well wonder what all
the fuss was about."

Western culture is suffused with images of women's sexuality, of women
in the throes of orgasm during intercourse and seeming to reach heights
of pleasure that are rare, if not impossible, for most women in
everyday life.

"Accounts of our evolutionary past tell us how the various parts of our
body should function," Dr. Lloyd said.

If women, she said, are told that it is "natural" to have orgasms every
time they have intercourse and that orgasms will help make them
pregnant, then they feel inadequate or inferior or abnormal when they
do not achieve it.

"Getting the evolutionary story straight has potentially very large
social and personal consequences for all women," Dr. Lloyd said. "And
indirectly for men, as well."

[the Danimal]

Post by MrPepper11
Western culture is suffused with images of women's sexuality, of women
in the throes of orgasm during intercourse and seeming to reach heights
of pleasure that are rare, if not impossible, for most women in
everyday life.

I guess that means most women in everyday life do not own Sybians.

Post by MrPepper11
"Accounts of our evolutionary past tell us how the various parts of our
body should function," Dr. Lloyd said.
If women, she said, are told that it is "natural" to have orgasms every
time they have intercourse and that orgasms will help make them
pregnant, then they feel inadequate or inferior or abnormal when they
do not achieve it.

It's odd that evolutionary theorists would not realize the
evolutionary implications of stigma.

People feel "inferior" when they are lacking in some trait which,
for whatever reason, probably has consequences for survival and/or
reproduction.

For example, young men who have poor athletic ability tend to feel
inferior to young men who excel at sports, in part because the
non-jocks see how the jocks tend to attract the hottest chicks.
Non-jocks express their sense of inferiority by becoming sports
fans (or worse, sports writers), thereby helping to insure that
they actually are inferior by seeing that the top jocks earn huge
salaries and have their exploits recounted endlessly and held to
be vitally important.

Instinctively we all know how important it is to impress the
opposite sex, especially the most impressive individuals of
the opposite sex. OBVIOUSLY if men dedicate so much """art""" to
glorifying the female orgasm, men must prize those (few) women
who are especially responsive. Which means such women have a
competitive edge over less-responsive women when it comes (heh---
and does it ruin the pun if I interject "heh"?) to attracting
and retaining the highest-quality men.

So even if (as I suspect) the female orgasm is an evolutionary
byproduct of the male orgasm (men need orgasms to reproduce;
therefore (some) women have them because men need them, just
as men have otherwise useless nipples because women need them),
nonetheless the ability to have spectacular orgasms makes a
woman considerably more entertaining to men, and therefore a
more desirable mate.

There is also the obvious empirical result every man can discover
by direct experimentation: figure out the techniques necessary to
give an otherwise non- or rarely-orgasmic woman consistent
screaming orgasms, and notice how she wants to have sex with you
more often than she might otherwise.

If female orgasm needs a "purpose," it might be that it accidentally
creates a new competitive playground for men, conferring a slight
reproductive edge for men who are smart enough to decode the female
body. That is, men who are smart enough to figure out how to do
for women what a Sybian does for women.

In other words, instead of focusing only on the percentages of
women who have orgasms right now, researchers might look at the
percentage of women who COULD (easy enough to measure in any
laboratory by purchasing a Sybian). The unrealized potential for
female orgasm may be something like a raw material convertible
to somewhat greater male reproductive success.

Post by MrPepper11
"Getting the evolutionary story straight has potentially very large
social and personal consequences for all women," Dr. Lloyd said. "And
indirectly for men, as well."

I'm guessing Dr. Lloyd, if she is female, is less likely to
attempt to argue away the inferiority of males she herself can
clearly recognize as inferior.

-- the Danimal

[Comm]

Ahem, women can orgasm two distinct ways - and they feel completely
different. 1. clitoral and 2. vaginal. Women don't even need a man around
to achieve these orgasms. A finger will accomplish #1 and a dildoe or more
than one finger will accomplish #2.

Perhaps when a zygote is formed (consider that she contributes the entire
cell, he only contributes a tiny sperm) from a woman achieving a vaginal
orgasm, the QUALITY of the product that gets born is 100% better. There are
systems of esoteric thought that do say that.

Post by MrPepper11

Post by MrPepper11
Western culture is suffused with images of women's sexuality, of

women

Post by MrPepper11
in the throes of orgasm during intercourse and seeming to reach

heights

Post by MrPepper11
of pleasure that are rare, if not impossible, for most women in
everyday life.

I guess that means most women in everyday life do not own Sybians.

Post by MrPepper11
"Accounts of our evolutionary past tell us how the various parts of

our

Post by MrPepper11
body should function," Dr. Lloyd said.
If women, she said, are told that it is "natural" to have orgasms

every

Post by MrPepper11
time they have intercourse and that orgasms will help make them
pregnant, then they feel inadequate or inferior or abnormal when they
do not achieve it.

It's odd that evolutionary theorists would not realize the
evolutionary implications of stigma.
People feel "inferior" when they are lacking in some trait which,
for whatever reason, probably has consequences for survival and/or
reproduction.
For example, young men who have poor athletic ability tend to feel
inferior to young men who excel at sports, in part because the
non-jocks see how the jocks tend to attract the hottest chicks.
Non-jocks express their sense of inferiority by becoming sports
fans (or worse, sports writers), thereby helping to insure that
they actually are inferior by seeing that the top jocks earn huge
salaries and have their exploits recounted endlessly and held to
be vitally important.
Instinctively we all know how important it is to impress the
opposite sex, especially the most impressive individuals of
the opposite sex. OBVIOUSLY if men dedicate so much """art""" to
glorifying the female orgasm, men must prize those (few) women
who are especially responsive. Which means such women have a
competitive edge over less-responsive women when it comes (heh---
and does it ruin the pun if I interject "heh"?) to attracting
and retaining the highest-quality men.
So even if (as I suspect) the female orgasm is an evolutionary
byproduct of the male orgasm (men need orgasms to reproduce;
therefore (some) women have them because men need them, just
as men have otherwise useless nipples because women need them),
nonetheless the ability to have spectacular orgasms makes a
woman considerably more entertaining to men, and therefore a
more desirable mate.
There is also the obvious empirical result every man can discover
by direct experimentation: figure out the techniques necessary to
give an otherwise non- or rarely-orgasmic woman consistent
screaming orgasms, and notice how she wants to have sex with you
more often than she might otherwise.
If female orgasm needs a "purpose," it might be that it accidentally
creates a new competitive playground for men, conferring a slight
reproductive edge for men who are smart enough to decode the female
body. That is, men who are smart enough to figure out how to do
for women what a Sybian does for women.
In other words, instead of focusing only on the percentages of
women who have orgasms right now, researchers might look at the
percentage of women who COULD (easy enough to measure in any
laboratory by purchasing a Sybian). The unrealized potential for
female orgasm may be something like a raw material convertible
to somewhat greater male reproductive success.

Post by MrPepper11
"Getting the evolutionary story straight has potentially very large
social and personal consequences for all women," Dr. Lloyd said. "And
indirectly for men, as well."

I'm guessing Dr. Lloyd, if she is female, is less likely to
attempt to argue away the inferiority of males she herself can
clearly recognize as inferior.
-- the Danimal

[kate]

I am leaning towards sexual selection. On a practical level, the more
pleasreable the experience the greater the desire to repeat it. It's
another indicator of compatibility.

Kate C.

Post by MrPepper11
New York Times
May 17, 2005
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
By DINITIA SMITH
Evolutionary scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male
orgasm, closely tied as it is to reproduction.
But the Darwinian logic behind the female orgasm has remained

elusive.

Post by MrPepper11
Women can have sexual intercourse and even become pregnant - doing
their part for the perpetuation of the species - without experiencing
orgasm. So what is its evolutionary purpose?
Over the last four decades, scientists have come up with a variety of
theories, arguing, for example, that orgasm encourages women to have
sex and, therefore, reproduce or that it leads women to favor

stronger

Post by MrPepper11
and healthier men, maximizing their offspring's chances of survival.
But in a new book, Dr. Elisabeth A. Lloyd, a philosopher of science and
professor of biology at Indiana University, takes on 20 leading
theories and finds them wanting. The female orgasm, she argues in the
book, "The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of
Evolution," has no evolutionary function at all.
Rather, Dr. Lloyd says the most convincing theory is one put forward in
1979 by Dr. Donald Symons, an anthropologist.
That theory holds that female orgasms are simply artifacts - a
byproduct of the parallel development of male and female embryos in the
first eight or nine weeks of life.
In that early period, the nerve and tissue pathways are laid down for
various reflexes, including the orgasm, Dr. Lloyd said. As

development

Post by MrPepper11
progresses, male hormones saturate the embryo, and sexuality is
defined.
In boys, the penis develops, along with the potential to have orgasms
and ejaculate, while "females get the nerve pathways for orgasm by
initially having the same body plan."
Nipples in men are similarly vestigial, Dr. Lloyd pointed out.
While nipples in woman serve a purpose, male nipples appear to be
simply left over from the initial stage of embryonic development.
The female orgasm, she said, "is for fun."
Dr. Lloyd said scientists had insisted on finding an evolutionary
function for female orgasm in humans either because they were

invested

Post by MrPepper11
in believing that women's sexuality must exactly parallel that of men
or because they were convinced that all traits had to be

"adaptations,"

Post by MrPepper11
that is, serve an evolutionary function.
Theories of female orgasm are significant, she added, because "men's
expectations about women's normal sexuality, about how women should
perform, are built around these notions."
"And men are the ones who reflect back immediately to the woman whether
or not she is adequate sexually," Dr. Lloyd continued.
Central to her thesis is the fact that women do not routinely have
orgasms during sexual intercourse.
She analyzed 32 studies, conducted over 74 years, of the frequency of
female orgasm during intercourse.
When intercourse was "unassisted," that is not accompanied by
stimulation of the clitoris, just a quarter of the women studied
experienced orgasms often or very often during intercourse, she found.
Five to 10 percent never had orgasms. Yet many of the women became
pregnant.
Dr. Lloyd's figures are lower than those of Dr. Alfred A. Kinsey, who
in his 1953 book "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female" found that 39 to
47 percent of women reported that they always, or almost always, had
orgasm during intercourse.
But Kinsey, Dr. Lloyd said, included orgasms assisted by clitoral
stimulation.
Dr. Lloyd said there was no doubt in her mind that the clitoris was an
evolutionary adaptation, selected to create excitement, leading to
sexual intercourse and then reproduction.
But, "without a link to fertility or reproduction," Dr. Lloyd said,
"orgasm cannot be an adaptation."
Not everyone agrees. For example, Dr. John Alcock, a professor of
biology at Arizona State University, criticized an earlier version of
Dr. Lloyd's thesis, discussed in in a 1987 article by Stephen Jay Gould
in the magazine Natural History.
In a phone interview, Dr. Alcock said that he had not read her new
book, but that he still maintained the hypothesis that the fact that
"orgasm doesn't occur every time a woman has intercourse is not
evidence that it's not adaptive."
"I'm flabbergasted by the notion that orgasm has to happen every time
to be adaptive," he added.
Dr. Alcock theorized that a woman might use orgasm "as an unconscious
way to evaluate the quality of the male," his genetic fitness and,
thus, how suitable he would be as a father for her offspring.
"Under those circumstances, you wouldn't expect her to have it every
time," Dr. Alcock said.
Among the theories that Dr. Lloyd addresses in her book is one

proposed

Post by MrPepper11
in 1993, by Dr. R. Robin Baker and Dr. Mark A. Bellis, at Manchester
University in England. In two papers published in the journal Animal
Behaviour, they argued that female orgasm was a way of manipulating the
retention of sperm by creating suction in the uterus. When a woman has
an orgasm from one minute before the man ejaculates to 45 minutes
after, she retains more sperm, they said.
Furthermore, they asserted, when a woman has intercourse with a man
other than her regular sexual partner, she is more likely to have an
orgasm in that prime time span and thus retain more sperm, presumably
making conception more likely. They postulated that women seek other
partners in an effort to obtain better genes for their offspring.
Dr. Lloyd said the Baker-Bellis argument was "fatally flawed because
their sample size is too small."
"In one table," she said, "73 percent of the data is based on the
experience of one person."
In an e-mail message recently, Dr. Baker wrote that his and Dr.
Bellis's manuscript had "received intense peer review appraisal" before
publication. Statisticians were among the reviewers, he said, and they
noted that some sample sizes were small, "but considered that none of
these were fatal to our paper."
Dr. Lloyd said that studies called into question the logic of such
theories. Research by Dr. Ludwig Wildt and his colleagues at the
University of Erlangen-Nuremberg in Germany in 1998, for example, found
that in a healthy woman the uterus undergoes peristaltic contractions
throughout the day in the absence of sexual intercourse or orgasm. This
casts doubt, Dr. Lloyd argues, on the idea that the contractions of
orgasm somehow affect sperm retention.
Another hypothesis, proposed in 1995 by Dr. Randy Thornhill, a
professor of biology at the University of New Mexico and two
colleagues, held that women were more likely to have orgasms during
intercourse with men with symmetrical physical features. On the basis
of earlier studies of physical attraction, Dr. Thornhill argued that
symmetry might be an indicator of genetic fitness.
Dr. Lloyd, however, said those conclusions were not viable because
"they only cover a minority of women, 45 percent, who say they
sometimes do, and sometimes don't, have orgasm during intercourse."
"It excludes women on either end of the spectrum," she said. "The 25
percent who say they almost always have orgasm in intercourse and the
30 percent who say they rarely or never do. And that last 30 percent
includes the 10 percent who say they never have orgasm under any
circumstances."
In a phone interview, Dr. Thornhill said that he had not read Dr.
Lloyd's book but the fact that not all women have orgasms during
intercourse supports his theory.
"There will be patterns in orgasm with preferred and not preferred
men," he said.
Dr. Lloyd also criticized work by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, an emeritus
professor of anthropology at the University of California, Davis, who
studies primate behavior and female reproductive strategies.
Scientists have documented that orgasm occurs in some female

primates;

Post by MrPepper11
for other mammals, whether orgasm occurs remains an open question.
In the 1981 book "The Woman That Never Evolved" and in her other work,
Dr. Hrdy argues that orgasm evolved in nonhuman primates as a way for
the female to protect her offspring from the depredation of males.
She points out that langur monkeys have a high infant mortality rate,
with 30 percent of deaths a result of babies' being killed by males who
are not the fathers. Male langurs, she says, will not kill the babies
of females they have mated with.
In macaques and chimpanzees, she said, females are conditioned by the
pleasurable sensations of clitoral stimulation to keep copulating with
multiple partners until they have an orgasm. Thus, males do not know
which infants are theirs and which are not and do not attack them.
Dr. Hrdy also argues against the idea that female orgasm is an

artifact

Post by MrPepper11
of the early parallel development of male and female embryos.
"I'm convinced," she said, "that the selection of the clitoris is quite
separate from that of the penis in males."
In critiquing Dr. Hrdy's view, Dr. Lloyd disputes the idea that longer
periods of sexual intercourse lead to a higher incidence of orgasm,
something that if it is true, may provide an evolutionary rationale for
female orgasm.
But Dr. Hrdy said her work did not speak one way or another to the
issue of female orgasm in humans. "My hypothesis is silent," she said.
One possibility, Dr. Hrdy said, is that orgasm in women may have been
an adaptive trait in our prehuman ancestors.
"But we separated from our common primate ancestors about seven million
years ago," she said.
"Perhaps the reason orgasm is so erratic is that it's phasing out," Dr.
Hrdy said. "Our descendants on the starships may well wonder what all
the fuss was about."
Western culture is suffused with images of women's sexuality, of women
in the throes of orgasm during intercourse and seeming to reach heights
of pleasure that are rare, if not impossible, for most women in
everyday life.
"Accounts of our evolutionary past tell us how the various parts of our
body should function," Dr. Lloyd said.
If women, she said, are told that it is "natural" to have orgasms every
time they have intercourse and that orgasms will help make them
pregnant, then they feel inadequate or inferior or abnormal when they
do not achieve it.
"Getting the evolutionary story straight has potentially very large
social and personal consequences for all women," Dr. Lloyd said. "And
indirectly for men, as well."

[Jennifer Ann]

Post by kate
I am leaning towards sexual selection. On a practical level, the more
pleasreable the experience the greater the desire to repeat it. It's
another indicator of compatibility.
Kate C.

Post by MrPepper11
New York Times
May 17, 2005
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
By DINITIA SMITH
Evolutionary scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male
orgasm, closely tied as it is to reproduction.
But the Darwinian logic behind the female orgasm has remained

elusive.

Post by MrPepper11
Women can have sexual intercourse and even become pregnant - doing
their part for the perpetuation of the species - without

experiencing

Post by kate

Post by MrPepper11
orgasm. So what is its evolutionary purpose?
Over the last four decades, scientists have come up with a variety of
theories, arguing, for example, that orgasm encourages women to have
sex and, therefore, reproduce or that it leads women to favor

stronger

Post by MrPepper11
and healthier men, maximizing their offspring's chances of

survival.

Post by kate

Post by MrPepper11
But in a new book, Dr. Elisabeth A. Lloyd, a philosopher of science

and

Post by MrPepper11
professor of biology at Indiana University, takes on 20 leading
theories and finds them wanting. The female orgasm, she argues in the
book, "The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of
Evolution," has no evolutionary function at all.
Rather, Dr. Lloyd says the most convincing theory is one put

forward

Post by kate
in

Post by MrPepper11
1979 by Dr. Donald Symons, an anthropologist.
That theory holds that female orgasms are simply artifacts - a
byproduct of the parallel development of male and female embryos in

the

Post by MrPepper11
first eight or nine weeks of life.
In that early period, the nerve and tissue pathways are laid down for
various reflexes, including the orgasm, Dr. Lloyd said. As

development

Post by MrPepper11
progresses, male hormones saturate the embryo, and sexuality is
defined.
In boys, the penis develops, along with the potential to have orgasms
and ejaculate, while "females get the nerve pathways for orgasm by
initially having the same body plan."
Nipples in men are similarly vestigial, Dr. Lloyd pointed out.
While nipples in woman serve a purpose, male nipples appear to be
simply left over from the initial stage of embryonic development.
The female orgasm, she said, "is for fun."
Dr. Lloyd said scientists had insisted on finding an evolutionary
function for female orgasm in humans either because they were

invested

Post by MrPepper11
in believing that women's sexuality must exactly parallel that of men
or because they were convinced that all traits had to be

"adaptations,"

Post by MrPepper11
that is, serve an evolutionary function.
Theories of female orgasm are significant, she added, because "men's
expectations about women's normal sexuality, about how women should
perform, are built around these notions."
"And men are the ones who reflect back immediately to the woman

whether

Post by MrPepper11
or not she is adequate sexually," Dr. Lloyd continued.
Central to her thesis is the fact that women do not routinely have
orgasms during sexual intercourse.
She analyzed 32 studies, conducted over 74 years, of the frequency of
female orgasm during intercourse.
When intercourse was "unassisted," that is not accompanied by
stimulation of the clitoris, just a quarter of the women studied
experienced orgasms often or very often during intercourse, she

found.

Post by MrPepper11
Five to 10 percent never had orgasms. Yet many of the women became
pregnant.
Dr. Lloyd's figures are lower than those of Dr. Alfred A. Kinsey, who
in his 1953 book "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female" found that

39

Post by kate
to

Post by MrPepper11
47 percent of women reported that they always, or almost always, had
orgasm during intercourse.
But Kinsey, Dr. Lloyd said, included orgasms assisted by clitoral
stimulation.
Dr. Lloyd said there was no doubt in her mind that the clitoris was

an

Post by MrPepper11
evolutionary adaptation, selected to create excitement, leading to
sexual intercourse and then reproduction.
But, "without a link to fertility or reproduction," Dr. Lloyd said,
"orgasm cannot be an adaptation."
Not everyone agrees. For example, Dr. John Alcock, a professor of
biology at Arizona State University, criticized an earlier version of
Dr. Lloyd's thesis, discussed in in a 1987 article by Stephen Jay

Gould

Post by MrPepper11
in the magazine Natural History.
In a phone interview, Dr. Alcock said that he had not read her new
book, but that he still maintained the hypothesis that the fact that
"orgasm doesn't occur every time a woman has intercourse is not
evidence that it's not adaptive."
"I'm flabbergasted by the notion that orgasm has to happen every time
to be adaptive," he added.
Dr. Alcock theorized that a woman might use orgasm "as an

unconscious

Post by kate

Post by MrPepper11
way to evaluate the quality of the male," his genetic fitness and,
thus, how suitable he would be as a father for her offspring.
"Under those circumstances, you wouldn't expect her to have it every
time," Dr. Alcock said.
Among the theories that Dr. Lloyd addresses in her book is one

proposed

Post by MrPepper11
in 1993, by Dr. R. Robin Baker and Dr. Mark A. Bellis, at

Manchester

Post by kate

Post by MrPepper11
University in England. In two papers published in the journal Animal
Behaviour, they argued that female orgasm was a way of manipulating

the

Post by MrPepper11
retention of sperm by creating suction in the uterus. When a woman

has

Post by MrPepper11
an orgasm from one minute before the man ejaculates to 45 minutes
after, she retains more sperm, they said.
Furthermore, they asserted, when a woman has intercourse with a man
other than her regular sexual partner, she is more likely to have an
orgasm in that prime time span and thus retain more sperm,

presumably

Post by kate

Post by MrPepper11
making conception more likely. They postulated that women seek other
partners in an effort to obtain better genes for their offspring.
Dr. Lloyd said the Baker-Bellis argument was "fatally flawed

because

Post by kate

Post by MrPepper11
their sample size is too small."
"In one table," she said, "73 percent of the data is based on the
experience of one person."
In an e-mail message recently, Dr. Baker wrote that his and Dr.
Bellis's manuscript had "received intense peer review appraisal"

before

Post by MrPepper11
publication. Statisticians were among the reviewers, he said, and

they

Post by MrPepper11
noted that some sample sizes were small, "but considered that none of
these were fatal to our paper."
Dr. Lloyd said that studies called into question the logic of such
theories. Research by Dr. Ludwig Wildt and his colleagues at the
University of Erlangen-Nuremberg in Germany in 1998, for example,

found

Post by MrPepper11
that in a healthy woman the uterus undergoes peristaltic

contractions

Post by kate

Post by MrPepper11
throughout the day in the absence of sexual intercourse or orgasm.

This

Post by MrPepper11
casts doubt, Dr. Lloyd argues, on the idea that the contractions of
orgasm somehow affect sperm retention.
Another hypothesis, proposed in 1995 by Dr. Randy Thornhill, a
professor of biology at the University of New Mexico and two
colleagues, held that women were more likely to have orgasms during
intercourse with men with symmetrical physical features. On the basis
of earlier studies of physical attraction, Dr. Thornhill argued that
symmetry might be an indicator of genetic fitness.
Dr. Lloyd, however, said those conclusions were not viable because
"they only cover a minority of women, 45 percent, who say they
sometimes do, and sometimes don't, have orgasm during intercourse."
"It excludes women on either end of the spectrum," she said. "The 25
percent who say they almost always have orgasm in intercourse and the
30 percent who say they rarely or never do. And that last 30

percent

Post by kate

Post by MrPepper11
includes the 10 percent who say they never have orgasm under any
circumstances."
In a phone interview, Dr. Thornhill said that he had not read Dr.
Lloyd's book but the fact that not all women have orgasms during
intercourse supports his theory.
"There will be patterns in orgasm with preferred and not preferred
men," he said.
Dr. Lloyd also criticized work by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, an emeritus
professor of anthropology at the University of California, Davis, who
studies primate behavior and female reproductive strategies.
Scientists have documented that orgasm occurs in some female

primates;

Post by MrPepper11
for other mammals, whether orgasm occurs remains an open question.
In the 1981 book "The Woman That Never Evolved" and in her other

work,

Post by MrPepper11
Dr. Hrdy argues that orgasm evolved in nonhuman primates as a way for
the female to protect her offspring from the depredation of males.
She points out that langur monkeys have a high infant mortality rate,
with 30 percent of deaths a result of babies' being killed by males

who

Post by MrPepper11
are not the fathers. Male langurs, she says, will not kill the babies
of females they have mated with.
In macaques and chimpanzees, she said, females are conditioned by the
pleasurable sensations of clitoral stimulation to keep copulating

with

Post by MrPepper11
multiple partners until they have an orgasm. Thus, males do not know
which infants are theirs and which are not and do not attack them.
Dr. Hrdy also argues against the idea that female orgasm is an

artifact

Post by MrPepper11
of the early parallel development of male and female embryos.
"I'm convinced," she said, "that the selection of the clitoris is

quite

Post by MrPepper11
separate from that of the penis in males."
In critiquing Dr. Hrdy's view, Dr. Lloyd disputes the idea that

longer

Post by MrPepper11
periods of sexual intercourse lead to a higher incidence of orgasm,
something that if it is true, may provide an evolutionary rationale

for

Post by MrPepper11
female orgasm.
But Dr. Hrdy said her work did not speak one way or another to the
issue of female orgasm in humans. "My hypothesis is silent," she

said.

Post by MrPepper11
One possibility, Dr. Hrdy said, is that orgasm in women may have been
an adaptive trait in our prehuman ancestors.
"But we separated from our common primate ancestors about seven

million

Post by MrPepper11
years ago," she said.
"Perhaps the reason orgasm is so erratic is that it's phasing out,"

Dr.

Post by MrPepper11
Hrdy said. "Our descendants on the starships may well wonder what all
the fuss was about."
Western culture is suffused with images of women's sexuality, of

women

Post by MrPepper11
in the throes of orgasm during intercourse and seeming to reach

heights

Post by MrPepper11
of pleasure that are rare, if not impossible, for most women in
everyday life.
"Accounts of our evolutionary past tell us how the various parts of

our

Post by MrPepper11
body should function," Dr. Lloyd said.
If women, she said, are told that it is "natural" to have orgasms

every

Post by MrPepper11
time they have intercourse and that orgasms will help make them
pregnant, then they feel inadequate or inferior or abnormal when they
do not achieve it.
"Getting the evolutionary story straight has potentially very large
social and personal consequences for all women," Dr. Lloyd said. "And
indirectly for men, as well."

I don't care why! I am just glad I can!

LOL

Jenny

[the Danimal]

Post by Jennifer Ann
I don't care why! I am just glad I can!

You aren't curious to find out what you are?

-- the Danimal

[kate]

Post by the Danimal

Post by Jennifer Ann
I don't care why! I am just glad I can!

You aren't curious to find out what you are?
-- the Danimal

If I had to choose between understanding the science of the phenomena
or experiencing it without a clear understanding of it ~ I would choose
the latter.
100% what Jennifer said.

Kate

[Uncle Davey]

Post by kate

Post by the Danimal

Post by Jennifer Ann
I don't care why! I am just glad I can!

You aren't curious to find out what you are?
-- the Danimal

If I had to choose between understanding the science of the phenomena
or experiencing it without a clear understanding of it ~ I would choose
the latter.
100% what Jennifer said.
Kate

The Danimal wouldn't consider he had had an orgasm if he hadn't understood
the mechanism of ejaculation.

It makes a vas' differens to his enjoyment.

Uncle Davey

[the Danimal]

Post by kate

Post by the Danimal

Post by Jennifer Ann
I don't care why! I am just glad I can!

You aren't curious to find out what you are?
-- the Danimal

If I had to choose between understanding the science of the phenomena
or experiencing it without a clear understanding of it ~ I would choose
the latter.

Why would you have to choose between these things?

Are you implying that understanding oneself in some
way interferes with being oneself?

I would guess most if not all of the scientists who are trying to
explain the orgasm personally indulge in their share, presumably
when they are off the clock.

