Betty, the more revealing question would be who would one be willing to apply said strap-on to. The world is chock-a-block with people I wouldn't fuck (the