The past several centuries of human progress suggest that most
experiences open to humans improve as humans learn more about
what is going on. Not everyone can get by on dumb luck and
sheer natural talent, common as that approach may be in movie
plots. Reality tends to be less cooperative.

There is something else to consider: if you prefer to experience
your orgasms with a partner, then it probably helps if your
partner understands what you are and what you need. Your partner
cannot directly experience what it is like to be you. To some
degree, an observant partner might figure out what you need
through an empirical approach unguided by any theory. But if my
experience is any guide, some theoretical guidance helps.

If what we read from the surveys is true, that something like
only 20% of women consistently reach orgasm with their partners,
then it sounds to me like 80% of men are getting less guidance
than they need.

Granted, the article that started this thread was hardly
instructive. But it's not too hard to get from the theory
to a viable method.

-- the Danimal

[Jennifer Ann]

Post by kate

Post by kate

Post by the Danimal

Post by Jennifer Ann
I don't care why! I am just glad I can!

You aren't curious to find out what you are?
-- the Danimal

If I had to choose between understanding the science of the

phenomena

Post by kate

Post by kate
or experiencing it without a clear understanding of it ~ I would

choose

Post by kate
the latter.

Why would you have to choose between these things?
Are you implying that understanding oneself in some
way interferes with being oneself?
I would guess most if not all of the scientists who are trying to
explain the orgasm personally indulge in their share, presumably
when they are off the clock.
The past several centuries of human progress suggest that most
experiences open to humans improve as humans learn more about
what is going on. Not everyone can get by on dumb luck and
sheer natural talent, common as that approach may be in movie
plots. Reality tends to be less cooperative.
There is something else to consider: if you prefer to experience
your orgasms with a partner, then it probably helps if your
partner understands what you are and what you need. Your partner
cannot directly experience what it is like to be you. To some
degree, an observant partner might figure out what you need
through an empirical approach unguided by any theory. But if my
experience is any guide, some theoretical guidance helps.
If what we read from the surveys is true, that something like
only 20% of women consistently reach orgasm with their partners,
then it sounds to me like 80% of men are getting less guidance
than they need.
Granted, the article that started this thread was hardly
instructive. But it's not too hard to get from the theory
to a viable method.
-- the Danimal

Hi Danimal - I will agree that understanding who and what you are is
important. I need to know my needs and my partner's (who happens to
be my husband of five years) needs if, I wish to better relate to him
and, to treat him in a loving manner. However, I want to understand my
and his emotional and human needs. I don't need to know the sequence
of vaginal muscle contractions to experience those contractions and the
orgasm of which they are a part.

I guess I am in the 20% (and I question your numbers). I orgasm almost
every time we have sex. Yes, he has learned what works for me. He has
learned what I like and dislike, what turns me on and off and what
drives me wild. I doubt that any one with a book of the in and outs of
female orgasm could have done any better. Haven't you heard? All
women are different.

I have nothing against science learning about the human body and its
ways. Still, I stand by my statement. If I had to choose between
knowing about orgasms and experiencing one, I would choose the
experiencing.

Jenny

[the Danimal]

Post by Jennifer Ann
Hi Danimal -

Hi Jennifer Ann

Post by Jennifer Ann
I will agree that understanding who and what you are is
important. I need to know my needs and my partner's (who happens to
be my husband of five years) needs if, I wish to better relate to him
and, to treat him in a loving manner. However, I want to understand my
and his emotional and human needs.

Evolutionary theory speaks to those things as well.

Emotions are traits like any other. Either we have them (a) by sheer
accident, or (b) because they improved the reproductive success of
our ancestors. Evolutionary theorists try to understand majority
traits of evolving organisms in terms of (b) first. Especially
if a trait is in any way expensive. And we certainly know emotions
are expensive.

Post by Jennifer Ann
I don't need to know the sequence
of vaginal muscle contractions to experience those contractions and the
orgasm of which they are a part.

The information of practical interest is not so much what happens
when a woman has an orgasm, at which point rational thought tends
to cease anyway (both for the woman who is having the orgasm, and
for any man who is in the middle of it), but what has to happen so
she can get there. That includes not only what happens in the few
minutes just before, but all the preliminary stuff a man has to slog
through before she lets him touch her. The most difficult part of
"foreplay" begins when a man first says hello to a woman he doesn't
know yet. That's when the greatest number of deal-killing problems
can and usually do occur.

Have you ever been to a museum? The museum contains exhibits. If you
prefer, you can simply look at the exhibits and draw from them whatever
that gives you. You can also read the signs alongside or below the
exhibits to find out more about them.

When you visit a museum, do you read the signs?

Granted, if you *are* the exhibit, you probably don't think you
need the signs or the museum at all.

Post by Jennifer Ann
I guess I am in the 20%

Your claim to be in the competent fifth seems plausible because
you are discussing this subject in a public forum. Presumably
you don't have any problems telling a man what you need, and
perhaps even showing him if he doesn't figure it out from words.

Evidently lots of women have difficulty getting such messages
across.

Some of these communication difficulties may be due to low I.Q.
The average person isn't exactly a rocket scientist, after all.

Post by Jennifer Ann
(and I question your numbers).

I read them in a survey. They don't square with my personal
observations.

But they might if I had somehow thought I needed to
choose between knowing and experiencing.

Post by Jennifer Ann
I orgasm almost
every time we have sex. Yes, he has learned what works for me. He has
learned what I like and dislike, what turns me on and off and what
drives me wild. I doubt that any one with a book of the in and outs of
female orgasm could have done any better.

Perhaps not, but if we can believe the survey, some 80% of men
don't seem to have a book and apparently do much worse.

If I had a time-travel machine, I would write a book today
and send it back in time for the younger me to read. Given
that women back then did not arrive with operating manuals.

Music teachers aren't trying to help the occasional Mozart
pick up music faster (Mozart was already composing and playing
impressive music of professional quality by age 6, and he
outran all the available teachers in short order). Rather,
books and teachers are for the rest of us who lack
extraordinary natural talents.

I don't know if a book makes a man "better," but it might make
him a quicker study. A man might get only one chance to make a
good first impression. How many women orgasm the first time they
have sex with a new partner?

Post by Jennifer Ann
Haven't you heard? All women are different.

Sure, but I'm not interested in all women, and not all women
are interested in me. I experience mutual interest with only
a small subset of women, and that subset is considerably less
diverse than the set of all women. Many people notice
they keep ending up with a certain "type." Well, that's not
too surprising. If two women could both like the same man,
and he can like both of them, they must have a lot in common.

Experience is a good teacher, and it is precisely as good as
one's successive partners are similar. Women are different
in many ways, to be sure, but when it comes to sex, they
are similar enough to allow a man's previous experience to give
him a huge head start. That is, if my experience is any guide.

By analogy, consider the way a massage therapist can go
to massage school and emerge capable of giving a satisfying
massage to almost any stranger on the first go. If all
women (and men) are so different, how is that possible?
Obviously there must be a lot of common ground too. Most
people must like to get massaged in fairly similar ways.

A massage therapist does not force precisely the same
massage technique on every customer. Rather, the massage
therapist has a collection of different techniques along
with a method for quickly discovering what the customer
likes and making the necessary adjustments.

The discovery method works because the vast majority of people
express approval and disapproval in similar ways.

Anyway, I think that's part of what makes getting with new
partners so much fun. They aren't exactly like your previous
partners, but they have a lot in common, and just enough
differences to make things fresh and interesting.

It's like going to a new restaurant. You don't want it to be
exactly like the last restaurant in every detail, but you
expect it to be similar enough so you can walk in and figure
out how to get a meal without difficulty. The servers and
decor and menu will be different, but there will be those
common elements working in the ways you expect. (If it's a
Wendy's, the decor and menu will be the same, and someday there
will be Wenbots so even the servers will be the same.)

Post by Jennifer Ann
I have nothing against science learning about the human body and its
ways. Still, I stand by my statement. If I had to choose between
knowing about orgasms and experiencing one, I would choose the
experiencing.

And I stand by my question: why would you invent such an
unnecessary dilemma? How is there even a possibility that you would
have to choose between understanding and experiencing? I cannot
conceive of a hypothetical scenario in which you would have
to face such a terrible choice. That's like saying there's a museum
where you can either look at the exhibits or read the signs, but
not both. When does that happen?

Understanding how a bicycle works does not prevent a person from
riding it. In fact the more one learns about the bicycle, the better
the riding becomes. More knowledge increases the rider's capacity
to breeze through occasional difficulties. A problem that would
stop (or harm) an ignorant rider is often avoidable with the
proper knowledge.

Music works the same way. There are "music appreciation classes"
because experience shows teaching people more about music helps
them enjoy listening to it more. Brain scans of people listening
to music have shown trained musicians are using more parts of
their brains than people with no musical training. Knowledge
enables the musicians to experience aspects of music that
untrained people apparently do not experience.

When Quentin Tarantino watches a movie, he probably sees lots
of things you and I do not see.

I think it's cool to experience more of a woman rather than less
of her. At least in this context.

-- the Danimal

[Jennifer Ann]

Post by the Danimal

Post by Jennifer Ann
Hi Danimal -

Hi Jennifer Ann

Post by Jennifer Ann
I will agree that understanding who and what you are is
important. I need to know my needs and my partner's (who happens to
be my husband of five years) needs if, I wish to better relate to him
and, to treat him in a loving manner. However, I want to

understand

Post by the Danimal
my

Post by Jennifer Ann
and his emotional and human needs.

Evolutionary theory speaks to those things as well.
Emotions are traits like any other. Either we have them (a) by sheer
accident, or (b) because they improved the reproductive success of
our ancestors. Evolutionary theorists try to understand majority
traits of evolving organisms in terms of (b) first. Especially
if a trait is in any way expensive. And we certainly know emotions
are expensive.

Post by Jennifer Ann
I don't need to know the sequence
of vaginal muscle contractions to experience those contractions and

the

Post by Jennifer Ann
orgasm of which they are a part.

The information of practical interest is not so much what happens
when a woman has an orgasm, at which point rational thought tends
to cease anyway (both for the woman who is having the orgasm, and
for any man who is in the middle of it), but what has to happen so
she can get there. That includes not only what happens in the few
minutes just before, but all the preliminary stuff a man has to slog
through before she lets him touch her. The most difficult part of
"foreplay" begins when a man first says hello to a woman he doesn't
know yet. That's when the greatest number of deal-killing problems
can and usually do occur.
Have you ever been to a museum? The museum contains exhibits. If you
prefer, you can simply look at the exhibits and draw from them

whatever

Post by the Danimal
that gives you. You can also read the signs alongside or below the
exhibits to find out more about them.
When you visit a museum, do you read the signs?
Granted, if you *are* the exhibit, you probably don't think you
need the signs or the museum at all.

Post by Jennifer Ann
I guess I am in the 20%

Your claim to be in the competent fifth seems plausible because
you are discussing this subject in a public forum. Presumably
you don't have any problems telling a man what you need, and
perhaps even showing him if he doesn't figure it out from words.
Evidently lots of women have difficulty getting such messages
across.
Some of these communication difficulties may be due to low I.Q.
The average person isn't exactly a rocket scientist, after all.

Post by Jennifer Ann
(and I question your numbers).

I read them in a survey. They don't square with my personal
observations.
But they might if I had somehow thought I needed to
choose between knowing and experiencing.

Post by Jennifer Ann
I orgasm almost
every time we have sex. Yes, he has learned what works for me. He

has

Post by Jennifer Ann
learned what I like and dislike, what turns me on and off and what
drives me wild. I doubt that any one with a book of the in and

outs

Post by the Danimal
of

Post by Jennifer Ann
female orgasm could have done any better.

Perhaps not, but if we can believe the survey, some 80% of men
don't seem to have a book and apparently do much worse.
If I had a time-travel machine, I would write a book today
and send it back in time for the younger me to read. Given
that women back then did not arrive with operating manuals.
Music teachers aren't trying to help the occasional Mozart
pick up music faster (Mozart was already composing and playing
impressive music of professional quality by age 6, and he
outran all the available teachers in short order). Rather,
books and teachers are for the rest of us who lack
extraordinary natural talents.
I don't know if a book makes a man "better," but it might make
him a quicker study. A man might get only one chance to make a
good first impression. How many women orgasm the first time they
have sex with a new partner?

Post by Jennifer Ann
Haven't you heard? All women are different.

Sure, but I'm not interested in all women, and not all women
are interested in me. I experience mutual interest with only
a small subset of women, and that subset is considerably less
diverse than the set of all women. Many people notice
they keep ending up with a certain "type." Well, that's not
too surprising. If two women could both like the same man,
and he can like both of them, they must have a lot in common.
Experience is a good teacher, and it is precisely as good as
one's successive partners are similar. Women are different
in many ways, to be sure, but when it comes to sex, they
are similar enough to allow a man's previous experience to give
him a huge head start. That is, if my experience is any guide.
By analogy, consider the way a massage therapist can go
to massage school and emerge capable of giving a satisfying
massage to almost any stranger on the first go. If all
women (and men) are so different, how is that possible?
Obviously there must be a lot of common ground too. Most
people must like to get massaged in fairly similar ways.
A massage therapist does not force precisely the same
massage technique on every customer. Rather, the massage
therapist has a collection of different techniques along
with a method for quickly discovering what the customer
likes and making the necessary adjustments.
The discovery method works because the vast majority of people
express approval and disapproval in similar ways.
Anyway, I think that's part of what makes getting with new
partners so much fun. They aren't exactly like your previous
partners, but they have a lot in common, and just enough
differences to make things fresh and interesting.
It's like going to a new restaurant. You don't want it to be
exactly like the last restaurant in every detail, but you
expect it to be similar enough so you can walk in and figure
out how to get a meal without difficulty. The servers and
decor and menu will be different, but there will be those
common elements working in the ways you expect. (If it's a
Wendy's, the decor and menu will be the same, and someday there
will be Wenbots so even the servers will be the same.)

Post by Jennifer Ann
I have nothing against science learning about the human body and its
ways. Still, I stand by my statement. If I had to choose between
knowing about orgasms and experiencing one, I would choose the
experiencing.

And I stand by my question: why would you invent such an
unnecessary dilemma? How is there even a possibility that you would
have to choose between understanding and experiencing? I cannot
conceive of a hypothetical scenario in which you would have
to face such a terrible choice. That's like saying there's a museum
where you can either look at the exhibits or read the signs, but
not both. When does that happen?
Understanding how a bicycle works does not prevent a person from
riding it. In fact the more one learns about the bicycle, the better
the riding becomes. More knowledge increases the rider's capacity
to breeze through occasional difficulties. A problem that would
stop (or harm) an ignorant rider is often avoidable with the
proper knowledge.
Music works the same way. There are "music appreciation classes"
because experience shows teaching people more about music helps
them enjoy listening to it more. Brain scans of people listening
to music have shown trained musicians are using more parts of
their brains than people with no musical training. Knowledge
enables the musicians to experience aspects of music that
untrained people apparently do not experience.
When Quentin Tarantino watches a movie, he probably sees lots
of things you and I do not see.
I think it's cool to experience more of a woman rather than less
of her. At least in this context.
-- the Danimal

Danimal - I compliment you on your intelligence and ability to write.
Both are relatively evident in your posts. After reading your
explanations, I really can't argue with you, except in degrees.

Your example of bike riding illustrates our differences. Granted a
person who understands the physics of bike riding can become a better
rider. However, a person who rides intuitively will be a better rider.
One has to think, the other doesn't.

The same applies with your example of music. I studied voice as an
undergraduate. I agree that a musician will get more out of music than
a non musician. However, again as in the bicycle example, one who has
to think before doing will not do it as well as the person who has
eternized the information.

If we apply this to sex, a man who is always thinking about techniques
and what makes a woman feel good will not be as good a lover as the man
who just goes with the flow. Understanding the different ways a woman
can have an orgasm is nice. However, I want in a lover a man who is
interested in me. Not in keeping score as to how many times he might
get me to cum.

If he focuses on me and I on him, we will both be very satisfied. Yes,
I give cues and signals as to what I like and dislike. I think a man
can quickly learn what I want by the use of empathic intuition. If I
moan, keep doing it. If I go, "Ouch." Stop! You don't need a
sex manual to know that.

Unless you are talking sub 80's, I don't think I.Q. has much to do
with it, male or female. It has more to do with attitude. Do you want
to be a good lover? BTW - I don't recall climaxing the first time
I made love to my husband. I still married him. I loved him not
because he was a great lover in bed. I loved him because he was a
great lover of me. We got the bed part down later. And, we are still
learning about each other. That is nice.

I too, hope I never have to decide between knowing and experiencing an
orgasm. Still, to use your logic, I know how to fly an airplane (I now
[in deference to the "stay home pregnant and raise the babies"
crowd let my husband do the flying] however, I can't build one.
Whatever that means. The heck with it. LOL It is late and I am
getting tired. I wanted to answer you before; I go jump my husband's
buns. LOL

Jenny

[the Danimal]

Post by Jennifer Ann
Danimal - I compliment you on your intelligence and ability to write.
Both are relatively evident in your posts. After reading your
explanations, I really can't argue with you, except in degrees.
Your example of bike riding illustrates our differences. Granted a
person who understands the physics of bike riding can become a better
rider. However, a person who rides intuitively will be a better rider.
One has to think, the other doesn't.
The same applies with your example of music. I studied voice as an
undergraduate. I agree that a musician will get more out of music than
a non musician. However, again as in the bicycle example, one who has
to think before doing will not do it as well as the person who has
eternized the information.

Well, sure. But now you're posing another false dilemma. Being
a student does not mean remaining stuck in student mode forever.
The student's goal is to internalize the book learning and emerge
with SKILL.

When two musicians play music together for the first time, they
(if they are good) quickly perceive and adapt to each other's
styles. They can do this because they draw on their vast stores
of prior musical learning. They don't have to think about what
they are doing the way a beginning student does. But they
had to get up to their current level somehow. Studying helps.

Something similar happens when two experienced sluts hook up for
the first time. They don't have to spend five years figuring out
how their bodies work together. Instead they need only about
five minutes.

Actually, only the man needs to be the experienced slut.

Can "book larnin'" enable a man to learn this stuff in less
than the several decades he might need to figure it out by
trial and error? I suspect so. It works for every other
skill.

Post by Jennifer Ann
If we apply this to sex, a man who is always thinking about

techniques

Post by Jennifer Ann
and what makes a woman feel good will not be as good a lover as the man
who just goes with the flow.

I'm not suggesting a man should pause in the middle to
look things up in the sex manual. If he has to do that, he
hasn't learned the material yet. We don't approve when a
concert pianist stops a performance to brush up on finger
exercises. We expect the pianist to finish the preparation,
and then play the concert for the demanding audience.

But I'm not talking about techniques so much as I am talking about
a fundamental concept: female orgasm is not necessary for
reproduction; therefore, it usually will require some sort of
extra effort. It's not as inevitable as the male orgasm. The whole
design of male and female genitalia revolves around making the
male cum. When people just "go with the flow" and "do what
comes naturally" the result is that the male orgasms routinely
and the female orgasms occasionally or perhaps never.

I don't know that many men have a firm concept that extra
effort is necessary for the woman; or if they know this
intellectually, they might not always feel like making much
extra effort.

But with a few simple techniques, even a lazy selfish man can
bring a woman to orgasm easily, without having to waste much
time on a distinct period of foreplay even.

Post by Jennifer Ann
Understanding the different ways a woman
can have an orgasm is nice. However, I want in a lover a man who is
interested in me. Not in keeping score as to how many times he might
get me to cum.

Well, of course. When you go to the doctor, you don't want him
to speak to you the way he speaks to other doctors about you!

Similarly, when you call a technical support line with some really
stupid question about a software package, you expect the support
rep to be courteous and respectful. After he hangs up the phone,
what do you think he says to his fellow support reps? Odds are
if he talks about you to them, it's with a different tone than
he uses while talking to you.

So if you find my writings alarming, you are experiencing
the horrors of "shop talk," something that of course
no woman should ever have to face in real life. This is the
sort of horrifying stuff you would hear if you ever managed
to get your man to "open up" and "share his feelings." LOL.

Post by Jennifer Ann
From what I gather, women speak about men to each other

differently than they speak to men directly. Everyone in every
field does this.

It's like the old saying: "People who enjoy eating sausage should
never see it being made."

The first "technique" the man must master in his quest to make
women feel good is to create the illusion that he is ONLY interested
in her and not in "keeping score." He may in fact be interested in
her, but that takes care of itself.

It's like the way a woman is interested in a man's financial
status, but on the first date she should not demand to see his
recent tax returns and brokerage statements. That would be
uncool. She cannot show the full extent of her interest in
his financial status. She should make it seem like she is only
interested in other things about him.

Getting a woman to orgasm requires some sort of specific action.
Sort of like going to the store to buy something: to get yourself
to the store, you have to take some specific steps. You probably
won't get there by focusing totally on something else such as
mowing the lawn. But you don't need to make anyone else aware
of your focus. You don't call all your friends and announce
that you are now going to the store. You just go. Once you know
how, it is no big deal.

I advise men against even mentioning the word orgasm with a woman
they want to give one, so as to avoid triggering any sort of
performance anxiety. If she wants to talk about it, let her
bring up the subject. But never mention the orgasm as any sort
of explicit goal. If it must be discussed, best to do it
AFTER she's had several. If there has to be a goal, the man
should present something attainable and not too specific,
such as "I want to make you feel good." Well, everybody can
do that. So there's no way to fail, and nothing to worry about.

Post by Jennifer Ann
If he focuses on me and I on him, we will both be very satisfied. Yes,
I give cues and signals as to what I like and dislike. I think a man
can quickly learn what I want by the use of empathic intuition. If I
moan, keep doing it. If I go, "Ouch." Stop! You don't need a
sex manual to know that.

I don't need a manual to know that, but some people do!

Also, but the trial and error approach is inefficient if it is totally
unguided. It's like trying to travel to some far distant place with
no map, instead you just set off, and ask people along the way if
you are getting closer. You could go around in circles forever.

Listening to a woman's moans and ouches is of course necessary for
making refinements along the way (although I suspect if a man hears
even one "ouch" he is still in the rank amateur stage), but that
sort of guidance can lead to lots of blind alleys. For example, a
woman might moan when a man kisses her on the neck. Her feedback
suggests she likes that. But how many women can reach orgasm
just by being kissed on the neck? (I have only known one, and
feel free to doubt.)

With some book learning, or with some explicit instruction
from a woman who communicates in something more than moans
and ouches, a man would know that few women can be completely
satisfied merely from having their necks kissed, and so he would
know that is merely a step along the way. If he has a pretty
good general idea of what "the way" is, he can make the
necessary adjustments as he goes.

Post by Jennifer Ann
Unless you are talking sub 80's, I don't think I.Q. has much to do
with it, male or female.

I do. The average person (IQ=100) rarely thinks to look anything
up in books, and thus is almost completely at the mercy of
whatever information someone else happens to provide. And
HALF the population is below average.

Check out the sex books on amazon.com. There is one that teaches
women how to have orgasms during sex in just five minutes, via
the stunning breakthrough of masturbating themselves while
straddling their partner.

Can you believe there are lots of women who don't know they
can do that? Well, there are, or else books like this would not be
selling.

It's interesting to read the reviews of such books on Amazon.
Some people give them 5 stars, heaping praise for
containing such valuable insights, while others rank the books
a low as possible (1 star) and write "Come on! Can there really
be anyone who doesn't already know this stuff?"

In my experience of learning various things, I have found
that all one has to do is learn something about almost anything,
and then one finds any number of people who don't know JACK $#|+
about it.

Post by Jennifer Ann
It has more to do with attitude. Do you want
to be a good lover? BTW - I don't recall climaxing the first time
I made love to my husband.

Did he climax? If so, how typical: guy cums, woman doesn't.

Did you climax the first time you made love to a vibrator?
How was the vibrator's attitude?

I think it's reasonable for a man to aspire to at least that
standard. Will we lose to a plastic toy?

I think it's reasonable for a man not only to bring his new
lover to orgasm the first time they have sex, but to orgasm with
her simultaneously. It's not that difficult.

Actually he should bring his new lover to at least one orgasm
before she even gets all her clothes off. That's a handy way
to get things started, because otherwise getting naked
for the first time with someone new might trigger anxieties.
Talk about no pressure---not only does she not have to worry
about reaching orgasm, she doesn't even need to take her clothes
off first. That helps her relax enough to fling them off.

And to really impress the judges, he can up the difficulty
level by keeping the lights on and seeing that she is sober.

Post by Jennifer Ann
I still married him. I loved him not
because he was a great lover in bed. I loved him because he was a
great lover of me. We got the bed part down later. And, we are still
learning about each other. That is nice.

Well, sure. The low survey figures suggest women don't
place a huge deal-breaking importance on a man's
bedroom skills. As I mentioned, a woman usually has her mind
almost completely made up about a man BEFORE they have sex
for the first time. A man would have to be spectacularly
inept to lose a woman at that point. It would be sort of
like getting kicked out of your own house after you buy it.

A woman probably cares more about getting tokens of affection
from a man (cards, flowers, etc.) than orgasms.

I don't suggest a man should become a student of the female
orgasm because it is in any sense NECESSARY, but rather because
it is interesting and fun. Think about it: everything else a
woman does, she pretty much does all the time. But a woman
screaming in orgasm---that's something you don't see all
that often in everyday life.

It's like the answer George Mallory gave when asked why he
wanted to climb Mt. Everest: "Because it is there." And
now that climbing Mt. Everest is getting to be routine, the
challenge for experts is to climb it without supplemental
oxygen. Or to climb it alpine style. Maybe someday the
standard will be to climb it barefoot.

A woman's capacity to have an orgasm "is there." It's fun to
"climb" it. Although for this I recommend doggie style rather
than alpine style. And leave the crampons at base camp.
It's also fun to see how amazed women pretend to
be when they experience simultaneous orgasm with a man on
their first sexual encounter. Like they expect that would
be somehow difficult.

Well, maybe it is difficult for most men, because most
men probably approach the subject like you say you want them
to. By just falling into the river and letting the current
take them wherever.

Post by Jennifer Ann
I too, hope I never have to decide between knowing and experiencing an
orgasm.

I cannot think of a reason why you would ever have to decide.

Post by Jennifer Ann
Still, to use your logic, I know how to fly an airplane (I now
[in deference to the "stay home pregnant and raise the babies"
crowd let my husband do the flying] however, I can't build one.
Whatever that means. The heck with it. LOL It is late and I am
getting tired. I wanted to answer you before; I go jump my husband's
buns. LOL

That's a handy way to finish up an expository essay. I think
Plato and Socrates used that a few times. I think it's called
"deus ex coitus."

-- the Danimal

[Jennifer Ann]

Post by Jennifer Ann

Post by Jennifer Ann
Danimal - I compliment you on your intelligence and ability to write.
Both are relatively evident in your posts. After reading your
explanations, I really can't argue with you, except in degrees.
Your example of bike riding illustrates our differences. Granted a
person who understands the physics of bike riding can become a better
rider. However, a person who rides intuitively will be a better

rider.

Post by Jennifer Ann
One has to think, the other doesn't.
The same applies with your example of music. I studied voice as an
undergraduate. I agree that a musician will get more out of music

than

Post by Jennifer Ann
a non musician. However, again as in the bicycle example, one who

has

Post by Jennifer Ann
to think before doing will not do it as well as the person who has
eternized the information.

Well, sure. But now you're posing another false dilemma. Being
a student does not mean remaining stuck in student mode forever.
The student's goal is to internalize the book learning and emerge
with SKILL.
When two musicians play music together for the first time, they
(if they are good) quickly perceive and adapt to each other's
styles. They can do this because they draw on their vast stores
of prior musical learning. They don't have to think about what
they are doing the way a beginning student does. But they
had to get up to their current level somehow. Studying helps.
Something similar happens when two experienced sluts hook up for
the first time. They don't have to spend five years figuring out
how their bodies work together. Instead they need only about
five minutes.
Actually, only the man needs to be the experienced slut.
Can "book larnin'" enable a man to learn this stuff in less
than the several decades he might need to figure it out by
trial and error? I suspect so. It works for every other
skill.

Post by Jennifer Ann
If we apply this to sex, a man who is always thinking about

techniques

Post by Jennifer Ann
and what makes a woman feel good will not be as good a lover as the

man

Post by Jennifer Ann
who just goes with the flow.

I'm not suggesting a man should pause in the middle to
look things up in the sex manual. If he has to do that, he
hasn't learned the material yet. We don't approve when a
concert pianist stops a performance to brush up on finger
exercises. We expect the pianist to finish the preparation,
and then play the concert for the demanding audience.
But I'm not talking about techniques so much as I am talking about
a fundamental concept: female orgasm is not necessary for
reproduction; therefore, it usually will require some sort of
extra effort. It's not as inevitable as the male orgasm. The whole
design of male and female genitalia revolves around making the
male cum. When people just "go with the flow" and "do what
comes naturally" the result is that the male orgasms routinely
and the female orgasms occasionally or perhaps never.
I don't know that many men have a firm concept that extra
effort is necessary for the woman; or if they know this
intellectually, they might not always feel like making much
extra effort.
But with a few simple techniques, even a lazy selfish man can
bring a woman to orgasm easily, without having to waste much
time on a distinct period of foreplay even.

Post by Jennifer Ann
Understanding the different ways a woman
can have an orgasm is nice. However, I want in a lover a man who is
interested in me. Not in keeping score as to how many times he might
get me to cum.

Well, of course. When you go to the doctor, you don't want him
to speak to you the way he speaks to other doctors about you!
Similarly, when you call a technical support line with some really
stupid question about a software package, you expect the support
rep to be courteous and respectful. After he hangs up the phone,
what do you think he says to his fellow support reps? Odds are
if he talks about you to them, it's with a different tone than
he uses while talking to you.
So if you find my writings alarming, you are experiencing
the horrors of "shop talk," something that of course
no woman should ever have to face in real life. This is the
sort of horrifying stuff you would hear if you ever managed
to get your man to "open up" and "share his feelings." LOL.

Post by Jennifer Ann
From what I gather, women speak about men to each other

differently than they speak to men directly. Everyone in every
field does this.
It's like the old saying: "People who enjoy eating sausage should
never see it being made."
The first "technique" the man must master in his quest to make
women feel good is to create the illusion that he is ONLY interested
in her and not in "keeping score." He may in fact be interested in
her, but that takes care of itself.
It's like the way a woman is interested in a man's financial
status, but on the first date she should not demand to see his
recent tax returns and brokerage statements. That would be
uncool. She cannot show the full extent of her interest in
his financial status. She should make it seem like she is only
interested in other things about him.
Getting a woman to orgasm requires some sort of specific action.
Sort of like going to the store to buy something: to get yourself
to the store, you have to take some specific steps. You probably
won't get there by focusing totally on something else such as
mowing the lawn. But you don't need to make anyone else aware
of your focus. You don't call all your friends and announce
that you are now going to the store. You just go. Once you know
how, it is no big deal.
I advise men against even mentioning the word orgasm with a woman
they want to give one, so as to avoid triggering any sort of
performance anxiety. If she wants to talk about it, let her
bring up the subject. But never mention the orgasm as any sort
of explicit goal. If it must be discussed, best to do it
AFTER she's had several. If there has to be a goal, the man
should present something attainable and not too specific,
such as "I want to make you feel good." Well, everybody can
do that. So there's no way to fail, and nothing to worry about.

Post by Jennifer Ann
If he focuses on me and I on him, we will both be very satisfied.

Yes,

Post by Jennifer Ann
I give cues and signals as to what I like and dislike. I think a man
can quickly learn what I want by the use of empathic intuition. If I
moan, keep doing it. If I go, "Ouch." Stop! You don't need a
sex manual to know that.

I don't need a manual to know that, but some people do!
Also, but the trial and error approach is inefficient if it is

totally

Post by Jennifer Ann
unguided. It's like trying to travel to some far distant place with
no map, instead you just set off, and ask people along the way if
you are getting closer. You could go around in circles forever.
Listening to a woman's moans and ouches is of course necessary for
making refinements along the way (although I suspect if a man hears
even one "ouch" he is still in the rank amateur stage), but that
sort of guidance can lead to lots of blind alleys. For example, a
woman might moan when a man kisses her on the neck. Her feedback
suggests she likes that. But how many women can reach orgasm
just by being kissed on the neck? (I have only known one, and
feel free to doubt.)
With some book learning, or with some explicit instruction
from a woman who communicates in something more than moans
and ouches, a man would know that few women can be completely
satisfied merely from having their necks kissed, and so he would
know that is merely a step along the way. If he has a pretty
good general idea of what "the way" is, he can make the
necessary adjustments as he goes.

Post by Jennifer Ann
Unless you are talking sub 80's, I don't think I.Q. has much to do
with it, male or female.

I do. The average person (IQ=100) rarely thinks to look anything
up in books, and thus is almost completely at the mercy of
whatever information someone else happens to provide. And
HALF the population is below average.
Check out the sex books on amazon.com. There is one that teaches
women how to have orgasms during sex in just five minutes, via
the stunning breakthrough of masturbating themselves while
straddling their partner.
Can you believe there are lots of women who don't know they
can do that? Well, there are, or else books like this would not be
selling.
It's interesting to read the reviews of such books on Amazon.
Some people give them 5 stars, heaping praise for
containing such valuable insights, while others rank the books
a low as possible (1 star) and write "Come on! Can there really
be anyone who doesn't already know this stuff?"
In my experience of learning various things, I have found
that all one has to do is learn something about almost anything,
and then one finds any number of people who don't know JACK $#|+
about it.

Post by Jennifer Ann
It has more to do with attitude. Do you want
to be a good lover? BTW - I don't recall climaxing the first time
I made love to my husband.

Did he climax? If so, how typical: guy cums, woman doesn't.
Did you climax the first time you made love to a vibrator?
How was the vibrator's attitude?
I think it's reasonable for a man to aspire to at least that
standard. Will we lose to a plastic toy?
I think it's reasonable for a man not only to bring his new
lover to orgasm the first time they have sex, but to orgasm with
her simultaneously. It's not that difficult.
Actually he should bring his new lover to at least one orgasm
before she even gets all her clothes off. That's a handy way
to get things started, because otherwise getting naked
for the first time with someone new might trigger anxieties.
Talk about no pressure---not only does she not have to worry
about reaching orgasm, she doesn't even need to take her clothes
off first. That helps her relax enough to fling them off.
And to really impress the judges, he can up the difficulty
level by keeping the lights on and seeing that she is sober.

Post by Jennifer Ann
I still married him. I loved him not
because he was a great lover in bed. I loved him because he was a
great lover of me. We got the bed part down later. And, we are

still

Post by Jennifer Ann
learning about each other. That is nice.

Well, sure. The low survey figures suggest women don't
place a huge deal-breaking importance on a man's
bedroom skills. As I mentioned, a woman usually has her mind
almost completely made up about a man BEFORE they have sex
for the first time. A man would have to be spectacularly
inept to lose a woman at that point. It would be sort of
like getting kicked out of your own house after you buy it.
A woman probably cares more about getting tokens of affection
from a man (cards, flowers, etc.) than orgasms.
I don't suggest a man should become a student of the female
orgasm because it is in any sense NECESSARY, but rather because
it is interesting and fun. Think about it: everything else a
woman does, she pretty much does all the time. But a woman
screaming in orgasm---that's something you don't see all
that often in everyday life.
It's like the answer George Mallory gave when asked why he
wanted to climb Mt. Everest: "Because it is there." And
now that climbing Mt. Everest is getting to be routine, the
challenge for experts is to climb it without supplemental
oxygen. Or to climb it alpine style. Maybe someday the
standard will be to climb it barefoot.
A woman's capacity to have an orgasm "is there." It's fun to
"climb" it. Although for this I recommend doggie style rather
than alpine style. And leave the crampons at base camp.
It's also fun to see how amazed women pretend to
be when they experience simultaneous orgasm with a man on
their first sexual encounter. Like they expect that would
be somehow difficult.
Well, maybe it is difficult for most men, because most
men probably approach the subject like you say you want them
to. By just falling into the river and letting the current
take them wherever.

Post by Jennifer Ann
I too, hope I never have to decide between knowing and experiencing

an

Post by Jennifer Ann
orgasm.

I cannot think of a reason why you would ever have to decide.

Post by Jennifer Ann
Still, to use your logic, I know how to fly an airplane (I now
[in deference to the "stay home pregnant and raise the babies"
crowd let my husband do the flying] however, I can't build one.
Whatever that means. The heck with it. LOL It is late and I am
getting tired. I wanted to answer you before; I go jump my

husband's

Post by Jennifer Ann

Post by Jennifer Ann
buns. LOL

That's a handy way to finish up an expository essay. I think
Plato and Socrates used that a few times. I think it's called
"deus ex coitus."
-- the Danimal

It is not false dilemma if I a speaking of a moment in time, which I
was. For the sake of my argument, I don't care if the student will
one day be a master musician. I am listening to him at a certain place
and time. What he becomes, is irrelevant to my enjoyment at the
moment.

So it is with sex. I care not a wit what kind of lover you are later
in life. I only care what you are NOW. If you have to think about
what to do, it will be stilted and unnatural. You later stated this
yourself.

Have you ever heard of the term "over kill?" You have stretched
your argument and logic too far. You fail to realize that the bed is
not the physics lab. If you push button "A" sign "B" is not
necessarily going to happen.

The biggest factor in a woman achieving orgasm is not the quality and
skill of her lover. It is her mind. You also pointed this out with
your example of my using a vibrator. Neither, a vibrator, a talented
tongue or the sexist cock in the world will bring a woman off, unless
she is into it with her mind.

Men don't realize that a woman has to be relaxed and desirous of sex
in order to climax. A man seems differently. Just reach over grab it,
play with it and... More than once, my husband has been horny. I may
have been exhausted with all the things a mother has to do before bed.
However, because I love him we had sex.

Sometimes, I was able to get into it and climaxed. Other times, my
mind was still going through all the things I had to do the next
morning before work or even the grocery list. Those times, even you
wouldn't have been able to get me to climax.

That doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it. I may have liked the
closeness and felt good that he was able to climax. It just means that
techniques, while desirable and good another time, wouldn't have
worked.

One last thing; I don't think I would find someone with a below
average IQ desirable. So I will never know about his ability to bring
me off.

Jenny

[kate]

Post by the Danimal
Are you implying that understanding oneself in some
way interferes with being oneself?

No. But I know what MAKES it work. That is more important.

Post by the Danimal
If what we read from the surveys is true, that something like
only 20% of women consistently reach orgasm with their partners,
then it sounds to me like 80% of men are getting less guidance
than they need.

A little experience soon confirms this hypothesis.

Kate C.

[Comm]

Heh, it also boils down to this:

That guy is shit in bed.
That guy is great in bed.

WHO does the woman choose to mate with and have kids with?

Post by kate

Post by the Danimal

Post by Jennifer Ann
I don't care why! I am just glad I can!

You aren't curious to find out what you are?
-- the Danimal

If I had to choose between understanding the science of the phenomena
or experiencing it without a clear understanding of it ~ I would choose
the latter.
100% what Jennifer said.
Kate

[Dave Symn]

Post by Comm
That guy is shit in bed.
That guy is great in bed.
WHO does the woman choose to mate with and have kids with?

the one with the fattest wallet or the nicest car, of course.

[kate]

Post by Dave Symn

Post by Comm
That guy is shit in bed.
That guy is great in bed.
WHO does the woman choose to mate with and have kids with?

the one with the fattest wallet or the nicest car, of course.

And if the woman happens to have a considerable income all on her own?
I have seen no evidence to suggest that men are any better at
evaluating character than women.

Kate C.

[GL Fowler]

Post by kate

Post by Dave Symn

Post by Comm
That guy is shit in bed.
That guy is great in bed.
WHO does the woman choose to mate with and have kids with?

the one with the fattest wallet or the nicest car, of course.

And if the woman happens to have a considerable income all on her own?
I have seen no evidence to suggest that men are any better at
evaluating character than women.
Kate C.

Well no doubt, it's a matter of perspective.
BTW, the pressure you feel on your forehead, it's your belt buckle.


"The best proof of intelligent life in space is that it hasn't come here."
- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

[the Danimal]

Post by kate

Post by Dave Symn

Post by Comm
WHO does the woman choose to mate with and have kids with?

the one with the fattest wallet or the nicest car, of course.

And if the woman happens to have a considerable income all on her own?

She probably then insists even more strongly on getting with
men who are at least on her income level. But to attract
prosperous men, she has to look good, because a woman's
income doesn't have much effect on her attractiveness to
men.

Post by kate
I have seen no evidence to suggest that men are any better at
evaluating character than women.

Indeed, vast numbers of men fall victim to divorce pillage,
which means they flunked the character evaluation quiz.

Amusingly, if men could somehow reprogram themselves to lust
after women who earn high incomes, they (the men) would be at
less risk of getting pillaged when they divorce.

-- the Danimal

[miguel]

Post by the Danimal

Post by kate
I have seen no evidence to suggest that men are any better at
evaluating character than women.

Indeed, vast numbers of men fall victim to divorce pillage,
which means they flunked the character evaluation quiz.
Amusingly, if men could somehow reprogram themselves to lust
after women who earn high incomes, they (the men) would be at
less risk of getting pillaged when they divorce.

Define divorce pillage.

[Jim Ledford]

Post by miguel

Post by the Danimal

Post by kate
I have seen no evidence to suggest that men are any better at
evaluating character than women.

Indeed, vast numbers of men fall victim to divorce pillage,
which means they flunked the character evaluation quiz.
Amusingly, if men could somehow reprogram themselves to lust
after women who earn high incomes, they (the men) would be at
less risk of getting pillaged when they divorce.

Define divorce pillage.

it involves lawyer-guy telling their client what
can be had in the form of property and money.

however, the entire mess can be avoided by NOT
adhering to worldly values such as lust.

[kate]

Thank You Gentlemen. I was wondering what kind of lame excuses you'd
come up with. I wasn't terribly surprised. Well, it's happy hour ~
enjoy your weekends.

KC

[miguel]

Post by Jim Ledford

Post by miguel

Post by the Danimal

Post by kate
I have seen no evidence to suggest that men are any better at
evaluating character than women.

Indeed, vast numbers of men fall victim to divorce pillage,
which means they flunked the character evaluation quiz.
Amusingly, if men could somehow reprogram themselves to lust
after women who earn high incomes, they (the men) would be at
less risk of getting pillaged when they divorce.

Define divorce pillage.

it involves lawyer-guy telling their client what
can be had in the form of property and money.

So giving legal advice is divorce pillage? When a couple divorces,
what is a fair percentage of property to assign to the wife, and what
is a fair percentage of property to assign to the husband?

Post by Jim Ledford
however, the entire mess can be avoided by NOT
adhering to worldly values such as lust.

Here's a great story about a man with good christian values who still
couldn't keep his marriage together.

http://tinyurl.com/8ou55

miguel

[Andre Lieven]

Post by miguel

Post by Jim Ledford

Post by miguel

Post by the Danimal

Post by kate
I have seen no evidence to suggest that men are any better at
evaluating character than women.

Indeed, vast numbers of men fall victim to divorce pillage,
which means they flunked the character evaluation quiz.
Amusingly, if men could somehow reprogram themselves to lust
after women who earn high incomes, they (the men) would be at
less risk of getting pillaged when they divorce.

Define divorce pillage.

it involves lawyer-guy telling their client what
can be had in the form of property and money.

So giving legal advice is divorce pillage?

When lawyers who deal with only female clients routinely counsel
said female clients to make false accusations of abuse, or child
abuse, to gain leverage in the divorce, yes.

Post by miguel
When a couple divorces,
what is a fair percentage of property to assign to the wife, and what
is a fair percentage of property to assign to the husband?

Depends. When there is just cause for the divorce, 50/50. With NO
resources generated post divorce to be on the table.

But, when one spouse wishes to break the marital contract, without
just cause ( Just causes: Abuse, addiction, abandonment, adultery ),
which is most divorces, as are most divorces for no just cause so
chosen unilaterally by the wife, then no marital assets should be
given the contract breaker, for the same reason that ANY contract
breaker in any civil dispute is allowed to profit from their
unjust voiding of a mutual contract.

Post by miguel

Post by Jim Ledford
however, the entire mess can be avoided by NOT
adhering to worldly values such as lust.

Here's a great story about a man with good christian values who still
couldn't keep his marriage together.

If this is an example of the norm, as well explained in Sanford Braver's
" Divorced Dads; Shattering The Myths ", then it likely wasn't his
lacking that was responsible.

If it was, it was the exception that proves the rule.

Post by miguel
http://tinyurl.com/8ou55

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

[miguel]

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Jim Ledford

Post by miguel

Post by the Danimal

Post by kate
I have seen no evidence to suggest that men are any better at
evaluating character than women.

Indeed, vast numbers of men fall victim to divorce pillage,
which means they flunked the character evaluation quiz.
Amusingly, if men could somehow reprogram themselves to lust
after women who earn high incomes, they (the men) would be at
less risk of getting pillaged when they divorce.

Define divorce pillage.

it involves lawyer-guy telling their client what
can be had in the form of property and money.

So giving legal advice is divorce pillage?

When lawyers who deal with only female clients routinely counsel
said female clients to make false accusations of abuse, or child
abuse, to gain leverage in the divorce, yes.

That's not pillage.

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel
When a couple divorces,
what is a fair percentage of property to assign to the wife, and what
is a fair percentage of property to assign to the husband?

Depends. When there is just cause for the divorce, 50/50. With NO
resources generated post divorce to be on the table.

So, you're saying that if a wife cheats on her husband, and she files
for divorce, the wife is entitled to 50%. But if the wife doesn't
cheat, and she files, she's entitled to nothing?

Post by Andre Lieven
But, when one spouse wishes to break the marital contract, without
just cause ( Just causes: Abuse, addiction, abandonment, adultery ),
which is most divorces, as are most divorces for no just cause so
chosen unilaterally by the wife, then no marital assets should be
given the contract breaker, for the same reason that ANY contract
breaker in any civil dispute is allowed to profit from their
unjust voiding of a mutual contract.

You aren't a lawyer, and you don't really know what you're talking
about. It is not an explicit or implicit term of the marriage contract
that it has to last until somebody dies. When people contract civilly,
they do so with imputed knowledge that their contract is subject to any
and all statutory provisions then extant or later enacted which bear
upon the subject matter of the contract. No fault divorce statutes
exist. Every marriage contract entered in a state with no fault divorce
statutes implicitly contains the provision that either party can end it
at any time. That is not unjust.

[Andre Lieven]

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Jim Ledford

Post by miguel

Post by the Danimal

Post by kate
I have seen no evidence to suggest that men are any better at
evaluating character than women.

Indeed, vast numbers of men fall victim to divorce pillage,
which means they flunked the character evaluation quiz.
Amusingly, if men could somehow reprogram themselves to lust
after women who earn high incomes, they (the men) would be at
less risk of getting pillaged when they divorce.

Define divorce pillage.

it involves lawyer-guy telling their client what
can be had in the form of property and money.

So giving legal advice is divorce pillage?

When lawyers who deal with only female clients routinely counsel
said female clients to make false accusations of abuse, or child
abuse, to gain leverage in the divorce, yes.

That's not pillage.

Wrong. Thats conspiracy to defraud, which counts as pillage.

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel
When a couple divorces,
what is a fair percentage of property to assign to the wife, and what
is a fair percentage of property to assign to the husband?

Depends. When there is just cause for the divorce, 50/50. With NO
resources generated post divorce to be on the table.

So, you're saying that if a wife cheats on her husband, and she files
for divorce, the wife is entitled to 50%. But if the wife doesn't
cheat, and she files, she's entitled to nothing?

I wasn't sufficiently detailed there. My bad.

When there is cause for a divorce, the lion's share to the wronged
party. When there is no just cause, the same principle would apply,
menaing, in such cases, that the recipient there would not be the
initiator/filer for the divorce.

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven
But, when one spouse wishes to break the marital contract, without
just cause ( Just causes: Abuse, addiction, abandonment, adultery ),
which is most divorces, as are most divorces for no just cause so
chosen unilaterally by the wife, then no marital assets should be
given the contract breaker, for the same reason that ANY contract
breaker in any civil dispute is allowed to profit from their
unjust voiding of a mutual contract.

You aren't a lawyer, and you don't really know what you're talking
about.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

In any case, the question on the table was, what *should* occur,
not what gross and routine injustices do presently occur.

One might consider that one reason that the marriage rate in CA.
has fallen about 25% between 2002 and 2004 is that divorce judgements
are more and more understood by men to be unjust to such men.

Post by miguel
It is not an explicit or implicit term of the marriage contract
that it has to last until somebody dies.

ROTFLMAO ! What part of " till *death* do you part " is too tough
for you to grasp ? LOL !

Post by miguel
When people contract civilly,
they do so with imputed knowledge that their contract is subject to any
and all statutory provisions then extant or later enacted which bear
upon the subject matter of the contract.

None of which excuses treating marriage contracts as the ONLY ones
where a violator of the contract can profit from their violation.

Post by miguel
No fault divorce statutes exist.

... for now... People who view the law as being static are, well,
foolish and ignorant.

Post by miguel
Every marriage contract entered in a state with no fault divorce
statutes implicitly contains the provision that either party can end it
at any time. That is not unjust.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

Allowing any violator of a legal contract to unilaterally void said
contract, *and* profit from said voiding, is unjust. That is exactly
why no other type of contract law allows such an act and consequence.

Now, when marriage contract law is brought back into line with standard
contract law, well, that will be better, more consistant, and more...
just.

Andre



--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

[miguel]

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Jim Ledford

Post by miguel

Post by the Danimal

Post by kate
I have seen no evidence to suggest that men are any better at
evaluating character than women.

Indeed, vast numbers of men fall victim to divorce pillage,
which means they flunked the character evaluation quiz.
Amusingly, if men could somehow reprogram themselves to lust
after women who earn high incomes, they (the men) would be at
less risk of getting pillaged when they divorce.

Define divorce pillage.

it involves lawyer-guy telling their client what
can be had in the form of property and money.

So giving legal advice is divorce pillage?

When lawyers who deal with only female clients routinely counsel
said female clients to make false accusations of abuse, or child
abuse, to gain leverage in the divorce, yes.

That's not pillage.

Wrong. Thats conspiracy to defraud, which counts as pillage.

Conspiracy != pillage.

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel
When a couple divorces,
what is a fair percentage of property to assign to the wife, and what
is a fair percentage of property to assign to the husband?

Depends. When there is just cause for the divorce, 50/50. With NO
resources generated post divorce to be on the table.

So, you're saying that if a wife cheats on her husband, and she files
for divorce, the wife is entitled to 50%. But if the wife doesn't
cheat, and she files, she's entitled to nothing?

I wasn't sufficiently detailed there. My bad.
When there is cause for a divorce, the lion's share to the wronged
party. When there is no just cause, the same principle would apply,
menaing, in such cases, that the recipient there would not be the
initiator/filer for the divorce.

So you're pro extortion to stay in a relationship.

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven
But, when one spouse wishes to break the marital contract, without
just cause ( Just causes: Abuse, addiction, abandonment, adultery ),
which is most divorces, as are most divorces for no just cause so
chosen unilaterally by the wife, then no marital assets should be
given the contract breaker, for the same reason that ANY contract
breaker in any civil dispute is allowed to profit from their
unjust voiding of a mutual contract.

You aren't a lawyer, and you don't really know what you're talking
about.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

Proof offered about what?

Post by Andre Lieven
In any case, the question on the table was, what *should* occur,
not what gross and routine injustices do presently occur.
One might consider that one reason that the marriage rate in CA.
has fallen about 25% between 2002 and 2004 is that divorce judgements
are more and more understood by men to be unjust to such men.

That's irrelevant to the argument.

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel
It is not an explicit or implicit term of the marriage contract
that it has to last until somebody dies.

ROTFLMAO ! What part of " till *death* do you part " is too tough
for you to grasp ? LOL !

It's stupid to laugh like that when you're plainly wrong. The vow
"til death do you part" is a component of some religious ceremonies,
but is certainly not part of the civil contract. The proof, as they
say, is in the pudding. If it were an explicit part of the civil
contract, divorce wouldn't be allowed. Divorce is allowed, so it's
not.

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel
When people contract civilly,
they do so with imputed knowledge that their contract is subject to any
and all statutory provisions then extant or later enacted which bear
upon the subject matter of the contract.

None of which excuses treating marriage contracts as the ONLY ones
where a violator of the contract can profit from their violation.

You're assuming a violation where none exists. Feel free to prove me
wrong here, by finding a civil case, anywhere, that talks about
divorce as a breach of contract. The law is what it is, not what
Andre thinks it ought to be.

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel
No fault divorce statutes exist.

... for now... People who view the law as being static are, well,
foolish and ignorant.

For the foreseeable future. There are still enough people alive who
remember the evils of fault-based divorce.

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel
Every marriage contract entered in a state with no fault divorce
statutes implicitly contains the provision that either party can end it
at any time. That is not unjust.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

No refutation offered. Claim stands.

Isn't that cute and persuasive?

Post by Andre Lieven
Allowing any violator of a legal contract to unilaterally void said
contract, *and* profit from said voiding, is unjust. That is exactly
why no other type of contract law allows such an act and consequence.

If a man provides 90 of the assets in a relationship, files for
divorce, and takes 50% of the assets out, how is he profiting?

Post by Andre Lieven
Now, when marriage contract law is brought back into line with standard
contract law, well, that will be better, more consistant, and more...
just.

Standard contract law permits the inclusion of terms allowing the
contract to be cancelled under conditions specified in the contract
itself. Likewise, civil law makes some contracts unenforceable when
they are contrary to public policy. You have a very naive view of
what contracts are. Contract law exists, mainly, to provide orderly
and predictable remedies in the event of a breach. Those remedies are
either provided by statute (eg., UCC) or by common law (eg,
Restatement, Contracts and state and federal cases). These statutes
and cases also define what is and what is not a breach. If you really
insist on pushing your stupid analogy, no fault divorce laws provide
that filing for divorce is no breach of the marriage contract.

miguel, hey, it's your stupid analogy. Live with it.

Post by Andre Lieven
Andre

[Jim Ledford]

[....]

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven
ROTFLMAO ! What part of " till *death* do you part " is too tough
for you to grasp ? LOL !

It's stupid to laugh like that when you're plainly wrong. The vow
"til death do you part" is a component of some religious ceremonies,
but is certainly not part of the civil contract. The proof, as they
say, is in the pudding. If it were an explicit part of the civil
contract, divorce wouldn't be allowed. Divorce is allowed, so it's
not.

Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

mike when you are doing your lawyer-guy thing and breaking up
marriages do you ever stop to think of The Word of God? say
like Mat 19:6? my guess, since you are a lawyer-guy, is going
to be that you do not give thought to The Word of The Lord God
Almighty but rather you do give thought to the 30% of the marriage
property that will soon be yours as a result of your lawyer-guy fee.


by the law of The Lord God Almighty, which is the ONLY true law,
there is one justification for divorcement. in Mat 19:9, notice
the words [except it be for fornication].

in america fornication is now the norm and no longer the exception.
americans being the materialist creatures they are were very easy
targets for satan the devil to lie to and lead away from the truth
of The Word of God.

in america the path to hell is a wide 248 lane super highway
with no speed limit and lawyer-guys standing at each entrance
ramp advertising the lies of satan the devil as being the good
life.




[....]

Post by miguel
miguel, hey, it's your stupid analogy. Live with it.

[miguel]

Post by Jim Ledford
[....]

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven
ROTFLMAO ! What part of " till *death* do you part " is too tough
for you to grasp ? LOL !

It's stupid to laugh like that when you're plainly wrong. The vow
"til death do you part" is a component of some religious ceremonies,
but is certainly not part of the civil contract. The proof, as they
say, is in the pudding. If it were an explicit part of the civil
contract, divorce wouldn't be allowed. Divorce is allowed, so it's
not.

Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
mike when you are doing your lawyer-guy thing and breaking up
marriages do you ever stop to think of The Word of God? say
like Mat 19:6? my guess, since you are a lawyer-guy, is going
to be that you do not give thought to The Word of The Lord God
Almighty but rather you do give thought to the 30% of the marriage
property that will soon be yours as a result of your lawyer-guy fee.

We don't charge contingent fees for divorce, jim.

Post by Jim Ledford
by the law of The Lord God Almighty, which is the ONLY true law,
there is one justification for divorcement. in Mat 19:9, notice
the words [except it be for fornication].
in america fornication is now the norm and no longer the exception.
americans being the materialist creatures they are were very easy
targets for satan the devil to lie to and lead away from the truth
of The Word of God.
in america the path to hell is a wide 248 lane super highway
with no speed limit and lawyer-guys standing at each entrance
ramp advertising the lies of satan the devil as being the good
life.

You're quite a raving loon, you know.

miguel

[Jim Ledford]

Post by miguel

Post by Jim Ledford
[....]

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven
ROTFLMAO ! What part of " till *death* do you part " is too tough
for you to grasp ? LOL !

It's stupid to laugh like that when you're plainly wrong. The vow
"til death do you part" is a component of some religious ceremonies,
but is certainly not part of the civil contract. The proof, as they
say, is in the pudding. If it were an explicit part of the civil
contract, divorce wouldn't be allowed. Divorce is allowed, so it's
not.

Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
mike when you are doing your lawyer-guy thing and breaking up
marriages do you ever stop to think of The Word of God? say
like Mat 19:6? my guess, since you are a lawyer-guy, is going
to be that you do not give thought to The Word of The Lord God
Almighty but rather you do give thought to the 30% of the marriage
property that will soon be yours as a result of your lawyer-guy fee.

We don't charge contingent fees for divorce, jim.

LOL that was very funny, thanks. do you remember bragging
in soc.singles of how you as lawyer-guy won a rather large
monthly award settlement for a woman because her husband was
doing the earthly worldly manly thing of upgrading to a newer
younger model of the female toy? did this woman pay you for
your lawyer-guy services out of money she had actually earned
by doing work outside of the home? more than likely she paid
you for your lawyer-guy act out of the funds you extracted from
her not so wonderful husband.

Post by miguel

Post by Jim Ledford
by the law of The Lord God Almighty, which is the ONLY true law,
there is one justification for divorcement. in Mat 19:9, notice
the words [except it be for fornication].
in america fornication is now the norm and no longer the exception.
americans being the materialist creatures they are were very easy
targets for satan the devil to lie to and lead away from the truth
of The Word of God.
in america the path to hell is a wide 248 lane super highway
with no speed limit and lawyer-guys standing at each entrance
ramp advertising the lies of satan the devil as being the good
life.

You're quite a raving loon, you know.

the ways of The Lord God Almighty do seem rather
strange to self serving american lovers of the flesh.


Heb 3:10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and
said, They do always err in their heart; and they have not
known my ways.

Post by miguel
miguel

[miguel]

Post by Jim Ledford

Post by miguel

Post by Jim Ledford
[....]

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven
ROTFLMAO ! What part of " till *death* do you part " is too tough
for you to grasp ? LOL !

It's stupid to laugh like that when you're plainly wrong. The vow
"til death do you part" is a component of some religious ceremonies,
but is certainly not part of the civil contract. The proof, as they
say, is in the pudding. If it were an explicit part of the civil
contract, divorce wouldn't be allowed. Divorce is allowed, so it's
not.

Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
mike when you are doing your lawyer-guy thing and breaking up
marriages do you ever stop to think of The Word of God? say
like Mat 19:6? my guess, since you are a lawyer-guy, is going
to be that you do not give thought to The Word of The Lord God
Almighty but rather you do give thought to the 30% of the marriage
property that will soon be yours as a result of your lawyer-guy fee.

We don't charge contingent fees for divorce, jim.

LOL that was very funny, thanks. do you remember bragging
in soc.singles of how you as lawyer-guy won a rather large
monthly award settlement for a woman because her husband was
doing the earthly worldly manly thing of upgrading to a newer
younger model of the female toy? did this woman pay you for
your lawyer-guy services out of money she had actually earned
by doing work outside of the home? more than likely she paid
you for your lawyer-guy act out of the funds you extracted from
her not so wonderful husband.

Do you know what "contingent fee" means?

Post by Jim Ledford

Post by miguel

Post by Jim Ledford
by the law of The Lord God Almighty, which is the ONLY true law,
there is one justification for divorcement. in Mat 19:9, notice
the words [except it be for fornication].
in america fornication is now the norm and no longer the exception.
americans being the materialist creatures they are were very easy
targets for satan the devil to lie to and lead away from the truth
of The Word of God.
in america the path to hell is a wide 248 lane super highway
with no speed limit and lawyer-guys standing at each entrance
ramp advertising the lies of satan the devil as being the good
life.

You're quite a raving loon, you know.

the ways of The Lord God Almighty do seem rather
strange to self serving american lovers of the flesh.

I sense pride in you, and a presumptuousness that somehow you've become
god's emissary on earth. It's fairly common to see that in baby
christians. Hopefully you'll grow out of it someday.

miguel

[Andre Lieven]

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Jim Ledford

Post by miguel

Post by the Danimal

Post by kate
I have seen no evidence to suggest that men are any better at
evaluating character than women.

Indeed, vast numbers of men fall victim to divorce pillage,
which means they flunked the character evaluation quiz.
Amusingly, if men could somehow reprogram themselves to lust
after women who earn high incomes, they (the men) would be at
less risk of getting pillaged when they divorce.

Define divorce pillage.

it involves lawyer-guy telling their client what
can be had in the form of property and money.

So giving legal advice is divorce pillage?

When lawyers who deal with only female clients routinely counsel
said female clients to make false accusations of abuse, or child
abuse, to gain leverage in the divorce, yes.

That's not pillage.

Wrong. Thats conspiracy to defraud, which counts as pillage.

Conspiracy != pillage.

Sure. Its rare to actually pillage by one's self. All that loot is
heavy to carry. Ask any Viking.

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel
When a couple divorces,
what is a fair percentage of property to assign to the wife, and what
is a fair percentage of property to assign to the husband?

Depends. When there is just cause for the divorce, 50/50. With NO
resources generated post divorce to be on the table.

So, you're saying that if a wife cheats on her husband, and she files
for divorce, the wife is entitled to 50%. But if the wife doesn't
cheat, and she files, she's entitled to nothing?

I wasn't sufficiently detailed there. My bad.
When there is cause for a divorce, the lion's share to the wronged
party. When there is no just cause, the same principle would apply,
menaing, in such cases, that the recipient there would not be the
initiator/filer for the divorce.

So you're pro extortion to stay in a relationship.

No, I'm pro no-profit-for-any-unilateral-contract-violations.

Should your phone company, for example, have a right to unilaterally
change your service terms, and charge you money for that ? Of course
not, it is the enforcement of the contract you have with them that
prevents such.

I believe that marriage should be treated *equally* to *any other
contract*. Period.

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven
But, when one spouse wishes to break the marital contract, without
just cause ( Just causes: Abuse, addiction, abandonment, adultery ),
which is most divorces, as are most divorces for no just cause so
chosen unilaterally by the wife, then no marital assets should be
given the contract breaker, for the same reason that ANY contract
breaker in any civil dispute is allowed to profit from their
unjust voiding of a mutual contract.

You aren't a lawyer, and you don't really know what you're talking
about.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

Proof offered about what?

Your claim.

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven
In any case, the question on the table was, what *should* occur,
not what gross and routine injustices do presently occur.
One might consider that one reason that the marriage rate in CA.
has fallen about 25% between 2002 and 2004 is that divorce judgements
are more and more understood by men to be unjust to such men.

That's irrelevant to the argument.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel
It is not an explicit or implicit term of the marriage contract
that it has to last until somebody dies.

ROTFLMAO ! What part of " till *death* do you part " is too tough
for you to grasp ? LOL !

It's stupid to laugh like that when you're plainly wrong.

<Projection>

Post by miguel
The vow
"til death do you part" is a component of some religious ceremonies,
but is certainly not part of the civil contract.

Miguel, meet intent. Intent, miguel.

Post by miguel
The proof, as they
say, is in the pudding. If it were an explicit part of the civil
contract, divorce wouldn't be allowed. Divorce is allowed, so it's
not.

Yet, the avowwed *goal* remains the same. Marriage until death.

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel
When people contract civilly,
they do so with imputed knowledge that their contract is subject to any
and all statutory provisions then extant or later enacted which bear
upon the subject matter of the contract.

None of which excuses treating marriage contracts as the ONLY ones
where a violator of the contract can profit from their violation.

You're assuming a violation where none exists.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

Post by miguel
Feel free to prove me
wrong here, by finding a civil case, anywhere, that talks about
divorce as a breach of contract.

Divorces where resources are appoprtioned out, resources that are
post marital ( See " alimony " ) are clearly about the restitution
for a violation/ending of a contractual relationship.

Any lawyer could tell you that.

Post by miguel
The law is what it is, not what Andre thinks it ought to be.

Laws change all the time.

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel
No fault divorce statutes exist.

... for now... People who view the law as being static are, well,
foolish and ignorant.

For the foreseeable future. There are still enough people alive who
remember the evils of fault-based divorce.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel
Every marriage contract entered in a state with no fault divorce
statutes implicitly contains the provision that either party can end it
at any time. That is not unjust.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

No refutation offered. Claim stands.

Your claim, your failure to support it. Claim fails.

Post by miguel
Isn't that cute and persuasive?

Its your game. <shrugs>

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven
Allowing any violator of a legal contract to unilaterally void said
contract, *and* profit from said voiding, is unjust. That is exactly
why no other type of contract law allows such an act and consequence.

If a man provides 90 of the assets in a relationship, files for
divorce, and takes 50% of the assets out, how is he profiting?

As men are not the ones who desire/file for/cause divorces ( See
Sanford Braver's " Divorced Dads; Shattering The Myths " ), you are
asking about the wrong group. Duh.

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven
Now, when marriage contract law is brought back into line with standard
contract law, well, that will be better, more consistant, and more...
just.

Standard contract law permits the inclusion of terms allowing the
contract to be cancelled under conditions specified in the contract
itself.

Indeed. As in, for cause. A unilateral desire to end a contract is
not cause. Again, a lawyer could explain this to you.

Post by miguel
Likewise, civil law makes some contracts unenforceable when
they are contrary to public policy.

Indeed. Yet, this doesn't apply to marriages, as time and law shows.

Post by miguel
You have a very naive view of what contracts are.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

Post by miguel
Contract law exists, mainly, to provide orderly
and predictable remedies in the event of a breach.

Indeed, one of which is, breach the contract for no reason, and
pay the penalties therof. Except in marriage, where its breach
for no reason, and win a prize.

Post by miguel
Those remedies are
either provided by statute (eg., UCC) or by common law (eg,
Restatement, Contracts and state and federal cases). These statutes
and cases also define what is and what is not a breach. If you really
insist on pushing your stupid analogy, no fault divorce laws provide
that filing for divorce is no breach of the marriage contract.

Indeed, and thats in direct violation of standing contract law and
precedent.

Which is my point. Thank you for conceeding it.

Post by miguel
miguel, hey, it's your stupid analogy. Live with it.

<Projection>

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

[miguel]

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Jim Ledford

Post by miguel

Post by the Danimal

Post by kate
I have seen no evidence to suggest that men are any better at
evaluating character than women.

Indeed, vast numbers of men fall victim to divorce pillage,
which means they flunked the character evaluation quiz.
Amusingly, if men could somehow reprogram themselves to lust
after women who earn high incomes, they (the men) would be at
less risk of getting pillaged when they divorce.

Define divorce pillage.

it involves lawyer-guy telling their client what
can be had in the form of property and money.

So giving legal advice is divorce pillage?

When lawyers who deal with only female clients routinely counsel
said female clients to make false accusations of abuse, or child
abuse, to gain leverage in the divorce, yes.

That's not pillage.

Wrong. Thats conspiracy to defraud, which counts as pillage.

Conspiracy != pillage.

Sure. Its rare to actually pillage by one's self. All that loot is
heavy to carry. Ask any Viking.

Conspiracy != pillage. Or do you have a special Andre dictionary that
says otherwise?

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel
When a couple divorces,
what is a fair percentage of property to assign to the wife, and what
is a fair percentage of property to assign to the husband?

Depends. When there is just cause for the divorce, 50/50. With NO
resources generated post divorce to be on the table.

So, you're saying that if a wife cheats on her husband, and she files
for divorce, the wife is entitled to 50%. But if the wife doesn't
cheat, and she files, she's entitled to nothing?

I wasn't sufficiently detailed there. My bad.
When there is cause for a divorce, the lion's share to the wronged
party. When there is no just cause, the same principle would apply,
menaing, in such cases, that the recipient there would not be the
initiator/filer for the divorce.

So you're pro extortion to stay in a relationship.

No, I'm pro no-profit-for-any-unilateral-contract-violations.
Should your phone company, for example, have a right to unilaterally
change your service terms, and charge you money for that ? Of course
not, it is the enforcement of the contract you have with them that
prevents such.

Actually, Andre, they do. Every state has a utility regulatory agency
that provides tariffs for telephone service. If the telephone company
wants to raise my rates, they apply for a new tariff. Usually the
application is granted.

Post by Andre Lieven
I believe that marriage should be treated *equally* to *any other
contract*. Period.

You have yet to offer a single example of how it's not. Moreover, your
statement presumes, falsely, that all other contracts are treated the
same. They aren't. For example, contrast a contract I make with
somebody in the State of Washington to gamble 100,000 on the outcome of
the world series. I win, and I try to enforce it by lawsuit. The court
tosses the case out because enforcing gambling agreements is generally
against the public policy of the state of Washington. In contrast, if I
contract to buy a house for $100,000, and the seller breaches the
contract, I can sue to enforce the contract and most likely obtain
specific performance.

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven
But, when one spouse wishes to break the marital contract, without
just cause ( Just causes: Abuse, addiction, abandonment, adultery ),
which is most divorces, as are most divorces for no just cause so
chosen unilaterally by the wife, then no marital assets should be
given the contract breaker, for the same reason that ANY contract
breaker in any civil dispute is allowed to profit from their
unjust voiding of a mutual contract.

You aren't a lawyer, and you don't really know what you're talking
about.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

Proof offered about what?

Your claim.

Are you a lawyer?

Your feeble discussion of contract law certainly suggests you aren't,
and also suggests that you don't know what you are talking about. I
don't have to offer any proof about it. You're offering enough yourself.

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven
In any case, the question on the table was, what *should* occur,
not what gross and routine injustices do presently occur.
One might consider that one reason that the marriage rate in CA.
has fallen about 25% between 2002 and 2004 is that divorce judgements
are more and more understood by men to be unjust to such men.

That's irrelevant to the argument.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

When I say it's irrelevant, the burden falls upon you to demonstrate its
relevance. Can you?

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel
It is not an explicit or implicit term of the marriage contract
that it has to last until somebody dies.

ROTFLMAO ! What part of " till *death* do you part " is too tough
for you to grasp ? LOL !

It's stupid to laugh like that when you're plainly wrong.

<Projection>

No, not really. You haven't cited a single case or statute that proves
your claim. Religious gobbledygook doesn't qualify. No proof offered ?
Claim fails.

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel
The vow
"til death do you part" is a component of some religious ceremonies,
but is certainly not part of the civil contract.

Miguel, meet intent. Intent, miguel.

You probably aren't aware of this, inasmuch as you're not a lawyer and
all, but our legal system enforces an objective theory of contract.
Subjective intent is usually irrelevant. To make a contract you need
three things: (1) offer; (2) acceptance; and (3) consideration.
Whatever subjective intent you may have is subsumed within the objective
manifestation of offer and acceptance.

Beyond that, as I said before, the subject matter of every contract is
subservient to statutory and caselaw concerning it. If statutory law
permits a person to end a marriage by filing for divorce, then the
marriage contract is not breached by filing for divorce. It's hornbook
law, dufus.

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel
The proof, as they
say, is in the pudding. If it were an explicit part of the civil
contract, divorce wouldn't be allowed. Divorce is allowed, so it's
not.

Yet, the avowwed *goal* remains the same. Marriage until death.

So what? You're claiming it's a breach of contract. No fault divorce
laws allow people to change their minds without breaching any contract.
Your hewted feewings don't equal a breach of contract.

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel
When people contract civilly,
they do so with imputed knowledge that their contract is subject to any
and all statutory provisions then extant or later enacted which bear
upon the subject matter of the contract.

None of which excuses treating marriage contracts as the ONLY ones
where a violator of the contract can profit from their violation.

You're assuming a violation where none exists.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

I've already proven it. To repeat for the 10th time: No fault divorce
statutes allow either party to end a marriage without breaching the
marriage contract. The existence of no fault divorce statutes
necessarily implies that marriage need not continue until the death of
one party in order to fulfill the contract.

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel
Feel free to prove me
wrong here, by finding a civil case, anywhere, that talks about
divorce as a breach of contract.

Divorces where resources are appoprtioned out, resources that are
post marital ( See " alimony " ) are clearly about the restitution
for a violation/ending of a contractual relationship.
Any lawyer could tell you that.

Once again you've failed to cite any case or statute that proves your
argument. This is no surprise, because you're wrong, and yes, I am a lawyer.

I don't even have to cite the relevant statutes or cases in Washington,
either, because your argument fails so miserably on its own logic. You
argue women file predominantly for divorce. Women also predominantly
collect maintenance. If these women were contract breachers then they
wouldn't collect maintenance. But they do.

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel
The law is what it is, not what Andre thinks it ought to be.

Laws change all the time.

Wow.

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel
No fault divorce statutes exist.

... for now... People who view the law as being static are, well,
foolish and ignorant.

For the foreseeable future. There are still enough people alive who
remember the evils of fault-based divorce.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

It's pointless. Your bitterness makes you immune to it.

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel
Every marriage contract entered in a state with no fault divorce
statutes implicitly contains the provision that either party can end it
at any time. That is not unjust.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

No refutation offered. Claim stands.

Your claim, your failure to support it. Claim fails.

Post by miguel
Isn't that cute and persuasive?

Its your game. <shrugs>

Not really. You're the one who keeps chanting no proof offered claim
fails. Do your soc.men brethren find that persuasive?

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven
Allowing any violator of a legal contract to unilaterally void said
contract, *and* profit from said voiding, is unjust. That is exactly
why no other type of contract law allows such an act and consequence.

If a man provides 90 of the assets in a relationship, files for
divorce, and takes 50% of the assets out, how is he profiting?

As men are not the ones who desire/file for/cause divorces ( See
Sanford Braver's " Divorced Dads; Shattering The Myths " ), you are
asking about the wrong group. Duh.

Sure, it's never happened.

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven
Now, when marriage contract law is brought back into line with standard
contract law, well, that will be better, more consistant, and more...
just.

Standard contract law permits the inclusion of terms allowing the
contract to be cancelled under conditions specified in the contract
itself.

Indeed. As in, for cause. A unilateral desire to end a contract is
not cause. Again, a lawyer could explain this to you.

No, not just for cause. For any damn reason or non reason they want.

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel
Likewise, civil law makes some contracts unenforceable when
they are contrary to public policy.

Indeed. Yet, this doesn't apply to marriages, as time and law shows.

You are the one who set up marriage contracts in one category and all
other contracts in another. I am just pointing out how wrong you are.

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel
You have a very naive view of what contracts are.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

That's really for the reader to decide.

Andre's wife: Our sex life is very very unsatisfactory.
Andre: No proof offered ? Claim fails.

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel
Contract law exists, mainly, to provide orderly
and predictable remedies in the event of a breach.

Indeed, one of which is, breach the contract for no reason, and
pay the penalties therof. Except in marriage, where its breach
for no reason, and win a prize.

There is no breach, Andre. No fault divorce statutes, remember?

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel
Those remedies are
either provided by statute (eg., UCC) or by common law (eg,
Restatement, Contracts and state and federal cases). These statutes
and cases also define what is and what is not a breach. If you really
insist on pushing your stupid analogy, no fault divorce laws provide
that filing for divorce is no breach of the marriage contract.

Indeed, and thats in direct violation of standing contract law and
precedent.

No it's not. It's perfectly consistent with it, as I have repeatedly
demonstrated and you have repeatedly ignored, because it's so hard to
accept and keep your bitterboy worldview.

Post by Andre Lieven
Which is my point. Thank you for conceeding it.

smirk

miguel

[cbianco]

m

Post by miguel
When people contract civilly,
they do so with imputed knowledge that their contract is subject to any
and all statutory provisions then extant or later enacted which bear
upon the subject matter of the contract.

theres a sucker imputing every minute


cbianco

[kate]

Post by Andre Lieven
lawyers who deal with only female clients routinely counsel
said female clients to make false accusations of abuse, or child
abuse, to gain leverage in the divorce, yes.

You can, of course, prove this?
Would these be male or female lawyers you allege do this, or both?

Kate C.

[r***@beer.com]

Post by miguel

Post by Jim Ledford

Post by miguel

Post by the Danimal

Post by kate
I have seen no evidence to suggest that men are any better at
evaluating character than women.

Indeed, vast numbers of men fall victim to divorce pillage,
which means they flunked the character evaluation quiz.
Amusingly, if men could somehow reprogram themselves to lust
after women who earn high incomes, they (the men) would be at
less risk of getting pillaged when they divorce.

Define divorce pillage.

it involves lawyer-guy telling their client what
can be had in the form of property and money.

So giving legal advice is divorce pillage? When a couple divorces,
what is a fair percentage of property to assign to the wife, and what
is a fair percentage of property to assign to the husband?

Post by Jim Ledford
however, the entire mess can be avoided by NOT
adhering to worldly values such as lust.

Here's a great story about a man with good christian values who still
couldn't keep his marriage together.
http://tinyurl.com/8ou55
miguel

According to Focus on the Family guy, if she didn't want the anal, she
should not have taken the vow to obey.



Genesis 3: 16-it's in the Bible, man!!!

[the Danimal]

Post by miguel
When a couple divorces,
what is a fair percentage of property to assign to the wife, and what
is a fair percentage of property to assign to the husband?

Whatever they earned.

In normal business deals, all the prices have to be up front.

Would you like to shop at a store that came back to you after
10 years and required you to pay more money for a product you
thought you had already purchased? And this after the product
has worn out and you threw it away? Would you like to keep
paying for a worn-out product, far more money than the number
on the price tag you saw first?

If a woman stays at home and does some housework in between
watching soaps and Oprah, it doesn't make sense to say her
contribution ONLY has value if she divorces. If the couple
stays married another 50 years and she dies of natural causes,
she gets NOTHING for having done all that housework. She cannot
assume ownership of half her husband's money EXCEPT by
divorcing him. What's up with that? Why is she not free to
attach 50% of his wages while they are married and spend that
money as if she earned it herself?

So, if her contribution has zero value if the marriage continues, how
does it magically attain value if she decides to end the marriage?

The logical way to approach things, if women want to say their
housework has economic value, is for women to negotiate a pay
rate with their husband for housework, or sex, or whatever else
they think they contribute. Let husbands pay their wives a
salary to be their wives, whatever they can agree on. Then
when the marriage ends, there can be a severance package as
in any other job, say two months' pay or whatever is customary.

Instead we have this crazy system in which a woman's contribution
of housework and sex has no fixed value, but instead is tied to
the man's income, with no upper bound!

That is insane. I heard a wealthy man complain once that lawn
service companies charge wealthy homeowners higher rates for
cutting their grass. In a rational market, a wealthy person
pays the same price for a given product as everyone else.
A wealthy person does not have to pay extra for a gallon of milk
or a movie ticket.

If a woman divorces her wealthy husband, she can get millions of
dollars, without even doing any housework because he hired
servants to do it!

That's divorce pillage, pure and simple. Just straight outright
theft. It's a legal form of racketeering, enabled by
divorce "mob" lawyers.

-- the Danimal

[miguel]

Post by the Danimal

Post by miguel
When a couple divorces,
what is a fair percentage of property to assign to the wife, and what
is a fair percentage of property to assign to the husband?

Whatever they earned.
In normal business deals, all the prices have to be up front.
Would you like to shop at a store that came back to you after
10 years and required you to pay more money for a product you
thought you had already purchased? And this after the product
has worn out and you threw it away? Would you like to keep
paying for a worn-out product, far more money than the number
on the price tag you saw first?
If a woman stays at home and does some housework in between
watching soaps and Oprah, it doesn't make sense to say her
contribution ONLY has value if she divorces. If the couple
stays married another 50 years and she dies of natural causes,
she gets NOTHING for having done all that housework. She cannot
assume ownership of half her husband's money EXCEPT by
divorcing him. What's up with that? Why is she not free to
attach 50% of his wages while they are married and spend that
money as if she earned it herself?
So, if her contribution has zero value if the marriage continues, how
does it magically attain value if she decides to end the marriage?
The logical way to approach things, if women want to say their
housework has economic value, is for women to negotiate a pay
rate with their husband for housework, or sex, or whatever else
they think they contribute. Let husbands pay their wives a
salary to be their wives, whatever they can agree on. Then
when the marriage ends, there can be a severance package as
in any other job, say two months' pay or whatever is customary.
Instead we have this crazy system in which a woman's contribution
of housework and sex has no fixed value, but instead is tied to
the man's income, with no upper bound!
That is insane. I heard a wealthy man complain once that lawn
service companies charge wealthy homeowners higher rates for
cutting their grass. In a rational market, a wealthy person
pays the same price for a given product as everyone else.
A wealthy person does not have to pay extra for a gallon of milk
or a movie ticket.
If a woman divorces her wealthy husband, she can get millions of
dollars, without even doing any housework because he hired
servants to do it!
That's divorce pillage, pure and simple. Just straight outright
theft. It's a legal form of racketeering, enabled by
divorce "mob" lawyers.

Your argument isn't interesting enough to want to spend any time
responding to.

[Andre Lieven]

Post by miguel

Post by the Danimal

Post by miguel
When a couple divorces,
what is a fair percentage of property to assign to the wife, and what
is a fair percentage of property to assign to the husband?

Whatever they earned.
In normal business deals, all the prices have to be up front.
Would you like to shop at a store that came back to you after
10 years and required you to pay more money for a product you
thought you had already purchased? And this after the product
has worn out and you threw it away? Would you like to keep
paying for a worn-out product, far more money than the number
on the price tag you saw first?
If a woman stays at home and does some housework in between
watching soaps and Oprah, it doesn't make sense to say her
contribution ONLY has value if she divorces. If the couple
stays married another 50 years and she dies of natural causes,
she gets NOTHING for having done all that housework. She cannot
assume ownership of half her husband's money EXCEPT by
divorcing him. What's up with that? Why is she not free to
attach 50% of his wages while they are married and spend that
money as if she earned it herself?
So, if her contribution has zero value if the marriage continues, how
does it magically attain value if she decides to end the marriage?
The logical way to approach things, if women want to say their
housework has economic value, is for women to negotiate a pay
rate with their husband for housework, or sex, or whatever else
they think they contribute. Let husbands pay their wives a
salary to be their wives, whatever they can agree on. Then
when the marriage ends, there can be a severance package as
in any other job, say two months' pay or whatever is customary.
Instead we have this crazy system in which a woman's contribution
of housework and sex has no fixed value, but instead is tied to
the man's income, with no upper bound!
That is insane. I heard a wealthy man complain once that lawn
service companies charge wealthy homeowners higher rates for
cutting their grass. In a rational market, a wealthy person
pays the same price for a given product as everyone else.
A wealthy person does not have to pay extra for a gallon of milk
or a movie ticket.
If a woman divorces her wealthy husband, she can get millions of
dollars, without even doing any housework because he hired
servants to do it!
That's divorce pillage, pure and simple. Just straight outright
theft. It's a legal form of racketeering, enabled by
divorce "mob" lawyers.

Your argument isn't interesting enough to want to spend any time
responding to.

Translation: " As I cannot even attempt to refute your argument, I
will attempt to make it seem as if the fault for that failure *isn't*
mine. "

HTH.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

[cbianco]

m on d

Post by miguel

Post by the Danimal
Amusingly, if men could somehow reprogram themselves to lust
after women who earn high incomes, they (the men) would be at
less risk of getting pillaged when they divorce.

Define divorce pillage.

"man pays"


cbianco

[miguel]

Post by cbianco
m on d

Post by miguel

Post by the Danimal
Amusingly, if men could somehow reprogram themselves to lust
after women who earn high incomes, they (the men) would be at
less risk of getting pillaged when they divorce.

Define divorce pillage.

"man pays"

Why it's criminal!

[Bobby]

Post by miguel

Post by cbianco
m on d

Post by miguel

Post by the Danimal
Amusingly, if men could somehow reprogram themselves to lust
after women who earn high incomes, they (the men) would be at
less risk of getting pillaged when they divorce.

Define divorce pillage.

"man pays"

Why it's criminal!

There's no excuse why she should be dependent on his labors. She is
just as capable of getting a job as he is, so why is earning an income
considered a plus in custody suits and equal contributions derived
from the lowest earner?

[Bobby]

Post by miguel

Post by cbianco
m on d

Post by miguel

Post by the Danimal
Amusingly, if men could somehow reprogram themselves to lust
after women who earn high incomes, they (the men) would be at
less risk of getting pillaged when they divorce.

Define divorce pillage.

"man pays"

Why it's criminal!

There's no excuse why she should be dependent on his labors. She is
just as capable of getting a job as he is, so why isn't earning an
income considered a plus in custody suits and equal contributions
derived from the lowest earner?

[cbianco]

Post by miguel

Post by cbianco
m on d

Post by miguel

Post by the Danimal
Amusingly, if men could somehow reprogram themselves to lust
after women who earn high incomes, they (the men) would be at
less risk of getting pillaged when they divorce.

Define divorce pillage.

"man pays"

Why it's criminal!

dont do the dyme if ya cant do the time.


cbianco

[the Danimal]

Post by miguel
Define divorce pillage.

Money a woman takes from a man who earns it by divorcing him.

If the man's money is "their" money, the man's paychecks would
not be made out solely to him, but to his wife also.

If someone wants to argue that the woman earned her divorce
payoff through her domestic service or whatever while married,
then that should have shown up through the man's increased
income.

But most men earn just as well while they are single and
employed as they do while they are married and employed.

If you have ever employed men who were single and then got
married, did you find yourself needing to pay them more after
they got married because suddenly their productivity doubled?

Sometimes, a contributing factor in divorce is that the man
has a demanding job, and having a wife interferes with
his ability to work insane hours. Which would indicate that
in his case, being married is probably depressing his income.
A wife competes for the same energy he uses to earn money.

-- the Danimal

[miguel]

Post by the Danimal

Post by miguel
Define divorce pillage.

Money a woman takes from a man who earns it by divorcing him.
If the man's money is "their" money, the man's paychecks would
not be made out solely to him, but to his wife also.
If someone wants to argue that the woman earned her divorce
payoff through her domestic service or whatever while married,
then that should have shown up through the man's increased
income.
But most men earn just as well while they are single and
employed as they do while they are married and employed.
If you have ever employed men who were single and then got
married, did you find yourself needing to pay them more after
they got married because suddenly their productivity doubled?
Sometimes, a contributing factor in divorce is that the man
has a demanding job, and having a wife interferes with
his ability to work insane hours. Which would indicate that
in his case, being married is probably depressing his income.
A wife competes for the same energy he uses to earn money.

You've got good bitterboy potential.

[the Danimal]

Post by miguel

Post by the Danimal

Post by miguel
Define divorce pillage.

Money a woman takes from a man who earns it by divorcing him.
If the man's money is "their" money, the man's paychecks would
not be made out solely to him, but to his wife also.
If someone wants to argue that the woman earned her divorce
payoff through her domestic service or whatever while married,
then that should have shown up through the man's increased
income.
But most men earn just as well while they are single and
employed as they do while they are married and employed.
If you have ever employed men who were single and then got
married, did you find yourself needing to pay them more after
they got married because suddenly their productivity doubled?
Sometimes, a contributing factor in divorce is that the man
has a demanding job, and having a wife interferes with
his ability to work insane hours. Which would indicate that
in his case, being married is probably depressing his income.
A wife competes for the same energy he uses to earn money.

You've got good bitterboy potential.

Sure, if I were stupid enough to get married, and unlucky
enough to be one of those sad men who failed to see a divorce
coming. (How many people who get divorced had any inkling of
what lay in store for them when they got married? I am curious
about that. Of all the writings about divorce, the most useful
would be some clear exposition of the warning signs of future
divorce that may be present when the man signs away all his
rights.)

You demanded a definition, I gave it. It seems your best
response is your typical evasive goalpost-moving _ad hominem_.
Elsewhere, when people evade your points, you say their evasion
"speaks volumes." And I agree.

If we regard a wife's duties as a service worthy of pay, why
does the pay rate increase in proportion to the husband's
income? Is her service actually increasing in value? To anyone
outside the divorce industry?

Can you answer the question? Or will you, as you accuse others
of doing, speak volumes by evading it?

Are you saying the wife of a rich man provides a product that
is actually worth more than what the wife of a poor man provides?

This seems hard to square with any sort of logic (remember logic?
That thing you say Andre lacks?), because if anything, the wife
of the wealthy husband works less and enjoys more leisure than
the wife of the poor husband. Her "job" is, perhaps, to monitor
the hired help, and accompany her husband on vacations to Tahiti.
If anyone is somehow entitled to more compensation, it should
be the wife of the poor man.

In your practice of family law, have you ever gone
around a prenuptial contract by filing a marital tort claim
of abuse? See:

Divorce War! 50 Strategies Every Woman Needs To Know To Win
by Bradley A., Esq. Pistotnik

-- the Danimal

[miguel]

Post by the Danimal

Post by miguel

Post by the Danimal

Post by miguel
Define divorce pillage.

Money a woman takes from a man who earns it by divorcing him.
If the man's money is "their" money, the man's paychecks would
not be made out solely to him, but to his wife also.
If someone wants to argue that the woman earned her divorce
payoff through her domestic service or whatever while married,
then that should have shown up through the man's increased
income.
But most men earn just as well while they are single and
employed as they do while they are married and employed.
If you have ever employed men who were single and then got
married, did you find yourself needing to pay them more after
they got married because suddenly their productivity doubled?
Sometimes, a contributing factor in divorce is that the man
has a demanding job, and having a wife interferes with
his ability to work insane hours. Which would indicate that
in his case, being married is probably depressing his income.
A wife competes for the same energy he uses to earn money.

You've got good bitterboy potential.

Sure, if I were stupid enough to get married, and unlucky
enough to be one of those sad men who failed to see a divorce
coming. (How many people who get divorced had any inkling of
what lay in store for them when they got married? I am curious
about that. Of all the writings about divorce, the most useful
would be some clear exposition of the warning signs of future
divorce that may be present when the man signs away all his
rights.)
You demanded a definition, I gave it. It seems your best
response is your typical evasive goalpost-moving _ad hominem_.
Elsewhere, when people evade your points, you say their evasion
"speaks volumes." And I agree.

Here's an alternate explanation: it's a waste of time debating your
answer because it is based on the silly idea that a marriage contract
is indistinguishable from a normal business contract. If I produce
widgets normally I can sell widgets to any interested party. My
market is not limited to one person. When I marry I am limited to a
legal marriage contract with one person, and I forego opportunities to
marry others. There is an opportunity cost present that does not
exist for sellers of widgets. I hope this is enough for you to see
how silly your position is and parse it out the rest of the way. Your
prior answer was an extreme intellectual disappointment.

miguel

[the Danimal]

Post by miguel
Here's an alternate explanation: it's a waste of time debating your
answer because

you can't win when you are wrong.

Post by miguel
it is based on the silly idea that a marriage contract
is indistinguishable from a normal business contract.

No, my argument is based on the silly idea that marriage
occurs between adults. You know, those people who are capable
of earning their own wages when they aren't married.

You haven't explained how a person is entitled to post-marital
disability payments. What is disabling about marriage?

Did your marriage(s) permanently harm your wage-earning
capacity?

Post by miguel
If I produce
widgets normally I can sell widgets to any interested party. My
market is not limited to one person.

But it could be. Companies sign exclusive contracts all the
time.

For example, a company I worked for signed an exclusive
distribution contract with one distributor. From that point on
we were only allowed to sell our product to that one buyer.

Post by miguel
When I marry I am limited to a
legal marriage contract with one person, and I forego opportunities to
marry others.

Only temporarily. You can get divorced and then marry someone
else. When you divorce, your opportunity cost vanishes.

Once a woman divorces her husband, she then regains her
opportunities to marry others. Why does she ONLY THEN become
entitled to compensation for this "opportunity cost"? It
doesn't make sense to pay her for a cost she is no longer
bearing, and which she voluntarily assumed by marrying.

Have any court findings actually mentioned this "opportunity
cost"?

Post by miguel
There is an opportunity cost present that does not
exist for sellers of widgets.

Both marriage partners bear this same "opportunity cost,"
because both partners equally forego opportunities to marry
others.

What entitles the woman to be paid for it at the expense of
the man?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in a court case where two parties
have inflicted costs on each other, doesn't the court usually
compute the difference in inflicted costs when deciding who
has to pay damages?

For example, if you and I have a dispute in which you smash
my bicycle and I retaliate by slashing the tires on your
Escalade, would the court find that only one of us deserves
compensation for his loss?

Post by miguel
I hope this is enough for you to see
how silly your position is and parse it out the rest of the way. Your
prior answer was an extreme intellectual disappointment.

Speaking of intellectual disappointment, your latest sorry attempt
at evasion has another Escalade-sized hole: what makes a woman's
"opportunity cost" higher when she marries a wealthy man than when
she marries a poor man?

If courts really do justify divorce pillage on the basis of the
woman's "opportunity cost," and we swallow the absurdity that the
man experiences no similar opportunity cost for making the same
choice to get married, how does the woman's "opportunity cost"
increase with the wealth of her husband?

If your argument had any basis in logic, the woman's "opportunity
cost" would obviously be LOWER when she marries a wealthy man, because
she is foregoing fewer opportunities to marry even wealthier men.
That is, she is probably closer to marrying the wealthiest man
she can get.

For example, suppose a woman can marry either of two men. One
is at the 10th centile of earning, and the other is at the 99th
centile. If she marries the poorer man, she is foregoing the
opportunity to marry any of the 90% of men who earn more. Odds
are good she could probably marry one of them. If she marries
the richer man, she is foregoing the opportunity to marry any
of the 1% of men who earn more. Odds are not so good she could
marry one of them.

Therefore her opportunity cost of marrying the poorer man is
VASTLY higher. She is giving up more opportunities to live a
wealthier lifestyle with a richer man.

And yet we see divorce pillage settlements working in exact
opposition to that principle: the ex-wife of a wealthy man
is entitled to FAR more compensation than the ex-wife of a
poor man.

Thus divorce pillage isn't about opportunity cost at all.
It's about entitlement. Courts explicitly rule that a
woman who divorces her husband is entitled to continue living
in the style to which she has become accustomed. After her
divorce she is incurring no opportunity cost whatsoever. She
is perfectly free to marry anyone she can attract.

Since you are a lawyer, I expect you to lie habitually. I
cannot fault a lawyer for lying---that would be like faulting
a cat for shedding---but I can certainly critique the quality
of your lies. And this particular lie, that a woman's
divorce pillage entitlements have anything to do with
"opportunity cost" either explicitly or implicitly, is
lame even by Miguel lying standards.

-- the Danimal

[miguel]

Post by the Danimal

Post by miguel
Here's an alternate explanation: it's a waste of time debating your
answer because

you can't win when you are wrong.

I suppose that depends on how you define winning. If you define winning
as being so boring and longwinded that eventually your debating
opponents tire of responding, even when you are wrong, then you've
achieved a significant number of victories that contradict your statement.

Post by the Danimal

Post by miguel
it is based on the silly idea that a marriage contract
is indistinguishable from a normal business contract.

No, my argument is based on the silly idea that marriage
occurs between adults. You know, those people who are capable
of earning their own wages when they aren't married.
You haven't explained how a person is entitled to post-marital
disability payments. What is disabling about marriage?
Did your marriage(s) permanently harm your wage-earning
capacity?

How much money do you have socked away for retirement?

Post by the Danimal

Post by miguel
If I produce
widgets normally I can sell widgets to any interested party. My
market is not limited to one person.

But it could be. Companies sign exclusive contracts all the
time.
For example, a company I worked for signed an exclusive
distribution contract with one distributor. From that point on
we were only allowed to sell our product to that one buyer.

Excellent. Did your company receive additional compensation for its
agreement to limit its sales behavior?

Post by the Danimal

Post by miguel
When I marry I am limited to a
legal marriage contract with one person, and I forego opportunities to
marry others.

Only temporarily. You can get divorced and then marry someone
else. When you divorce, your opportunity cost vanishes.
Once a woman divorces her husband, she then regains her
opportunities to marry others. Why does she ONLY THEN become
entitled to compensation for this "opportunity cost"? It
doesn't make sense to pay her for a cost she is no longer
bearing, and which she voluntarily assumed by marrying.
Have any court findings actually mentioned this "opportunity
cost"?

Yes. You can see how it works in Washington, by looking at how the
courts treat marriages based on their duration. A short term marriage
doesn't involve any "disability" payments. The court will strive to put
the parties in the same position they would have occupied but for the
marriage. A long term marriage is treated differently.

Post by the Danimal

Post by miguel
There is an opportunity cost present that does not
exist for sellers of widgets.

Both marriage partners bear this same "opportunity cost,"
because both partners equally forego opportunities to marry
others.
What entitles the woman to be paid for it at the expense of
the man?

If you'd take a moment to think about what the elements of foregone
opportunity might be, you'd not need to ask the question.

Post by the Danimal
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in a court case where two parties
have inflicted costs on each other, doesn't the court usually
compute the difference in inflicted costs when deciding who
has to pay damages?

What does that have to do with marriage dissolution?

Post by the Danimal
For example, if you and I have a dispute in which you smash
my bicycle and I retaliate by slashing the tires on your
Escalade, would the court find that only one of us deserves
compensation for his loss?

What is the relevance of this?

Post by the Danimal

Post by miguel
I hope this is enough for you to see
how silly your position is and parse it out the rest of the way. Your
prior answer was an extreme intellectual disappointment.

Speaking of intellectual disappointment, your latest sorry attempt
at evasion has another Escalade-sized hole: what makes a woman's
"opportunity cost" higher when she marries a wealthy man than when
she marries a poor man?

Did I claim that "opportunity cost" was the entire rationale?

Post by the Danimal
If courts really do justify divorce pillage on the basis of the
woman's "opportunity cost," and we swallow the absurdity that the
man experiences no similar opportunity cost for making the same
choice to get married, how does the woman's "opportunity cost"
increase with the wealth of her husband?
If your argument had any basis in logic, the woman's "opportunity
cost" would obviously be LOWER when she marries a wealthy man, because
she is foregoing fewer opportunities to marry even wealthier men.
That is, she is probably closer to marrying the wealthiest man
she can get.
For example, suppose a woman can marry either of two men. One
is at the 10th centile of earning, and the other is at the 99th
centile. If she marries the poorer man, she is foregoing the
opportunity to marry any of the 90% of men who earn more. Odds
are good she could probably marry one of them. If she marries
the richer man, she is foregoing the opportunity to marry any
of the 1% of men who earn more. Odds are not so good she could
marry one of them.
Therefore her opportunity cost of marrying the poorer man is
VASTLY higher. She is giving up more opportunities to live a
wealthier lifestyle with a richer man.
And yet we see divorce pillage settlements working in exact
opposition to that principle: the ex-wife of a wealthy man
is entitled to FAR more compensation than the ex-wife of a
poor man.
Thus divorce pillage isn't about opportunity cost at all.
It's about entitlement. Courts explicitly rule that a
woman who divorces her husband is entitled to continue living
in the style to which she has become accustomed. After her
divorce she is incurring no opportunity cost whatsoever. She
is perfectly free to marry anyone she can attract.
Since you are a lawyer, I expect you to lie habitually. I
cannot fault a lawyer for lying---that would be like faulting
a cat for shedding---but I can certainly critique the quality
of your lies. And this particular lie, that a woman's
divorce pillage entitlements have anything to do with
"opportunity cost" either explicitly or implicitly, is
lame even by Miguel lying standards.

Yawn. Maybe I'll go see if Ledford's nipping at my ankles again, too.

miguel

Post by the Danimal
-- the Danimal

[kate]

Post by the Danimal
She probably then insists even more strongly on getting with
men who are at least on her income level. But to attract
prosperous men, she has to look good, because a woman's
income doesn't have much effect on her attractiveness to
men

So let me see if I can clarify. You are saying that both men and women
are dealing with certain assests and that these assests are the
currency of the relationship game? Correct?

Is this dispassionate logic a trend, or, as Andre L. seems to insist,
an absolute? (see below)

Kate C.

[the Danimal]

Post by kate

Post by the Danimal
She probably then insists even more strongly on getting with
men who are at least on her income level. But to attract
prosperous men, she has to look good, because a woman's
income doesn't have much effect on her attractiveness to
men

So let me see if I can clarify.

OK. I thought I was pretty clear, but I guess further
improvements are always possible.

Post by kate
You are saying that both men and women
are dealing with certain assests and that these assests are the
currency of the relationship game? Correct?

Yes, and I went even farther: I identified some of those assets.

Post by kate
Is this dispassionate logic a trend, or, as Andre L. seems to insist,
an absolute? (see below)

By "absolute" I suppose you mean something that would apply to
every individual human in something like the same degree. Humans
are diverse enough to provide a few exceptions to almost every
rule, except for a few things involving hard physical limits
(nobody can bench-press 3000 pounds; nobody has lived 500 years;
etc.).

Are there exceptions to the most common preference trends? Of
course. But some exceptions appear to be exceedingly rare.
For example, it's pretty hard to find a woman who fits the
following description:

(a) She ranks near the top in terms of conventional physical
beauty; for example, she works as a Victoria's Secret lingerie
model.

(b) She meets and falls in love with a destitute midget.

Have you ever met a stunningly attractive woman who has a thing
for destitute midgets? I haven't either. I haven't even met
a woman with mediocre looks who lusts after destitute midgets.

I would be willing to bet a fair amount of money that you could
not find such a woman in five years of searching the entire
world. (Women of the Pygmies in Africa might be a little more
open to midgets than the average North American woman, but
I doubt poverty makes a man more desirable to them.)

Thus it seems while every woman is unique, it's pretty hard to
find one who is so unique that she defies the normal revulsion
women feel for men who are (a) destitute, and (b) short in
stature.

I used the lingerie-model example because she certainly gets
attention from so many men that she can choose from a variety.
Lingerie models are a good example of what men like because
they have beautiful faces and bodies, and are generally not
quite as emaciated as other types of runway models.

It seems to be virtually ironclad that if such a woman chooses
a man, he is not both poor and very short. Which is to say if
a man remains both poor and very short, his odds of experiencing
the love of a lingerie model are very low.

That is, until entertainment technology advances sufficiently
to duplicate her charms artificially and convincingly.

If we flip the genders, it's interesting to observe the women
chosen by men who have the widest choices in women. Usually
such men choose stunningly attractive women as we would expect.

Post by kate
From time to time, however, one of these privileged men marries

a woman who is comparatively nondescript (whether he remains
faithful to her is another issue). She may be nondescript,
but she is almost never obese.

It seems that among people who don't have to settle, the women
almost never select destitute midgets, and the men almost never
select obese women.

If a destitute midget man or an obese woman do manage to hook
up, it is extremely unlikely that either of them is the first
choice of whoever they hook up with.

It's probably no coincidence that when obese women do hook up,
they often land up with short men who are not wealthy.

-- the Danimal

[Andre Lieven]

Post by kate

Post by Dave Symn

Post by Comm
That guy is shit in bed.
That guy is great in bed.
WHO does the woman choose to mate with and have kids with?

the one with the fattest wallet or the nicest car, of course.

And if the woman happens to have a considerable income all on her own?

Then, she demands that he make that much more than she does. Even
Time & Newsweek did stories about this, on the theme of career
women who can't find a man, back in '03.

Post by kate
I have seen no evidence to suggest that men are any better at
evaluating character than women.

Blindness doesn't make the mountains of evidence vanish.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

[kate]

Post by Andre Lieven
Then, she demands that he make that much more than she does. Even
Time & Newsweek did stories about this, on the theme of career
women who can't find a man, back in '03.

I seem to recall the article, though you appear to have imbided it as
gospel.
Is it possible, however, that many career women consider that not being
able to find the right mate does not automatically necessitate
accepting someone unsuitable, merely for the sake of being married?

Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. Let's say that you
cannot seem to meet an attractive woman that will marry you. Should you
be compelled to marry a fat and ugly woman who is not to your liking?
Would you not insist that the choice is yours?

Is being married at any personal cost somekind of sacred goal?

Kate C.

[Andre Lieven]

Post by kate

Post by Andre Lieven
Then, she demands that he make that much more than she does. Even
Time & Newsweek did stories about this, on the theme of career
women who can't find a man, back in '03.

I seem to recall the article, though you appear to have imbided it as
gospel.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

I tend to view it as being factual, especially as it meets the test
of fitting in with a lot of other sociological data.

Post by kate
Is it possible, however, that many career women consider that not being
able to find the right mate does not automatically necessitate
accepting someone unsuitable, merely for the sake of being married?

Ah, the ol' Feminist way of making a disavowwable claim, by way of
seeming to phrase it as a " question ". How... dishonest.

Post by kate
Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. Let's say that you
cannot seem to meet an attractive woman that will marry you. Should you
be compelled to marry a fat and ugly woman who is not to your liking?

LOL ! First of all, sunshine, no one's " compelling " anyone to marry
anyone else. Rather, its *women's media* that goes on and ON, about
how those mean and nasty ol rich men won't marry the women who want
them to marry them. See Maureen O'Dowd's frequent screeches in the
NYTimes, a once but no more, great paper. Or, any issue of Cosmo.

Your premise is also very pregnant with the ASSumption that a poor guy
is as attractive to women as is a " fat and ugly " one. Congrats on
exposing your view that, for women, money=attractiveness. Which rather...
makes my point for me. <laughs>

Post by kate
Would you not insist that the choice is yours?

Non sequitur. Please post proof that that was my position.

No proof offered ? Straw woman fails.

Post by kate
Is being married at any personal cost somekind of sacred goal?

Under modern divorce laws, marriage is a high risk activity to men.
This is why, for example, in between 2002 and 2004, in California
( A state which is often a bellweather in matters of social policy
and effects ), annual marriages fell from 202,000 in 2002 to
154,000 in 2004. A 25% drop in a mere two years. While magazine
rack after magazine rack of WOMEN's magazines all decry modern
men's relative unwillingness to join them at the altar.

Cause. Effect. Facts.

HTH. Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

[miguel]

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by kate

Post by Andre Lieven
Then, she demands that he make that much more than she does. Even
Time & Newsweek did stories about this, on the theme of career
women who can't find a man, back in '03.

I seem to recall the article, though you appear to have imbided it as
gospel.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

I think it's a fair characterization.
Claim proven.

Post by Andre Lieven
I tend to view it as being factual, especially as it meets the test
of fitting in with a lot of other sociological data.

And now you're admitting she was right. Why do you chant your "claim
fails" mantra and then admit she's right? That's STUPID.

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by kate
Is it possible, however, that many career women consider that not being
able to find the right mate does not automatically necessitate
accepting someone unsuitable, merely for the sake of being married?

Ah, the ol' Feminist way of making a disavowwable claim, by way of
seeming to phrase it as a " question ". How... dishonest.

You saw straight through her evil ploy!

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by kate
Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. Let's say that you
cannot seem to meet an attractive woman that will marry you. Should you
be compelled to marry a fat and ugly woman who is not to your liking?

LOL ! First of all, sunshine, no one's " compelling " anyone to marry
anyone else. Rather, its *women's media* that goes on and ON, about
how those mean and nasty ol rich men won't marry the women who want
them to marry them. See Maureen O'Dowd's frequent screeches in the
NYTimes, a once but no more, great paper. Or, any issue of Cosmo.

She asked a fair question that points out your double standard and you
evaded it. Point to Kate.

Post by Andre Lieven
Your premise is also very pregnant with the ASSumption that a poor guy
is as attractive to women as is a " fat and ugly " one. Congrats on
exposing your view that, for women, money=attractiveness. Which rather...
makes my point for me. <laughs>

What female characteristics do men usually find attractive?

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by kate
Would you not insist that the choice is yours?

Non sequitur. Please post proof that that was my position.

It's a hypothetical, Andre. She's asking you to respond to a
hypothetical question. This is a rhetorical device intended to reveal
inconsistencies in positions and arguments, as well as test the limits
thereof. Your failure to respond to it speaks quite loudly.

Post by Andre Lieven
No proof offered ? Straw woman fails.

I think her characterization is fair. Claim proven.

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by kate
Is being married at any personal cost somekind of sacred goal?

Under modern divorce laws, marriage is a high risk activity to men.
This is why, for example, in between 2002 and 2004, in California
( A state which is often a bellweather in matters of social policy
and effects ), annual marriages fell from 202,000 in 2002 to
154,000 in 2004. A 25% drop in a mere two years. While magazine
rack after magazine rack of WOMEN's magazines all decry modern
men's relative unwillingness to join them at the altar.

That's pretty irrelevant to her argument, Andre. Do you ever actually
engage in discussion?

miguel

[Andre Lieven]

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by kate

Post by Andre Lieven
Then, she demands that he make that much more than she does. Even
Time & Newsweek did stories about this, on the theme of career
women who can't find a man, back in '03.

I seem to recall the article, though you appear to have imbided it as
gospel.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

I think it's a fair characterization.

Who cares ? What you might believe is not necessarily a *fact*.

THus, claim fails.

Post by miguel
Claim proven.

See above.

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven
I tend to view it as being factual, especially as it meets the test
of fitting in with a lot of other sociological data.

And now you're admitting she was right.

Free Clue: " right " and " gospel " are NOT synonyms.

" Words have menaings. "

Post by miguel
Why do you chant your "claim
fails" mantra and then admit she's right? That's STUPID.

<Projection>

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by kate
Is it possible, however, that many career women consider that not being
able to find the right mate does not automatically necessitate
accepting someone unsuitable, merely for the sake of being married?

Ah, the ol' Feminist way of making a disavowwable claim, by way of
seeming to phrase it as a " question ". How... dishonest.

You saw straight through her evil ploy!

Indeed. It was a cowshit attempt to avoid responsibility for making
a positive, and unsupported, claim.

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by kate
Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. Let's say that you
cannot seem to meet an attractive woman that will marry you. Should you
be compelled to marry a fat and ugly woman who is not to your liking?

LOL ! First of all, sunshine, no one's " compelling " anyone to marry
anyone else. Rather, its *women's media* that goes on and ON, about
how those mean and nasty ol rich men won't marry the women who want
them to marry them. See Maureen O'Dowd's frequent screeches in the
NYTimes, a once but no more, great paper. Or, any issue of Cosmo.

She asked a fair question that points out your double standard and you
evaded it.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

The thing that she stated fell under " begging the question. " Look it up.

Post by miguel
Point to Kate.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven
Your premise is also very pregnant with the ASSumption that a poor guy
is as attractive to women as is a " fat and ugly " one. Congrats on
exposing your view that, for women, money=attractiveness. Which rather...
makes my point for me. <laughs>

What female characteristics do men usually find attractive?

Among modern women, damned few. Thats why marriage rates in California
fell some 25% in a mere two years, and why many Feminist harridans
are bitching all over their media that them awful ol' men won't marry
them.

Among Feminist women, they posses AbZero attractive features, among
non Feminist women, they possess all the usual ones.

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by kate
Would you not insist that the choice is yours?

Non sequitur. Please post proof that that was my position.

It's a hypothetical, Andre. She's asking you to respond to a
hypothetical question. This is a rhetorical device intended to reveal
inconsistencies in positions and arguments, as well as test the limits
thereof.

Its also a device meant to cover up that the hypothesier has been
properly answered, in the area of the real question, and that they
are now hypothesing because *they didn't like the real answer*.

Too bad, so sad... For them. As for me, I stick with reality, as
that is also where honesty lies. A shame that the hypothesiser
CANNOT be that honest.

Post by miguel
Your failure to respond to it speaks quite loudly.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven
No proof offered ? Straw woman fails.

I think her characterization is fair.

Irrelevent: " like it " and " is acurate " are also NOT synonyms.

Deal with it.

Post by miguel
Claim proven.

No proof offered ? Claim fails... again.

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by kate
Is being married at any personal cost somekind of sacred goal?

Under modern divorce laws, marriage is a high risk activity to men.
This is why, for example, in between 2002 and 2004, in California
( A state which is often a bellweather in matters of social policy
and effects ), annual marriages fell from 202,000 in 2002 to
154,000 in 2004. A 25% drop in a mere two years. While magazine
rack after magazine rack of WOMEN's magazines all decry modern
men's relative unwillingness to join them at the altar.

That's pretty irrelevant to her argument, Andre.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

It was exactly on topic, because those facts PROVE that many more
people, particularly men, are NOT wedded to any idea of marriage at
any personal cost. So, it proved that her " question " was fallacious
and fact free. Again, too bad, so sad... for her and you. <laughs>

Post by miguel
Do you ever actually engage in discussion?

Yep. Deal with it.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

[miguel]

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by kate

Post by Andre Lieven
Then, she demands that he make that much more than she does. Even
Time & Newsweek did stories about this, on the theme of career
women who can't find a man, back in '03.

I seem to recall the article, though you appear to have imbided it as
gospel.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

I think it's a fair characterization.

Who cares ? What you might believe is not necessarily a *fact*.
THus, claim fails.

Post by miguel
Claim proven.

See above.

Your behavior objectively viewed supports her characterization. WHich
are you saying isn't a "fact?" Her characterization of your behavior,
or your behavior? If it's the former, calling it a "fact" or a
"nonfact" is really kind of bizarre, and reflects a kind of bimodal form
of thinking that doesn't lend itself well to understanding the real world.

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven
I tend to view it as being factual, especially as it meets the test
of fitting in with a lot of other sociological data.

And now you're admitting she was right.

Free Clue: " right " and " gospel " are NOT synonyms.
" Words have menaings. "

Says the guy who claims "conspiracy" = "pillage".

That's pretty funny.

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel
Why do you chant your "claim
fails" mantra and then admit she's right? That's STUPID.

<Projection>

Always everybody else's fault.

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by kate
Is it possible, however, that many career women consider that not being
able to find the right mate does not automatically necessitate
accepting someone unsuitable, merely for the sake of being married?

Ah, the ol' Feminist way of making a disavowwable claim, by way of
seeming to phrase it as a " question ". How... dishonest.

You saw straight through her evil ploy!

Indeed. It was a cowshit attempt to avoid responsibility for making
a positive, and unsupported, claim.

You try to fight everything even when it makes you look like a complete
fool, which it usually does.

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by kate
Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. Let's say that you
cannot seem to meet an attractive woman that will marry you. Should you
be compelled to marry a fat and ugly woman who is not to your liking?

LOL ! First of all, sunshine, no one's " compelling " anyone to marry
anyone else. Rather, its *women's media* that goes on and ON, about
how those mean and nasty ol rich men won't marry the women who want
them to marry them. See Maureen O'Dowd's frequent screeches in the
NYTimes, a once but no more, great paper. Or, any issue of Cosmo.

She asked a fair question that points out your double standard and you
evaded it.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

It's my characterization of the exchange. The exchange is there for
everybody to view. That's the proof. If you disagree with my
characterization feel free to say why.

Post by Andre Lieven
The thing that she stated fell under " begging the question. " Look it up.

Post by miguel
Point to Kate.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

See above.

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven
Your premise is also very pregnant with the ASSumption that a poor guy
is as attractive to women as is a " fat and ugly " one. Congrats on
exposing your view that, for women, money=attractiveness. Which rather...
makes my point for me. <laughs>

What female characteristics do men usually find attractive?

Among modern women, damned few. Thats why marriage rates in California
fell some 25% in a mere two years, and why many Feminist harridans
are bitching all over their media that them awful ol' men won't marry
them.

What female characteristics to men usually find attractive? It's not a
hard question, Andre, but you're evading it just like you evaded Kate's
question above. Read the question again, and answer it.

Post by Andre Lieven
Among Feminist women, they posses AbZero attractive features, among
non Feminist women, they possess all the usual ones.

Answer the question.

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by kate
Would you not insist that the choice is yours?

Non sequitur. Please post proof that that was my position.

It's a hypothetical, Andre. She's asking you to respond to a
hypothetical question. This is a rhetorical device intended to reveal
inconsistencies in positions and arguments, as well as test the limits
thereof.

Its also a device meant to cover up that the hypothesier has been
properly answered, in the area of the real question, and that they
are now hypothesing because *they didn't like the real answer*.
Too bad, so sad... For them. As for me, I stick with reality, as
that is also where honesty lies. A shame that the hypothesiser
CANNOT be that honest.

Well, if you understand what a hypothetical question is, why did you
demand proof that the hypothetical accurately characterized your position?

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel
Your failure to respond to it speaks quite loudly.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

Here's the proof. She asked you a hypothetical question. You didn't
respond to it. Feel free to prove otherwise.

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven
No proof offered ? Straw woman fails.

I think her characterization is fair.

Irrelevent: " like it " and " is acurate " are also NOT synonyms.
Deal with it.

Post by miguel
Claim proven.

No proof offered ? Claim fails... again.

You don't "prove" the accuracy of a characterization. You debate and
discuss it.

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by kate
Is being married at any personal cost somekind of sacred goal?

Under modern divorce laws, marriage is a high risk activity to men.
This is why, for example, in between 2002 and 2004, in California
( A state which is often a bellweather in matters of social policy
and effects ), annual marriages fell from 202,000 in 2002 to
154,000 in 2004. A 25% drop in a mere two years. While magazine
rack after magazine rack of WOMEN's magazines all decry modern
men's relative unwillingness to join them at the altar.

That's pretty irrelevant to her argument, Andre.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.
It was exactly on topic, because those facts PROVE that many more
people, particularly men, are NOT wedded to any idea of marriage at
any personal cost. So, it proved that her " question " was fallacious
and fact free. Again, too bad, so sad... for her and you. <laughs>

Post by miguel
Do you ever actually engage in discussion?

Yep. Deal with it.

I look forward to seeing it someday.

[Andre Lieven]

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by kate

Post by Andre Lieven
Then, she demands that he make that much more than she does. Even
Time & Newsweek did stories about this, on the theme of career
women who can't find a man, back in '03.

I seem to recall the article, though you appear to have imbided it as
gospel.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

I think it's a fair characterization.

Who cares ? What you might believe is not necessarily a *fact*.
THus, claim fails.

Post by miguel
Claim proven.

See above.

Your behavior objectively viewed supports her characterization. WHich
are you saying isn't a "fact?" Her characterization of your behavior,
or your behavior?

" Ad hominem: The last refuge of the fact free scoundrel. "

Her move into ad homs, showed the emptiness of her so-called argument.

Post by miguel
If it's the former, calling it a "fact" or a
"nonfact" is really kind of bizarre, and reflects a kind of bimodal form
of thinking that doesn't lend itself well to understanding the real world.

Translation: " Babble, babble, babble. ".

No argument offered ? Claims fail.

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven
I tend to view it as being factual, especially as it meets the test
of fitting in with a lot of other sociological data.

And now you're admitting she was right.

Free Clue: " right " and " gospel " are NOT synonyms.
" Words have meanings. "

Says the guy who claims "conspiracy" = "pillage".

In that case, yes. I note your *inability* to rebut it.

Post by miguel
That's pretty funny.

Just not in the way you thought...

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel
Why do you chant your "claim
fails" mantra and then admit she's right? That's STUPID.

<Projection>

Always everybody else's fault.

Nope. But, thanks for showing that you generalise to absolutes at
the drop of your failure to rebut.

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by kate
Is it possible, however, that many career women consider that not being
able to find the right mate does not automatically necessitate
accepting someone unsuitable, merely for the sake of being married?

Ah, the ol' Feminist way of making a disavowwable claim, by way of
seeming to phrase it as a " question ". How... dishonest.

You saw straight through her evil ploy!

Indeed. It was a cowshit attempt to avoid responsibility for making
a positive, and unsupported, claim.

You try to fight everything even when it makes you look like a complete
fool, which it usually does.

<Projection> Not to mention, " the last refuge of the fact free
scoundrel. "

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by kate
Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. Let's say that you
cannot seem to meet an attractive woman that will marry you. Should you
be compelled to marry a fat and ugly woman who is not to your liking?

LOL ! First of all, sunshine, no one's " compelling " anyone to marry
anyone else. Rather, its *women's media* that goes on and ON, about
how those mean and nasty ol rich men won't marry the women who want
them to marry them. See Maureen O'Dowd's frequent screeches in the
NYTimes, a once but no more, great paper. Or, any issue of Cosmo.

She asked a fair question that points out your double standard and you
evaded it.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

It's my characterization of the exchange.

Big fat hiary deal. See " last refuge of a fact free scoundrel. "

Post by miguel
The exchange is there for
everybody to view. That's the proof. If you disagree with my
characterization feel free to say why.

Why ? You have yet to put any factual flesh on your ad hom attempt.

Until you do, I have AbZero to rebut.

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven
The thing that she stated fell under " begging the question. " Look it up.

Post by miguel
Point to Kate.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

See above.

Ditto.

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven
Your premise is also very pregnant with the ASSumption that a poor guy
is as attractive to women as is a " fat and ugly " one. Congrats on
exposing your view that, for women, money=attractiveness. Which rather...
makes my point for me. <laughs>

What female characteristics do men usually find attractive?

Among modern women, damned few. Thats why marriage rates in California
fell some 25% in a mere two years, and why many Feminist harridans
are bitching all over their media that them awful ol' men won't marry
them.

What female characteristics to men usually find attractive? It's not a
hard question, Andre, but you're evading it just like you evaded Kate's
question above. Read the question again, and answer it.

Why ? I'm not interested in seeking women. I have a delightful one
with me, and thats the limit of my interest there.

For you poor Feminist bootlickers, everything revolves around
women, but thats simply not among my values.

" This is soc.men. We know better. " Michael Snyder.

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven
Among Feminist women, they posses AbZero attractive features, among
non Feminist women, they possess all the usual ones.

Answer the question.

<yawn> Please seek out mental health care for your control freak issues.

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by kate
Would you not insist that the choice is yours?

Non sequitur. Please post proof that that was my position.

It's a hypothetical, Andre. She's asking you to respond to a
hypothetical question. This is a rhetorical device intended to reveal
inconsistencies in positions and arguments, as well as test the limits
thereof.

Its also a device meant to cover up that the hypothesier has been
properly answered, in the area of the real question, and that they
are now hypothesing because *they didn't like the real answer*.
Too bad, so sad... For them. As for me, I stick with reality, as
that is also where honesty lies. A shame that the hypothesiser
CANNOT be that honest.

Well, if you understand what a hypothetical question is, why did you
demand proof that the hypothetical accurately characterized your position?

Because, that ploy was a *dishonest* one. I merely called the cowshitter
on their dishonesty.

Deal with it.

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel
Your failure to respond to it speaks quite loudly.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

Here's the proof. She asked you a hypothetical question. You didn't
respond to it. Feel free to prove otherwise.

I have AbZero need to answer straw women.

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven
No proof offered ? Straw woman fails.

I think her characterization is fair.

Irrelevent: " like it " and " is acurate " are also NOT synonyms.
Deal with it.

Post by miguel
Claim proven.

No proof offered ? Claim fails... again.

You don't "prove" the accuracy of a characterization. You debate and
discuss it.

Wrong.

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by kate
Is being married at any personal cost somekind of sacred goal?

Under modern divorce laws, marriage is a high risk activity to men.
This is why, for example, in between 2002 and 2004, in California
( A state which is often a bellweather in matters of social policy
and effects ), annual marriages fell from 202,000 in 2002 to
154,000 in 2004. A 25% drop in a mere two years. While magazine
rack after magazine rack of WOMEN's magazines all decry modern
men's relative unwillingness to join them at the altar.

That's pretty irrelevant to her argument, Andre.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.
It was exactly on topic, because those facts PROVE that many more
people, particularly men, are NOT wedded to any idea of marriage at
any personal cost. So, it proved that her " question " was fallacious
and fact free. Again, too bad, so sad... for her and you. <laughs>

Post by miguel
Do you ever actually engage in discussion?

Yep. Deal with it.

I look forward to seeing it someday.

Don't hold your breath. We don't lick wimmin's boots here.

Deal with that, too.

HTH.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

[miguel]

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by kate

Post by Andre Lieven
Then, she demands that he make that much more than she does. Even
Time & Newsweek did stories about this, on the theme of career
women who can't find a man, back in '03.

I seem to recall the article, though you appear to have imbided it as
gospel.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

I think it's a fair characterization.

Who cares ? What you might believe is not necessarily a *fact*.
THus, claim fails.

Post by miguel
Claim proven.

See above.

Your behavior objectively viewed supports her characterization. Which
are you saying isn't a "fact?" Her characterization of your behavior,
or your behavior?

" Ad hominem: The last refuge of the fact free scoundrel. "
Her move into ad homs, showed the emptiness of her so-called argument.

It is pathetic and sad to see you backtrack and continue to move the
goalposts like that. If her comment is _ad hominem_, it's about the most
benign ad hominem ever seen on usenet. And, as it turns out, she was
quite correct: You believe the time and newsweek stories accurately
reflect social behavior, and you merely quibble about her use of the
word "gospel" as describing your subscription to that idea. This is one
of those things, Andre, where you'd have been better off just letting it go.

Post by Andre Lieven

If it's the former, calling it a "fact" or a
"nonfact" is really kind of bizarre, and reflects a kind of bimodal form
of thinking that doesn't lend itself well to understanding the real world.

Translation: " Babble, babble, babble. ".
No argument offered ? Claims fail.

Her characterization is not subject to evaluation as absolutely true
fact or absolutely false. It's a *characterization* which means it falls
someplace on a continuum of accuracy. The characterization is of
something that you said in this thread. When you say "no proof offered,
claim fails" to that, what kind of proof are you imagining? Can you give
an example of what might be a form of proof you're looking for?

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven
I tend to view it as being factual, especially as it meets the test
of fitting in with a lot of other sociological data.

And now you're admitting she was right.

Free Clue: " right " and " gospel " are NOT synonyms.
" Words have meanings. "

Says the guy who claims "conspiracy" = "pillage".

In that case, yes. I note your *inability* to rebut it.

I cite Websters New International.

Post by Andre Lieven

That's pretty funny.

Just not in the way you thought...

That's for the reader to decide, Andre. I'm guessing that if anybody is
in fact reading this, they are aware of the contradiction in the
standards you apply to word usage for others and those you apply to
yourself. It's really not very intellectually honest.

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel
Why do you chant your "claim
fails" mantra and then admit she's right? That's STUPID.

<Projection>

Always everybody else's fault.

Nope. But, thanks for showing that you generalise to absolutes at
the drop of your failure to rebut.

Why did you resort to the ad hom "projection" when I asked you why you
chanted your claim fails mantra and then agreed she was right.

That *is* stupid, Andre, and that's not merely my projection. It's
stupid on many different levels, but the most basic one is that arguing
about something like this -- saying her "claim fails" and then
conceding that she's correct -- reveals a lot more about your
personality and character than you can possibly understand. Andre, when
you argue with a woman, you have to be right, even when you're wrong.
You've got some kind of bitterboy jones.

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by kate
Is it possible, however, that many career women consider that not being
able to find the right mate does not automatically necessitate
accepting someone unsuitable, merely for the sake of being married?

Ah, the ol' Feminist way of making a disavowwable claim, by way of
seeming to phrase it as a " question ". How... dishonest.

You saw straight through her evil ploy!

Indeed. It was a cowshit attempt to avoid responsibility for making
a positive, and unsupported, claim.

You try to fight everything even when it makes you look like a complete
fool, which it usually does.

<Projection> Not to mention, " the last refuge of the fact free
scoundrel. "

Yawn.

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by kate
Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. Let's say that you
cannot seem to meet an attractive woman that will marry you. Should you
be compelled to marry a fat and ugly woman who is not to your liking?

LOL ! First of all, sunshine, no one's " compelling " anyone to marry
anyone else. Rather, its *women's media* that goes on and ON, about
how those mean and nasty ol rich men won't marry the women who want
them to marry them. See Maureen O'Dowd's frequent screeches in the
NYTimes, a once but no more, great paper. Or, any issue of Cosmo.

She asked a fair question that points out your double standard and you
evaded it.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

It's my characterization of the exchange.

Big fat hiary deal. See " last refuge of a fact free scoundrel. "

You are right, it's not a big deal, but like I've explained to you
already on several occasions, characterizations aren't subject to proof
like facts are subject to proof. Therefore, it's silly on your part to
recite your mantra.

Post by Andre Lieven

The exchange is there for
everybody to view. That's the proof. If you disagree with my
characterization feel free to say why.

Why ? You have yet to put any factual flesh on your ad hom attempt.
Until you do, I have AbZero to rebut.

What kind of factual flesh are you talking about? Can you give an
example of some fact that is missing, that needs to be taken account of,
before a reader can accurately characterize the exchange between you and
Kate?

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven
Your premise is also very pregnant with the ASSumption that a poor guy
is as attractive to women as is a " fat and ugly " one. Congrats on
exposing your view that, for women, money=attractiveness. Which rather...
makes my point for me. <laughs>

What female characteristics do men usually find attractive?

Among modern women, damned few. Thats why marriage rates in California
fell some 25% in a mere two years, and why many Feminist harridans
are bitching all over their media that them awful ol' men won't marry
them.

What female characteristics to men usually find attractive? It's not a
hard question, Andre, but you're evading it just like you evaded Kate's
question above. Read the question again, and answer it.

Why ? I'm not interested in seeking women. I have a delightful one
with me, and thats the limit of my interest there.

Since you're afraid to answer that question Andre, I'll ask a different
one. How do the objective characteristics men generally find attractive
in women differ from the objective characteristics women generally find
attractive in men? You are stating that for women, money =
attractiveness. I'm saying that there is a similar formula for men, and
you're doing everything you can to avoid having to acknowledge that.
It's certainly not very courageous of you.

Post by Andre Lieven
For you poor Feminist bootlickers, everything revolves around
women, but thats simply not among my values.

Interesting that you would reduce it to such absolutes so quickly.

Post by Andre Lieven
" This is soc.men. We whine better. " Michael Snyder.

I agree.

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by Andre Lieven
Among Feminist women, they posses AbZero attractive features, among
non Feminist women, they possess all the usual ones.

Answer the question.

<yawn> Please seek out mental health care for your control freak issues.

Sorry you can't answer the question.

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by kate
Would you not insist that the choice is yours?

Non sequitur. Please post proof that that was my position.

It's a hypothetical, Andre. She's asking you to respond to a
hypothetical question. This is a rhetorical device intended to reveal
inconsistencies in positions and arguments, as well as test the limits
thereof.

Its also a device meant to cover up that the hypothesier has been
properly answered, in the area of the real question, and that they
are now hypothesing because *they didn't like the real answer*.
Too bad, so sad... For them. As for me, I stick with reality, as
that is also where honesty lies. A shame that the hypothesiser
CANNOT be that honest.

Well, if you understand what a hypothetical question is, why did you
demand proof that the hypothetical accurately characterized your position?

Because, that ploy was a *dishonest* one. I merely called the cowshitter
on their dishonesty.
Deal with it.

That's just plain bizarre. I cannot conceive how the asking of a
hypothetical question can be a dishonest ploy. What is dishonest about it?

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel
Your failure to respond to it speaks quite loudly.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

Here's the proof. She asked you a hypothetical question. You didn't
respond to it. Feel free to prove otherwise.

I have AbZero need to answer straw women.

You're moving the goalposts again. That's intellectually dishonest.

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven
No proof offered ? Straw woman fails.

I think her characterization is fair.

Irrelevent: " like it " and " is acurate " are also NOT synonyms.
Deal with it.

Post by miguel
Claim proven.

No proof offered ? Claim fails... again.

You don't "prove" the accuracy of a characterization. You debate and
discuss it.

Wrong.

Well, feel free to give an example, if you can.

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by kate
Is being married at any personal cost somekind of sacred goal?

Under modern divorce laws, marriage is a high risk activity to men.
This is why, for example, in between 2002 and 2004, in California
( A state which is often a bellweather in matters of social policy
and effects ), annual marriages fell from 202,000 in 2002 to
154,000 in 2004. A 25% drop in a mere two years. While magazine
rack after magazine rack of WOMEN's magazines all decry modern
men's relative unwillingness to join them at the altar.

That's pretty irrelevant to her argument, Andre.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.
It was exactly on topic, because those facts PROVE that many more
people, particularly men, are NOT wedded to any idea of marriage at
any personal cost. So, it proved that her " question " was fallacious
and fact free. Again, too bad, so sad... for her and you. <laughs>

Post by miguel
Do you ever actually engage in discussion?

Yep. Deal with it.

I look forward to seeing it someday.

Don't hold your breath. We don't lick wimmin's boots here.
Deal with that, too.
HTH.
Andre

I'm guessing you don't lick much of women's anythings there.

miguel

[the Danimal]

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven
Her move into ad homs, showed the emptiness of her so-called

argument.

Post by miguel
It is pathetic and sad to see you backtrack and continue to move the
goalposts like that.

Well, moving into _ad hominem_ arguments is a way to move the
goalposts. That is true irrespective of Andre's own goalpost-moving.

It's so much fun that few people resist indulging. See the bottom
of this post for an example of your own indulgence.

Post by miguel
If her comment is _ad hominem_, it's about the most
benign ad hominem ever seen on usenet.

Here's betting Miguel will show us how it's done.

Post by miguel
And, as it turns out, she was
quite correct: You believe the time and newsweek stories accurately
reflect social behavior, and you merely quibble about her use of the
word "gospel" as describing your subscription to that idea. This is one
of those things, Andre, where you'd have been better off just letting it go.

Miguel, you will be happy to know I have let it go.
The sensation of release is exhilarating.

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel
That's pretty funny.

Just not in the way you thought...

That's for the reader to decide, Andre. I'm guessing that if anybody is
in fact reading this, they are aware of the contradiction in the
standards you apply to word usage for others and those you apply to
yourself. It's really not very intellectually honest.

When I write, I imagine millions of people agreeing with me.

Post by miguel
That *is* stupid, Andre, and that's not merely my projection. It's
stupid on many different levels, but the most basic one is that arguing
about something like this -- saying her "claim fails" and then
conceding that she's correct -- reveals a lot more about your
personality and character than you can possibly understand. Andre, when
you argue with a woman, you have to be right, even when you're wrong.

It's good that you show none of that in your arguments with Kim,
Nilo, etc.

Post by miguel
You've got some kind of bitterboy jones.

I see no evidence that Andre is more eager to lose arguments
with men.

In particular, this thread is evidence that Andre concedes nothing
to Miguel, even when he is wrong.

Miguel, what point are you trying to make here? Do you think men
should only disagree with other men, and when talking to women they
should be more agreeable? If so, why? Do women belong on pedestals?
Does arguing with a woman indicate a man is not getting any?
Are you more likely to agree with a woman when you think she is
wrong? Is that how you treat Kim, Nilo, or whoever else you are
trying to browbeat into submission? Do you cut them more slack
than you cut for Andre?

Post by miguel
From what I can see in this thread, Andre is disagreeable and,

much like yourself, he abandons logic whenever he finds it
inconvenient. I don't see Andre singling out women for
special treatment any more than you do.

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by kate
Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. Let's say that you
cannot seem to meet an attractive woman that will marry you. Should you
be compelled to marry a fat and ugly woman who is not to your liking?

LOL ! First of all, sunshine, no one's " compelling " anyone to marry
anyone else.

No, but courts certainly compel plenty of men to pay money
to women who divorce them.

A woman who starts off slender and attractive can seduce a man
for marriage. Then she can get fat and ugly, divorce him, and
enlist the police state to compel him to pay her lots of money.

A man is generally under no compulsion to marry a woman he
finds unattractive at the time, but a woman who is attractive
to him now can certainly morph into a woman who is less
attractive. In fact this is what generally happens to some
degree as people age.

So the question is not entirely hypothetical---there's actually
a pretty good chance that a man who marries could eventually
end up being married to someone he finds unattractive, and
getting out might cost him big.

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven
Rather, its *women's media* that goes on and ON, about
how those mean and nasty ol rich men won't marry the women who want
them to marry them. See Maureen O'Dowd's frequent screeches in the
NYTimes, a once but no more, great paper. Or, any issue of Cosmo.

She asked a fair question that points out your double standard and you
evaded it.

If evading questions is a crime, you Miguel have quite
a rap sheet.

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven
No proof offered ? Claim fails.

It's my characterization of the exchange.

Big fat hiary deal. See " last refuge of a fact free scoundrel. "

You are right, it's not a big deal, but like I've explained to you
already on several occasions, characterizations aren't subject to proof
like facts are subject to proof. Therefore, it's silly on your part to
recite your mantra.

I'm surprised that instead of attacking the form of Andre's
evasion you did not choose the constructive path of presenting
a common situation that shares some salient characteristics of the
original hypothetical situation.

In Western countries where we don't have arranged marriages,
we are generally free to refrain from marrying people we don't
find attractive right now, but it's perfectly possible to marry
someone we find attractive right now, and later they turn into
someone we find less attractive.

When that happens, a man can be in a sorry situation if his wife
is reading this book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1558506004/qid=1116854487/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/103-8142101-4623808?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
Divorce War! 50 Strategies Every Woman Needs To Know To Win
by Bradley A., Esq. Pistotnik

Miguel, how many of those strategies have you employed in
your law practice? For example, have you ever gone around
a prenuptial contract by filing a marital tort claim for abuse?

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel
The exchange is there for
everybody to view. That's the proof. If you disagree with my
characterization feel free to say why.

Why ? You have yet to put any factual flesh on your ad hom attempt.
Until you do, I have AbZero to rebut.

What kind of factual flesh are you talking about? Can you give an
example of some fact that is missing, that needs to be taken account of,
before a reader can accurately characterize the exchange between you and
Kate?

If your goal is to convince Andre of something, so far you have
failed. I interpret "factual flesh" to be Andre's odd way of
saying "You have not convinced me."

If your goal is to play for the gallery, you might want to edit
your articles a bit. Seven levels of nested quoting would tax
the endurance of a motivated reader; I doubt there are many
of those.

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven
Your premise is also very pregnant with the ASSumption that a poor guy
is as attractive to women as is a " fat and ugly " one. Congrats on
exposing your view that, for women, money=attractiveness. Which rather...
makes my point for me. <laughs>

What female characteristics do men usually find attractive?

Among modern women, damned few. Thats why marriage rates in

California

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven
fell some 25% in a mere two years, and why many Feminist harridans
are bitching all over their media that them awful ol' men won't marry
them.

What female characteristics to men usually find attractive? It's not a
hard question, Andre, but you're evading it just like you evaded Kate's
question above. Read the question again, and answer it.

Why ? I'm not interested in seeking women. I have a delightful one
with me, and thats the limit of my interest there.

Since you're afraid to answer that question Andre, I'll ask a

different

Post by miguel
one. How do the objective characteristics men generally find

attractive

Post by miguel
in women differ from the objective characteristics women generally find
attractive in men? You are stating that for women, money =
attractiveness. I'm saying that there is a similar formula for men, and
you're doing everything you can to avoid having to acknowledge that.
It's certainly not very courageous of you.

There is an analogous formula for what men find attractive in women,
and those models in the Victoria's Secret catalog have the first
half of it (the physical appearance part) in spades. The second
half is attitude---how a woman treats a man---and unfortunately
for the average man, the hottest-looking women generally treat
him like garbage.

That's why, for most men, looking at pictures of hot-looking
women is WAY more fun than trying to talk to them.

Most men won't have something stunningly attractive AND fun
to talk to until we get smart enough to build high-quality
artificial companions.

I think someday men will thank feminists for giving us
additional motivation to finally get around to inventing what
we have always wanted.

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven
For you poor Feminist bootlickers, everything revolves around
women, but thats simply not among my values.

Interesting that you would reduce it to such absolutes so quickly.

Why, that's almost like faulting a man who disagrees with you
for the fact that he also disagrees with a woman, as if he
has somehow demonstrated inferiority, and as if you have
forgotten your own multi-megabyte legacy of disagreeing with
women.

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven
" This is soc.men. We whine better. " Michael Snyder.

I agree.

I wonder how many of the soc.men have read the book Divorce War?
I would like to read some of their apoplectic reviews.

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven
Among Feminist women, they posses AbZero attractive features, among
non Feminist women, they possess all the usual ones.

That reminds me of how Hitler characterized Jews.

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel
It's a hypothetical, Andre. She's asking you to respond to a
hypothetical question. This is a rhetorical device intended to reveal
inconsistencies in positions and arguments, as well as test the limits
thereof.

It's a weaker rhetorical device than presenting a plausible scenario,
such as what happens to a man when he gets married to a woman who
then morphs into something he finds unattractive.

Post by miguel
That's just plain bizarre. I cannot conceive how the asking of a
hypothetical question can be a dishonest ploy. What is dishonest about it?

If you claim that human thought can, all by itself,
influence the operation of distant computers, and I ask the
hypothetical question of whether it is possible for a busload
of meditators to park outside a casino and influence the computerized
gaming machines inside the casino to yield an unlikely string of
jackpots, thereby bankrupting Sharon's native American casino
proprietor relatives, is my hypothetical question a dishonest ploy?

How did you characterize my hypothetical question when I posed it
in another thread? Did you address my question as honestly as
you expect Andre to address hypothetical questions?

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven

Post by miguel
Your failure to respond to it speaks quite loudly.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

Here's the proof. She asked you a hypothetical question. You didn't
respond to it. Feel free to prove otherwise.

I have AbZero need to answer straw women.

You're moving the goalposts again. That's intellectually dishonest.

Do you consider intellectual dishonesty to be a bad thing, or
simply another tool to use whenever it looks handy?

Can a lawyer practice law without ever engaging in any sort
of intellectual dishonesty while on the clock?

That seems most unlikely, because in every court case the
opposing sides easily obtain lawyers willing to argue their
opposing cases even though all the lawyers have access to the
same evidence. Amazing that the same evidence produces different
conclusions as necessary.

It is curious indeed for a lawyer to be lecturing someone else
about intellectual dishonesty, a fundamental principle of the
adversarial court system, and much of the reason why lawyers
get paid.

We can probably guess that when a lawyer does _pro bono_
work he is arguing his convictions, but when he's getting
paid I imagine a lower standard of intellectual honesty
applies.

Post by miguel

Post by Andre Lieven
Don't hold your breath. We don't lick wimmin's boots here.

I'm guessing you don't lick much of women's anythings there.

For your next demonstration of intellectual honesty and
keeping the goalposts fixed will you allege a small
size for Andre's penis?

Resorting to _ad hominem_ arguments is a goalpost-moving
ploy. If you can't get shots in goal, move the goal to
someplace where the shooting is better.

-- the Danimal

[Dave Symn]

Post by kate

Post by Dave Symn

Post by Comm
That guy is shit in bed.
That guy is great in bed.
WHO does the woman choose to mate with and have kids with?

the one with the fattest wallet or the nicest car, of course.

And if the woman happens to have a considerable income all on her own?

Heh. Another humorless feminist who can't take a joke. You're all the same.

Post by kate
I have seen no evidence to suggest that men are any better at
evaluating character than women.

of course they arent. men and women both are stupid and make bad choices.

[Lady Veteran]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 23 May 2005 11:27:25 -0400, Dave Symn

Post by Dave Symn

Post by kate

Post by Dave Symn

Post by Comm
That guy is shit in bed.
That guy is great in bed.
WHO does the woman choose to mate with and have kids with?

the one with the fattest wallet or the nicest car, of course.

And if the woman happens to have a considerable income all on her own?

Heh. Another humorless feminist who can't take a joke. You're all the same.

Aha! If she said that men did something (insert putdown here) you
would say she was a male basher?

grow a pair and butch up!

LV

- ------------------------------------------------------
I rode a tank and held a General's rank
When the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank

- - - - Rolling Stones - Sympathy for the Devil
- ----------------------------------------
Today's mighty oak is yesterdays nut that held its ground.

- - -unknown
- ----------------------------------------
You are your greatest obstacle.

- - - unknown
- ----------------------------------------
If you are reading this in a group where the message
is cross-posted into more than three groups and subject is being fat,
it means the idiot who started this thread is trolling
me or soc.support.fat-acceptance and I flamed his ass.
I consider the idiots I flame a waste of humanity
and deserving of all of the ill treatment I can
hand them. Idiots who ridicule fat people are worse
then vermin as far as I am concerned. If you don't
want to read my responses, trim the groups to where you want
he message to go and you will not hear from me.Otherwise,
your eyes will burn from the venom in my reply.
- ----------------------------------------


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com

iQA/AwUBQpKoOcr91nvpayIKEQJcBACZAV2X76lEyUFtjAhC/fxBlT2MLZUAoP5r
LkK7AVH7zBMUoW6L3OLSlD40
=m0x9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Lady Veteran]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Post by kate
I am leaning towards sexual selection. On a practical level, the
more pleasreable the experience the greater the desire to repeat
it. It's another indicator of compatibility.
Kate C.

My theory is that orgasm causes physiological and hormonal changes,
therefore facilitating the chance to get pregnant. The vagina
elongates and muscles relax to increase reception and comfort in the
act of coitus.

LV

- ------------------------------------------------------
I rode a tank and held a General's rank
When the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank

- - - - Rolling Stones - Sympathy for the Devil
- ----------------------------------------
Today's mighty oak is yesterdays nut that held its ground.

- - -unknown
- ----------------------------------------
Yes, I have let myself go...Now I'm Free!!!

- - - unknown
- ----------------------------------------
If you are reading this in a group that is not
soc.support.fat-acceptance, soc.singles or soc.women,
it means the idiot who started this thread posted
in your group as well as mine and I flamed his ass.
I consider the idiots I flame a waste of humanity
and deserving of all of the ill treatment I can
hand them. If you don't like it, remove the groups
I use from your reply and you won't hear from me.
- ----------------------------------------


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com

iQA/AwUBQou3Z8r91nvpayIKEQLstgCfXnobUgDo0Zub/gkgDmlwW1hMyHIAoIDs
zu/RHGvYWst8xn1tb/rw6FHl
=7sRS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[miguel]

Post by Lady Veteran
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Post by kate
I am leaning towards sexual selection. On a practical level, the
more pleasreable the experience the greater the desire to repeat
it. It's another indicator of compatibility.
Kate C.

My theory is that orgasm causes physiological and hormonal changes,
therefore facilitating the chance to get pregnant. The vagina
elongates and muscles relax to increase reception and comfort in the
act of coitus.
LV

Emphasis on "theory."

[Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball]

Post by miguel

Post by Lady Veteran
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Post by kate
I am leaning towards sexual selection. On a practical level, the
more pleasreable the experience the greater the desire to repeat
it. It's another indicator of compatibility.
Kate C.

My theory is that orgasm causes physiological and hormonal changes,
therefore facilitating the chance to get pregnant. The vagina
elongates and muscles relax to increase reception and comfort in the
act of coitus.
LV

Emphasis on "theory."

Midgetman's first test of his theory was on an underaged girl.


-- Steve, his failure was only part of why she divorced him
º¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤º
Steve Chaney
***@NRsmykicktoy.pacbell.net
Remove "NRismykicktoy" to get my real email address

"it must shock you that i respect jackie." - John Seiler

See the soc.singles HALL OF STUPID: http://member.newsguy.com/~gunhed/hallofstupid

"Too late he understood that when you mate with a black
widow spider, you're on the menu tonight."
- Crash Street Kidd, re: Jackie, Message-ID: <***@drn.newsguy.com>

By forging me NR admits he is my puppet

"Your personal information will continue to be propagated
until someone puts an end to your miserable life.
The worst is yet to come. Trust me." - Mike Cranston,
Message-ID: <***@anonymous.poster>


ATTENTION, Tammy Chaney! The man who posted your home
address and phone number online is known as Michael J
Cranston. He has admitted to encouraging people to call
and harass you in this post: <***@4ax.com>

He can be reached at
Mike Cranston
6529 21st Avenue NW
Seattle WA 98117
[phone]

He has a Washington State Bar ID: 16122
You can look him up online at: http://pro.wsba.org/PublicView-Member.asp?Usr_ID=760292

Mike Cranston is guilty of at least three federal offenses so
far, and should immediately be reported to the FBI for interstate
phone harassment, death threats, and encouraging people to harass
you and/or your family.

Here's how to contact the appropriate law enforcement agencies
to seek justice:
http://www.fbi.gov/contactus.htm
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/contactus
http://www.sacpd.org/susp_rpt.html

[miguel]

Post by Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball

Post by miguel

Post by Lady Veteran

Post by kate
I am leaning towards sexual selection. On a practical level, the
more pleasreable the experience the greater the desire to repeat
it. It's another indicator of compatibility.
Kate C.

My theory is that orgasm causes physiological and hormonal changes,
therefore facilitating the chance to get pregnant. The vagina
elongates and muscles relax to increase reception and comfort in the
act of coitus.
LV

Emphasis on "theory."

Midgetman's first test of his theory was on an underaged girl.

I know this may surprise you, but some of us became sexually active
before we turned 18, and we didn't act like paranoid freaks and use
two condoms like you did with Toni when you finally lost your
virginity at age 27. And now you're a sexpert!

miguel

[Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball]

Post by miguel

Post by Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball

Post by miguel

Post by Lady Veteran

Post by kate
I am leaning towards sexual selection. On a practical level, the
more pleasreable the experience the greater the desire to repeat
it. It's another indicator of compatibility.
Kate C.

My theory is that orgasm causes physiological and hormonal changes,
therefore facilitating the chance to get pregnant. The vagina
elongates and muscles relax to increase reception and comfort in the
act of coitus.
LV

Emphasis on "theory."

Midgetman's first test of his theory was on an underaged girl.

I know this may surprise you, but some of us became sexually active
before we turned 18, and we didn't act like paranoid freaks and use
two condoms like you did with Toni when you finally lost your
virginity at age 27. And now you're a sexpert!

But you were an adult much older than me when you supposedly fucked this
girl.

Pedophile.


-- Steve
º¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤º
Steve Chaney
***@NRsmykicktoy.pacbell.net
Remove "NRismykicktoy" to get my real email address

"it must shock you that i respect jackie." - John Seiler

See the soc.singles HALL OF STUPID: http://member.newsguy.com/~gunhed/hallofstupid

"Too late he understood that when you mate with a black
widow spider, you're on the menu tonight."
- Crash Street Kidd, re: Jackie, Message-ID: <***@drn.newsguy.com>

By forging me NR admits he is my puppet

"Your personal information will continue to be propagated
until someone puts an end to your miserable life.
The worst is yet to come. Trust me." - Mike Cranston,
Message-ID: <***@anonymous.poster>


ATTENTION, Tammy Chaney! The man who posted your home
address and phone number online is known as Michael J
Cranston. He has admitted to encouraging people to call
and harass you in this post: <***@4ax.com>

He can be reached at
Mike Cranston
6529 21st Avenue NW
Seattle WA 98117
[phone]

He has a Washington State Bar ID: 16122
You can look him up online at: http://pro.wsba.org/PublicView-Member.asp?Usr_ID=760292

Mike Cranston is guilty of at least three federal offenses so
far, and should immediately be reported to the FBI for interstate
phone harassment, death threats, and encouraging people to harass
you and/or your family.

Here's how to contact the appropriate law enforcement agencies
to seek justice:
http://www.fbi.gov/contactus.htm
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/contactus
http://www.sacpd.org/susp_rpt.html

[B***@hotmail.com]

Post by Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball

Post by miguel

Post by Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball

Post by miguel

Post by Lady Veteran

Post by kate
I am leaning towards sexual selection. On a practical level, the
more pleasreable the experience the greater the desire to repeat
it. It's another indicator of compatibility.
Kate C.

My theory is that orgasm causes physiological and hormonal

changes,

Post by Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball

Post by miguel

Post by Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball

Post by miguel

Post by Lady Veteran
therefore facilitating the chance to get pregnant. The vagina
elongates and muscles relax to increase reception and comfort in the
act of coitus.
LV

Emphasis on "theory."

Midgetman's first test of his theory was on an underaged girl.

I know this may surprise you, but some of us became sexually active
before we turned 18, and we didn't act like paranoid freaks and use
two condoms like you did with Toni when you finally lost your
virginity at age 27. And now you're a sexpert!

But you were an adult much older than me when you supposedly fucked this
girl.
Pedophile.

Steve Chaney is an obese Type 2 diabetic.


Lose weight, obese.


HTH

Post by Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball
-- Steve
º¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤º
Steve Chaney
Remove "NRismykicktoy" to get my real email address
"it must shock you that i respect jackie." - John Seiler

http://member.newsguy.com/~gunhed/hallofstupid

Post by Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball
"Too late he understood that when you mate with a black
widow spider, you're on the menu tonight."
By forging me NR admits he is my puppet
"Your personal information will continue to be propagated
until someone puts an end to your miserable life.
The worst is yet to come. Trust me." - Mike Cranston,
ATTENTION, Tammy Chaney! The man who posted your home
address and phone number online is known as Michael J
Cranston. He has admitted to encouraging people to call
He can be reached at
Mike Cranston
6529 21st Avenue NW
Seattle WA 98117
[phone]
He has a Washington State Bar ID: 16122

http://pro.wsba.org/PublicView-Member.asp?Usr_ID=760292

Post by Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball
Mike Cranston is guilty of at least three federal offenses so
far, and should immediately be reported to the FBI for interstate
phone harassment, death threats, and encouraging people to harass
you and/or your family.
Here's how to contact the appropriate law enforcement agencies
http://www.fbi.gov/contactus.htm
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/contactus
http://www.sacpd.org/susp_rpt.html

[miguel]

Post by Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball

Post by miguel

Post by Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball

Post by miguel

Post by Lady Veteran

Post by kate
I am leaning towards sexual selection. On a practical level, the
more pleasreable the experience the greater the desire to repeat
it. It's another indicator of compatibility.
Kate C.

My theory is that orgasm causes physiological and hormonal changes,
therefore facilitating the chance to get pregnant. The vagina
elongates and muscles relax to increase reception and comfort in the
act of coitus.
LV

Emphasis on "theory."

Midgetman's first test of his theory was on an underaged girl.

I know this may surprise you, but some of us became sexually active
before we turned 18, and we didn't act like paranoid freaks and use
two condoms like you did with Toni when you finally lost your
virginity at age 27. And now you're a sexpert!

But you were an adult much older than me when you supposedly fucked this
girl.

Which girl is that, two condom guy? What was it like seeing all of
your classmates getting it on, and there you are, a weirdass nerd
poking people with compasses and drooling over anime while writing
your enemy's name on the girls' bathroom wall like the courage sack of
chickenshit you in fact are?

Post by Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball
Pedophile.

I must have struck a nerve, two-condom guy.

Post by Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball
-- Steve <-- obese type 2 diabetic

Lose weight, lungwater.

[Viking]

Post by MrPepper11
Dr. Alcock theorized that a woman might use orgasm "as an unconscious
way to evaluate the quality of the male," his genetic fitness and,
thus, how suitable he would be as a father for her offspring.

Of course. It's vestigal, they lack capacity here, and of course, it's
interpreted as some power over men.

What kind of trust can you put in western "science" when it's
routinely biased against men this way???

[kate]

Post by Viking
What kind of trust can you put in western "science" when it's
routinely biased against men this way???

Please explain.

Kate C.

[Viking]

Figure it out from my comments.

[kate]

Post by Viking
Figure it out from my comments.

Ahh...yes. The google archieve.

Kate C.

[the Danimal]

Post by Viking

Post by MrPepper11
Dr. Alcock theorized that a woman might use orgasm "as an

unconscious

Post by Viking

Post by MrPepper11
way to evaluate the quality of the male," his genetic fitness and,
thus, how suitable he would be as a father for her offspring.

Of course. It's vestigal, they lack capacity here, and of course, it's
interpreted as some power over men.

In every form of biological competition, the competitors have some
power over each other.

For example, you might think the lion holds all the cards when
compared to the antelope it eats. But the lion is just as much at
risk: the lion will easily starve if it fails to make a kill for
just a few weeks. Once the lion gets too weak from hunger to
catch its prey, that's it for the lion. The margin for error
is not large.

The lion has some power over the antelope; and the antelope has
some power over the lion. Sometimes the lion wins; sometimes
the antelope wins.

Post by Viking
What kind of trust can you put in western "science" when it's
routinely biased against men this way???

We can trust Western science to test its hypotheses.

In the case of Dr. Alcock's speculation, it would be necessary
to define "genetic fitness" in some way that could be measured,
and see whether a man's "genetic fitness" correlates with the
rate at which women reach orgasm with him.

In other words, Western science might provide a way to see that
two things which might not seem to be related, such as a man's
food-gathering ability and his ability to get women off, might
actually be related.

Of course all this talk about genes will be necessarily sloppy
and vague until Western science produces a comprehensive
description of genes. There's a lot in the details that isn't
known and probably cannot all be lumped together and ignored.

-- the Danimal

[Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball]

WTF?

Why does it have to be logical?

Whoever says the female orgasm has no evolutionary function is absolutely,
positively full of a steaming pile of shit.

Female orgasms make women more likely to come back to the same guy for
more, thus increasing their chance of getting pregnant.

I could demonstrate that at the drop of a dime. Hell, I already have.



But hey, that's okay. Print this bullshit out and spread it around to all
the dumbfuck true blue woman haters out there. The more men who read and
believe Lizzy's bullshit, the more women will be beating down the door for
guys who take the opposite approach. Women's orgasms are quite logical for
them, ROTFLMAO!!!


-- Steve

Post by MrPepper11
New York Times
May 17, 2005
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
By DINITIA SMITH
Evolutionary scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male
orgasm, closely tied as it is to reproduction.
But the Darwinian logic behind the female orgasm has remained elusive.
Women can have sexual intercourse and even become pregnant - doing
their part for the perpetuation of the species - without experiencing
orgasm. So what is its evolutionary purpose?
Over the last four decades, scientists have come up with a variety of
theories, arguing, for example, that orgasm encourages women to have
sex and, therefore, reproduce or that it leads women to favor stronger
and healthier men, maximizing their offspring's chances of survival.
But in a new book, Dr. Elisabeth A. Lloyd, a philosopher of science and
professor of biology at Indiana University, takes on 20 leading
theories and finds them wanting. The female orgasm, she argues in the
book, "The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of
Evolution," has no evolutionary function at all.
Rather, Dr. Lloyd says the most convincing theory is one put forward in
1979 by Dr. Donald Symons, an anthropologist.
That theory holds that female orgasms are simply artifacts - a
byproduct of the parallel development of male and female embryos in the
first eight or nine weeks of life.
In that early period, the nerve and tissue pathways are laid down for
various reflexes, including the orgasm, Dr. Lloyd said. As development
progresses, male hormones saturate the embryo, and sexuality is
defined.
In boys, the penis develops, along with the potential to have orgasms
and ejaculate, while "females get the nerve pathways for orgasm by
initially having the same body plan."
Nipples in men are similarly vestigial, Dr. Lloyd pointed out.
While nipples in woman serve a purpose, male nipples appear to be
simply left over from the initial stage of embryonic development.
The female orgasm, she said, "is for fun."
Dr. Lloyd said scientists had insisted on finding an evolutionary
function for female orgasm in humans either because they were invested
in believing that women's sexuality must exactly parallel that of men
or because they were convinced that all traits had to be "adaptations,"
that is, serve an evolutionary function.
Theories of female orgasm are significant, she added, because "men's
expectations about women's normal sexuality, about how women should
perform, are built around these notions."
"And men are the ones who reflect back immediately to the woman whether
or not she is adequate sexually," Dr. Lloyd continued.
Central to her thesis is the fact that women do not routinely have
orgasms during sexual intercourse.
She analyzed 32 studies, conducted over 74 years, of the frequency of
female orgasm during intercourse.
When intercourse was "unassisted," that is not accompanied by
stimulation of the clitoris, just a quarter of the women studied
experienced orgasms often or very often during intercourse, she found.
Five to 10 percent never had orgasms. Yet many of the women became
pregnant.
Dr. Lloyd's figures are lower than those of Dr. Alfred A. Kinsey, who
in his 1953 book "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female" found that 39 to
47 percent of women reported that they always, or almost always, had
orgasm during intercourse.
But Kinsey, Dr. Lloyd said, included orgasms assisted by clitoral
stimulation.
Dr. Lloyd said there was no doubt in her mind that the clitoris was an
evolutionary adaptation, selected to create excitement, leading to
sexual intercourse and then reproduction.
But, "without a link to fertility or reproduction," Dr. Lloyd said,
"orgasm cannot be an adaptation."
Not everyone agrees. For example, Dr. John Alcock, a professor of
biology at Arizona State University, criticized an earlier version of
Dr. Lloyd's thesis, discussed in in a 1987 article by Stephen Jay Gould
in the magazine Natural History.
In a phone interview, Dr. Alcock said that he had not read her new
book, but that he still maintained the hypothesis that the fact that
"orgasm doesn't occur every time a woman has intercourse is not
evidence that it's not adaptive."
"I'm flabbergasted by the notion that orgasm has to happen every time
to be adaptive," he added.
Dr. Alcock theorized that a woman might use orgasm "as an unconscious
way to evaluate the quality of the male," his genetic fitness and,
thus, how suitable he would be as a father for her offspring.
"Under those circumstances, you wouldn't expect her to have it every
time," Dr. Alcock said.
Among the theories that Dr. Lloyd addresses in her book is one proposed
in 1993, by Dr. R. Robin Baker and Dr. Mark A. Bellis, at Manchester
University in England. In two papers published in the journal Animal
Behaviour, they argued that female orgasm was a way of manipulating the
retention of sperm by creating suction in the uterus. When a woman has
an orgasm from one minute before the man ejaculates to 45 minutes
after, she retains more sperm, they said.
Furthermore, they asserted, when a woman has intercourse with a man
other than her regular sexual partner, she is more likely to have an
orgasm in that prime time span and thus retain more sperm, presumably
making conception more likely. They postulated that women seek other
partners in an effort to obtain better genes for their offspring.
Dr. Lloyd said the Baker-Bellis argument was "fatally flawed because
their sample size is too small."
"In one table," she said, "73 percent of the data is based on the
experience of one person."
In an e-mail message recently, Dr. Baker wrote that his and Dr.
Bellis's manuscript had "received intense peer review appraisal" before
publication. Statisticians were among the reviewers, he said, and they
noted that some sample sizes were small, "but considered that none of
these were fatal to our paper."
Dr. Lloyd said that studies called into question the logic of such
theories. Research by Dr. Ludwig Wildt and his colleagues at the
University of Erlangen-Nuremberg in Germany in 1998, for example, found
that in a healthy woman the uterus undergoes peristaltic contractions
throughout the day in the absence of sexual intercourse or orgasm. This
casts doubt, Dr. Lloyd argues, on the idea that the contractions of
orgasm somehow affect sperm retention.
Another hypothesis, proposed in 1995 by Dr. Randy Thornhill, a
professor of biology at the University of New Mexico and two
colleagues, held that women were more likely to have orgasms during
intercourse with men with symmetrical physical features. On the basis
of earlier studies of physical attraction, Dr. Thornhill argued that
symmetry might be an indicator of genetic fitness.
Dr. Lloyd, however, said those conclusions were not viable because
"they only cover a minority of women, 45 percent, who say they
sometimes do, and sometimes don't, have orgasm during intercourse."
"It excludes women on either end of the spectrum," she said. "The 25
percent who say they almost always have orgasm in intercourse and the
30 percent who say they rarely or never do. And that last 30 percent
includes the 10 percent who say they never have orgasm under any
circumstances."
In a phone interview, Dr. Thornhill said that he had not read Dr.
Lloyd's book but the fact that not all women have orgasms during
intercourse supports his theory.
"There will be patterns in orgasm with preferred and not preferred
men," he said.
Dr. Lloyd also criticized work by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, an emeritus
professor of anthropology at the University of California, Davis, who
studies primate behavior and female reproductive strategies.
Scientists have documented that orgasm occurs in some female primates;
for other mammals, whether orgasm occurs remains an open question.
In the 1981 book "The Woman That Never Evolved" and in her other work,
Dr. Hrdy argues that orgasm evolved in nonhuman primates as a way for
the female to protect her offspring from the depredation of males.
She points out that langur monkeys have a high infant mortality rate,
with 30 percent of deaths a result of babies' being killed by males who
are not the fathers. Male langurs, she says, will not kill the babies
of females they have mated with.
In macaques and chimpanzees, she said, females are conditioned by the
pleasurable sensations of clitoral stimulation to keep copulating with
multiple partners until they have an orgasm. Thus, males do not know
which infants are theirs and which are not and do not attack them.
Dr. Hrdy also argues against the idea that female orgasm is an artifact
of the early parallel development of male and female embryos.
"I'm convinced," she said, "that the selection of the clitoris is quite
separate from that of the penis in males."
In critiquing Dr. Hrdy's view, Dr. Lloyd disputes the idea that longer
periods of sexual intercourse lead to a higher incidence of orgasm,
something that if it is true, may provide an evolutionary rationale for
female orgasm.
But Dr. Hrdy said her work did not speak one way or another to the
issue of female orgasm in humans. "My hypothesis is silent," she said.
One possibility, Dr. Hrdy said, is that orgasm in women may have been
an adaptive trait in our prehuman ancestors.
"But we separated from our common primate ancestors about seven million
years ago," she said.
"Perhaps the reason orgasm is so erratic is that it's phasing out," Dr.
Hrdy said. "Our descendants on the starships may well wonder what all
the fuss was about."
Western culture is suffused with images of women's sexuality, of women
in the throes of orgasm during intercourse and seeming to reach heights
of pleasure that are rare, if not impossible, for most women in
everyday life.
"Accounts of our evolutionary past tell us how the various parts of our
body should function," Dr. Lloyd said.
If women, she said, are told that it is "natural" to have orgasms every
time they have intercourse and that orgasms will help make them
pregnant, then they feel inadequate or inferior or abnormal when they
do not achieve it.
"Getting the evolutionary story straight has potentially very large
social and personal consequences for all women," Dr. Lloyd said. "And
indirectly for men, as well."

º¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤º
Steve Chaney
***@NRsmykicktoy.pacbell.net
Remove "NRismykicktoy" to get my real email address

"it must shock you that i respect jackie." - John Seiler

See the soc.singles HALL OF STUPID: http://member.newsguy.com/~gunhed/hallofstupid

"Too late he understood that when you mate with a black
widow spider, you're on the menu tonight."
- Crash Street Kidd, re: Jackie, Message-ID: <***@drn.newsguy.com>

By forging me NR admits he is my puppet

"Your personal information will continue to be propagated
until someone puts an end to your miserable life.
The worst is yet to come. Trust me." - Mike Cranston,
Message-ID: <***@anonymous.poster>


ATTENTION, Tammy Chaney! The man who posted your home
address and phone number online is known as Michael J
Cranston. He has admitted to encouraging people to call
and harass you in this post: <***@4ax.com>

He can be reached at
Mike Cranston
6529 21st Avenue NW
Seattle WA 98117
[phone]

He has a Washington State Bar ID: 16122
You can look him up online at: http://pro.wsba.org/PublicView-Member.asp?Usr_ID=760292

Mike Cranston is guilty of at least three federal offenses so
far, and should immediately be reported to the FBI for interstate
phone harassment, death threats, and encouraging people to harass
you and/or your family.

Here's how to contact the appropriate law enforcement agencies
to seek justice:
http://www.fbi.gov/contactus.htm
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/contactus
http://www.sacpd.org/susp_rpt.html

[dizzy]

Post by Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball
Female orgasms make women more likely to come back to the same guy for
more, thus increasing their chance of getting pregnant.
I could demonstrate that at the drop of a dime. Hell, I already have.

Your mom must give you a discount, Stebe. She charges most guys 50
cents.

[miguel]

Post by dizzy

Post by Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball
Female orgasms make women more likely to come back to the same guy for
more, thus increasing their chance of getting pregnant.
I could demonstrate that at the drop of a dime. Hell, I already have.

Your mom must give you a discount, Stebe. She charges most guys 50
cents.

Steve Chaney --> world's greatest lover while wearing two condoms.

[dizzy]

Post by miguel

Post by dizzy

Post by Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball
Female orgasms make women more likely to come back to the same guy for
more, thus increasing their chance of getting pregnant.
I could demonstrate that at the drop of a dime. Hell, I already have.

Your mom must give you a discount, Stebe. She charges most guys 50
cents.

Steve Chaney --> world's greatest lover while wearing two condoms.

Stebe wears two condoms, Mrs Stebe wears two bags.

I know what the two bags are for (in case one falls off), but what are
the two condoms for?

[miguel]

Post by dizzy

Post by miguel

Post by dizzy

Post by Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball
Female orgasms make women more likely to come back to the same guy for
more, thus increasing their chance of getting pregnant.
I could demonstrate that at the drop of a dime. Hell, I already have.

Your mom must give you a discount, Stebe. She charges most guys 50
cents.

Steve Chaney --> world's greatest lover while wearing two condoms.

Stebe wears two condoms, Mrs Stebe wears two bags.
I know what the two bags are for (in case one falls off), but what are
the two condoms for?

When he had sex for the first time (with toni), he wore two condoms
because he was so worried about her getting pregnant.

[Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball]

Post by dizzy

Post by Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball
Female orgasms make women more likely to come back to the same guy for
more, thus increasing their chance of getting pregnant.
I could demonstrate that at the drop of a dime. Hell, I already have.

Your mom must give you a discount, Stebe. She charges most guys 50
cents.

Your mom let me do her for free. Your subsequent birth has made me wish I'd
used four condoms on her.


-- Steve
º¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤º
Steve Chaney
***@NRsmykicktoy.pacbell.net
Remove "NRismykicktoy" to get my real email address

"it must shock you that i respect jackie." - John Seiler

See the soc.singles HALL OF STUPID: http://member.newsguy.com/~gunhed/hallofstupid

"Too late he understood that when you mate with a black
widow spider, you're on the menu tonight."
- Crash Street Kidd, re: Jackie, Message-ID: <***@drn.newsguy.com>

By forging me NR admits he is my puppet

"Your personal information will continue to be propagated
until someone puts an end to your miserable life.
The worst is yet to come. Trust me." - Mike Cranston,
Message-ID: <***@anonymous.poster>


ATTENTION, Tammy Chaney! The man who posted your home
address and phone number online is known as Michael J
Cranston. He has admitted to encouraging people to call
and harass you in this post: <***@4ax.com>

He can be reached at
Mike Cranston
6529 21st Avenue NW
Seattle WA 98117
[phone]

He has a Washington State Bar ID: 16122
You can look him up online at: http://pro.wsba.org/PublicView-Member.asp?Usr_ID=760292

Mike Cranston is guilty of at least three federal offenses so
far, and should immediately be reported to the FBI for interstate
phone harassment, death threats, and encouraging people to harass
you and/or your family.

Here's how to contact the appropriate law enforcement agencies
to seek justice:
http://www.fbi.gov/contactus.htm
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/contactus
http://www.sacpd.org/susp_rpt.html

[Lady Veteran]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Post by Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball

On Thu, 19 May 2005 15:34:26 GMT, obese net-loon Steve Chaney

Post by Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball
Female orgasms make women more likely to come back to the same guy
for more, thus increasing their chance of getting pregnant.
I could demonstrate that at the drop of a dime. Hell, I already have.

Your mom must give you a discount, Stebe. She charges most guys 50
cents.

Your mom let me do her for free. Your subsequent birth has made me
wish I'd used four condoms on her.

You shoulda called him Houdini

LV

- ------------------------------------------------------
I rode a tank and held a General's rank
When the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank

- - - - Rolling Stones - Sympathy for the Devil
- ----------------------------------------
Today's mighty oak is yesterdays nut that held its ground.

- - -unknown
- ----------------------------------------
You are your greatest obstacle.

- - - unknown
- ----------------------------------------
If you are reading this in a group where the message
is cross-posted into more than three groups and subject is being fat,
it means the idiot who started this thread is trolling
me or soc.support.fat-acceptance and I flamed his ass.
I consider the idiots I flame a waste of humanity
and deserving of all of the ill treatment I can
hand them. Idiots who ridicule fat people are worse
then vermin as far as I am concerned. If you don't
want to read my responses, trim the groups to where you want
he message to go and you will not hear from me.Otherwise,
your eyes will burn from the venom in my reply.
- ----------------------------------------


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com

iQA/AwUBQpM2ecr91nvpayIKEQKRyQCfXfut9eN6zK9zs+avomIGn0XnzdEAoKQL
15Xhql/KpXwwf6qG+l9o6EoL
=qaLY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball]

Post by Lady Veteran
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Post by Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball

On Thu, 19 May 2005 15:34:26 GMT, obese net-loon Steve Chaney

Post by Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball
Female orgasms make women more likely to come back to the same guy
for more, thus increasing their chance of getting pregnant.
I could demonstrate that at the drop of a dime. Hell, I already have.

Your mom must give you a discount, Stebe. She charges most guys 50
cents.

Your mom let me do her for free. Your subsequent birth has made me
wish I'd used four condoms on her.

You shoulda called him Houdini

LOL!!!


-- Steve
º¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤º
Steve Chaney
***@NRsmykicktoy.pacbell.net
Remove "NRismykicktoy" to get my real email address

"it must shock you that i respect jackie." - John Seiler

See the soc.singles HALL OF STUPID: http://member.newsguy.com/~gunhed/hallofstupid

"Too late he understood that when you mate with a black
widow spider, you're on the menu tonight."
- Crash Street Kidd, re: Jackie, Message-ID: <***@drn.newsguy.com>

By forging me NR admits he is my puppet

"Your personal information will continue to be propagated
until someone puts an end to your miserable life.
The worst is yet to come. Trust me." - Mike Cranston,
Message-ID: <***@anonymous.poster>


ATTENTION, Tammy Chaney! The man who posted your home
address and phone number online is known as Michael J
Cranston. He has admitted to encouraging people to call
and harass you in this post: <***@4ax.com>

He can be reached at
Mike Cranston
6529 21st Avenue NW
Seattle WA 98117
[phone]

He has a Washington State Bar ID: 16122
You can look him up online at: http://pro.wsba.org/PublicView-Member.asp?Usr_ID=760292

Mike Cranston is guilty of at least three federal offenses so
far, and should immediately be reported to the FBI for interstate
phone harassment, death threats, and encouraging people to harass
you and/or your family.

Here's how to contact the appropriate law enforcement agencies
to seek justice:
http://www.fbi.gov/contactus.htm
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/contactus
http://www.sacpd.org/susp_rpt.html

[Alice_in_WunderBraLand]

On Thu, 19 May 2005 15:34:26 GMT, Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy

Post by Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball
Female orgasms make women more likely to come back to the same guy for
more, thus increasing their chance of getting pregnant.
I could demonstrate that at the drop of a dime. Hell, I already have.

Prices have sure dropped in Times Square.

[miguel]

Wonderbra 38

Post by Steve Chaney, still taunting the happy fun ball
Female orgasms make women more likely to come back to the same guy for
more, thus increasing their chance of getting pregnant.
I could demonstrate that at the drop of a dime. Hell, I already have.

Prices have sure dropped in Times Square.

You misspelled the Greyhound station.

[Bobby]

The same as youthful beauty, deceit to reproduce?

[Dustbin]

Post by MrPepper11
New York Times
May 17, 2005
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
By DINITIA SMITH
Evolutionary scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male
orgasm, closely tied as it is to reproduction.
But the Darwinian logic behind the female orgasm has remained elusive.
Women can have sexual intercourse and even become pregnant - doing
their part for the perpetuation of the species - without experiencing
orgasm. So what is its evolutionary purpose?
Over the last four decades, scientists have come up with a variety of
theories, arguing, for example, that orgasm encourages women to have
sex and, therefore, reproduce or that it leads women to favor stronger
and healthier men, maximizing their offspring's chances of survival.
But in a new book, Dr. Elisabeth A. Lloyd, a philosopher of science and
professor of biology at Indiana University, takes on 20 leading
theories and finds them wanting. The female orgasm, she argues in the
book, "The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of
Evolution," has no evolutionary function at all.
Rather, Dr. Lloyd says the most convincing theory is one put forward in
1979 by Dr. Donald Symons, an anthropologist.
That theory holds that female orgasms are simply artifacts - a
byproduct of the parallel development of male and female embryos in the
first eight or nine weeks of life.
In that early period, the nerve and tissue pathways are laid down for
various reflexes, including the orgasm, Dr. Lloyd said. As development
progresses, male hormones saturate the embryo, and sexuality is
defined.
In boys, the penis develops, along with the potential to have orgasms
and ejaculate, while "females get the nerve pathways for orgasm by
initially having the same body plan."
Nipples in men are similarly vestigial, Dr. Lloyd pointed out.
While nipples in woman serve a purpose, male nipples appear to be
simply left over from the initial stage of embryonic development.
The female orgasm, she said, "is for fun."
Dr. Lloyd said scientists had insisted on finding an evolutionary
function for female orgasm in humans either because they were invested
in believing that women's sexuality must exactly parallel that of men
or because they were convinced that all traits had to be "adaptations,"
that is, serve an evolutionary function.
Theories of female orgasm are significant, she added, because "men's
expectations about women's normal sexuality, about how women should
perform, are built around these notions."
"And men are the ones who reflect back immediately to the woman whether
or not she is adequate sexually," Dr. Lloyd continued.
Central to her thesis is the fact that women do not routinely have
orgasms during sexual intercourse.
She analyzed 32 studies, conducted over 74 years, of the frequency of
female orgasm during intercourse.
When intercourse was "unassisted," that is not accompanied by
stimulation of the clitoris, just a quarter of the women studied
experienced orgasms often or very often during intercourse, she found.
Five to 10 percent never had orgasms. Yet many of the women became
pregnant.
Dr. Lloyd's figures are lower than those of Dr. Alfred A. Kinsey, who
in his 1953 book "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female" found that 39 to
47 percent of women reported that they always, or almost always, had
orgasm during intercourse.
But Kinsey, Dr. Lloyd said, included orgasms assisted by clitoral
stimulation.
Dr. Lloyd said there was no doubt in her mind that the clitoris was an
evolutionary adaptation, selected to create excitement, leading to
sexual intercourse and then reproduction.
But, "without a link to fertility or reproduction," Dr. Lloyd said,
"orgasm cannot be an adaptation."
Not everyone agrees. For example, Dr. John Alcock, a professor of
biology at Arizona State University, criticized an earlier version of
Dr. Lloyd's thesis, discussed in in a 1987 article by Stephen Jay Gould
in the magazine Natural History.
In a phone interview, Dr. Alcock said that he had not read her new
book, but that he still maintained the hypothesis that the fact that
"orgasm doesn't occur every time a woman has intercourse is not
evidence that it's not adaptive."
"I'm flabbergasted by the notion that orgasm has to happen every time
to be adaptive," he added.
Dr. Alcock theorized that a woman might use orgasm "as an unconscious
way to evaluate the quality of the male," his genetic fitness and,
thus, how suitable he would be as a father for her offspring.
"Under those circumstances, you wouldn't expect her to have it every
time," Dr. Alcock said.
Among the theories that Dr. Lloyd addresses in her book is one proposed
in 1993, by Dr. R. Robin Baker and Dr. Mark A. Bellis, at Manchester
University in England. In two papers published in the journal Animal
Behaviour, they argued that female orgasm was a way of manipulating the
retention of sperm by creating suction in the uterus. When a woman has
an orgasm from one minute before the man ejaculates to 45 minutes
after, she retains more sperm, they said.
Furthermore, they asserted, when a woman has intercourse with a man
other than her regular sexual partner, she is more likely to have an
orgasm in that prime time span and thus retain more sperm, presumably
making conception more likely. They postulated that women seek other
partners in an effort to obtain better genes for their offspring.
Dr. Lloyd said the Baker-Bellis argument was "fatally flawed because
their sample size is too small."
"In one table," she said, "73 percent of the data is based on the
experience of one person."
In an e-mail message recently, Dr. Baker wrote that his and Dr.
Bellis's manuscript had "received intense peer review appraisal" before
publication. Statisticians were among the reviewers, he said, and they
noted that some sample sizes were small, "but considered that none of
these were fatal to our paper."
Dr. Lloyd said that studies called into question the logic of such
theories. Research by Dr. Ludwig Wildt and his colleagues at the
University of Erlangen-Nuremberg in Germany in 1998, for example, found
that in a healthy woman the uterus undergoes peristaltic contractions
throughout the day in the absence of sexual intercourse or orgasm. This
casts doubt, Dr. Lloyd argues, on the idea that the contractions of
orgasm somehow affect sperm retention.
Another hypothesis, proposed in 1995 by Dr. Randy Thornhill, a
professor of biology at the University of New Mexico and two
colleagues, held that women were more likely to have orgasms during
intercourse with men with symmetrical physical features. On the basis
of earlier studies of physical attraction, Dr. Thornhill argued that
symmetry might be an indicator of genetic fitness.
Dr. Lloyd, however, said those conclusions were not viable because
"they only cover a minority of women, 45 percent, who say they
sometimes do, and sometimes don't, have orgasm during intercourse."
"It excludes women on either end of the spectrum," she said. "The 25
percent who say they almost always have orgasm in intercourse and the
30 percent who say they rarely or never do. And that last 30 percent
includes the 10 percent who say they never have orgasm under any
circumstances."
In a phone interview, Dr. Thornhill said that he had not read Dr.
Lloyd's book but the fact that not all women have orgasms during
intercourse supports his theory.
"There will be patterns in orgasm with preferred and not preferred
men," he said.
Dr. Lloyd also criticized work by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, an emeritus
professor of anthropology at the University of California, Davis, who
studies primate behavior and female reproductive strategies.
Scientists have documented that orgasm occurs in some female primates;
for other mammals, whether orgasm occurs remains an open question.
In the 1981 book "The Woman That Never Evolved" and in her other work,
Dr. Hrdy argues that orgasm evolved in nonhuman primates as a way for
the female to protect her offspring from the depredation of males.
She points out that langur monkeys have a high infant mortality rate,
with 30 percent of deaths a result of babies' being killed by males who
are not the fathers. Male langurs, she says, will not kill the babies
of females they have mated with.
In macaques and chimpanzees, she said, females are conditioned by the
pleasurable sensations of clitoral stimulation to keep copulating with
multiple partners until they have an orgasm. Thus, males do not know
which infants are theirs and which are not and do not attack them.
Dr. Hrdy also argues against the idea that female orgasm is an artifact
of the early parallel development of male and female embryos.
"I'm convinced," she said, "that the selection of the clitoris is quite
separate from that of the penis in males."
In critiquing Dr. Hrdy's view, Dr. Lloyd disputes the idea that longer
periods of sexual intercourse lead to a higher incidence of orgasm,
something that if it is true, may provide an evolutionary rationale for
female orgasm.
But Dr. Hrdy said her work did not speak one way or another to the
issue of female orgasm in humans. "My hypothesis is silent," she said.
One possibility, Dr. Hrdy said, is that orgasm in women may have been
an adaptive trait in our prehuman ancestors.
"But we separated from our common primate ancestors about seven million
years ago," she said.
"Perhaps the reason orgasm is so erratic is that it's phasing out," Dr.
Hrdy said. "Our descendants on the starships may well wonder what all
the fuss was about."
Western culture is suffused with images of women's sexuality, of women
in the throes of orgasm during intercourse and seeming to reach heights
of pleasure that are rare, if not impossible, for most women in
everyday life.
"Accounts of our evolutionary past tell us how the various parts of our
body should function," Dr. Lloyd said.
If women, she said, are told that it is "natural" to have orgasms every
time they have intercourse and that orgasms will help make them
pregnant, then they feel inadequate or inferior or abnormal when they
do not achieve it.
"Getting the evolutionary story straight has potentially very large
social and personal consequences for all women," Dr. Lloyd said. "And
indirectly for men, as well."

Firstly, I will say that I have not read the
whole of this now quite long thred, so I
apologise if I am repeating someone else.

The logic of female orgasm bothered me a good
few years ago. He is my consideration. I cannot
say it is right - I just might be.

Mariage (or, more correctly, monogamy) is
contrary to evolution. As we know monogamy first
arose a few thousand years ago as a social
imposition for whatever (usually power or
wealth) motive.

Since monogamy reduces boith the survial
prosects of the individual's genes and limits
diversitity (evolution itself) it struck me that
nature might have started to bless females with
the same very highly motivatiing orgasm - that
motivates us men - in order to inspire
infidelity on the part of females.

That the female orgasm is rare and often
unachievable might be explained by the fact that
its evolution is not yet completed.

D.

[UMGUANAKICKBOODIE]

That the female orgasm is rare and often unachievable .

Ya think so??

[Ain't Your Mama]

It's rare and unachievable because her jack ass partner doesn't know what he
is doing nor does he care about her pleasure.

"UMGUANAKICKBOODIE" <***@CHUCKyahoo.com> wrote in message news:lBZje.11646$***@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
That the female orgasm is rare and often unachievable .
Ya think so??

[UMGUANAKICKBOODIE]

Then she could try something really strange and tell him!!

Post by Ain't Your Mama
It's rare and unachievable because her jack ass partner doesn't know what
he is doing nor does he care about her pleasure.
That the female orgasm is rare and often unachievable .
Ya think so??

[Bobby]

On Sun, 22 May 2005 20:23:37 GMT, "UMGUANAKICKBOODIE"

Post by UMGUANAKICKBOODIE
Then she could try something really strange and tell him!!

Buy her a strap on and let him take it for a while?

Post by UMGUANAKICKBOODIE

Post by Ain't Your Mama
It's rare and unachievable because her jack ass partner doesn't know what
he is doing nor does he care about her pleasure.
That the female orgasm is rare and often unachievable .
Ya think so??

[UMGUANAKICKBOODIE]

Post by Bobby
On Sun, 22 May 2005 20:23:37 GMT, "UMGUANAKICKBOODIE"

Post by UMGUANAKICKBOODIE
Then she could try something really strange and tell him!!

Buy her a strap on and let him take it for a while?

And what would hat prove other that giving idiots like you some sort of
quasi revenge/satisfaction!

[Bobby]

On Sun, 22 May 2005 20:39:37 GMT, "UMGUANAKICKBOODIE"

Post by UMGUANAKICKBOODIE

Post by Bobby
On Sun, 22 May 2005 20:23:37 GMT, "UMGUANAKICKBOODIE"

Post by UMGUANAKICKBOODIE
Then she could try something really strange and tell him!!

Buy her a strap on and let him take it for a while?

And what would hat prove other that giving idiots like you some sort of
quasi revenge/satisfaction!

A miserable attempt at being funny.

[Dustbin]

Post by Ain't Your Mama
It's rare and unachievable because her jack ass partner doesn't know what he
is doing nor does he care about her pleasure.
That the female orgasm is rare and often unachievable .
Ya think so??

Read above. Failure is very widespread after
more than twenty years of discussing the issue.
The facts will not go away becuase you don't
like them.

D.

[Dustbin]

Post by UMGUANAKICKBOODIE

That the female orgasm is rare and often unachievable .

Ya think so??

Data in UK has been fairly consistent for about
twenty years now: 70% of women have difficulty
getting there. In a recent survey it was found
that the most successful are the girls of
Hefield at 33% and the least successfull are the
girls of Liverpool at 22%.

If you want to brag about what a *man* you are.
Fine. The facts will not change.

D.

[Ken Chaddock]

Post by UMGUANAKICKBOODIE

That the female orgasm is rare and often unachievable .

Ya think so??

Data in UK has been fairly consistent for about twenty years now: 70% of
women have difficulty getting there. In a recent survey it was found
that the most successful are the girls of Hefield at 33% and the least
successfull are the girls of Liverpool at 22%.
If you want to brag about what a *man* you are. Fine. The facts will not
change.

Not wanting to "brag about what a man" I am but I've been very sexually
active with a lot of different sex partners and it's been my (personal)
experience that the numbers you've quoted are somewhat misleading.
They may be correct if you only consider orgasm during intercourse
however *very few* women fail to achieve orgasm from masturbation...and
I discovered early that a satisfied woman is a repeat customer ;-) so I
learned how to use my fingers and tongue...
As a result, I don't think I've ever had a lover who have failed to
achieve orgasm during our love making...there are certainly times,
having a "quickie" for example, when she might not cum but by and large
I'm not really interested in "wham, bam...thankyou ma'am" sex and an
willing to take whatever time is necessary to make sure she has a
pleasurable experience...

...Ken

[UMGUANAKICKBOODIE]

Post by Ken Chaddock

Post by UMGUANAKICKBOODIE

That the female orgasm is rare and often unachievable .

Ya think so??

Data in UK has been fairly consistent for about twenty years now: 70% of
women have difficulty getting there. In a recent survey it was found that
the most successful are the girls of Hefield at 33% and the least
successfull are the girls of Liverpool at 22%.
If you want to brag about what a *man* you are. Fine. The facts will not
change.

Not wanting to "brag about what a man" I am but I've been very sexually
active with a lot of different sex partners and it's been my (personal)
experience that the numbers you've quoted are somewhat misleading.
They may be correct if you only consider orgasm during intercourse however
*very few* women fail to achieve orgasm from masturbation...and I
discovered early that a satisfied woman is a repeat customer ;-) so I
learned how to use my fingers and tongue...
As a result, I don't think I've ever had a lover who have failed to
achieve orgasm during our love making...there are certainly times, having
a "quickie" for example, when she might not cum but by and large I'm not
really interested in "wham, bam...thankyou ma'am" sex and an willing to
take whatever time is necessary to make sure she has a pleasurable
experience...
...Ken

Yes and I bet you talked and experimented to get there!
Amazing how that works, but some seem to think it so hard to do (The really
tricky part is the listening!)

[Ken Chaddock]

Post by UMGUANAKICKBOODIE

Post by Ken Chaddock

Post by UMGUANAKICKBOODIE

That the female orgasm is rare and often unachievable .

Ya think so??

Data in UK has been fairly consistent for about twenty years now: 70% of
women have difficulty getting there. In a recent survey it was found that
the most successful are the girls of Hefield at 33% and the least
successfull are the girls of Liverpool at 22%.
If you want to brag about what a *man* you are. Fine. The facts will not
change.

Not wanting to "brag about what a man" I am but I've been very sexually
active with a lot of different sex partners and it's been my (personal)
experience that the numbers you've quoted are somewhat misleading.
They may be correct if you only consider orgasm during intercourse however
*very few* women fail to achieve orgasm from masturbation...and I
discovered early that a satisfied woman is a repeat customer ;-) so I
learned how to use my fingers and tongue...
As a result, I don't think I've ever had a lover who have failed to
achieve orgasm during our love making...there are certainly times, having
a "quickie" for example, when she might not cum but by and large I'm not
really interested in "wham, bam...thankyou ma'am" sex and an willing to
take whatever time is necessary to make sure she has a pleasurable
experience...
...Ken

Yes and I bet you talked and experimented to get there!
Amazing how that works, but some seem to think it so hard to do (The really
tricky part is the listening!)

I think in a lot of cases these guys don't really *like* women or the
company of women so the quicker they can "dip the wick" and get back to
watching the game the better...ah well, all the more unsatisified and
disgruntled women available for me ;-)

...Ken

[Dustbin]

Post by Ken Chaddock

Post by UMGUANAKICKBOODIE

Post by Ken Chaddock

Post by UMGUANAKICKBOODIE

That the female orgasm is rare and often unachievable .

Ya think so??

70% of women have difficulty getting there. In a recent survey it
was found that the most successful are the girls of Hefield at 33%
and the least successfull are the girls of Liverpool at 22%.
If you want to brag about what a *man* you are. Fine. The facts will
not change.

Not wanting to "brag about what a man" I am but I've been very
sexually active with a lot of different sex partners and it's been my
(personal) experience that the numbers you've quoted are somewhat
misleading.
They may be correct if you only consider orgasm during intercourse
however *very few* women fail to achieve orgasm from
masturbation...and I discovered early that a satisfied woman is a
repeat customer ;-) so I learned how to use my fingers and tongue...
As a result, I don't think I've ever had a lover who have failed to
achieve orgasm during our love making...there are certainly times,
having a "quickie" for example, when she might not cum but by and
large I'm not really interested in "wham, bam...thankyou ma'am" sex
and an willing to take whatever time is necessary to make sure she
has a pleasurable experience...
...Ken

Yes and I bet you talked and experimented to get there!
Amazing how that works, but some seem to think it so hard to do (The
really tricky part is the listening!)

I think in a lot of cases these guys don't really *like* women or
the company of women so the quicker they can "dip the wick" and get back
to watching the game the better...ah well, all the more unsatisified and
disgruntled women available for me ;-)
....Ken

An interesting addition to the point.

It has been reported the birds on the pill lose
their interest after about six months and it may
never cum back!

D.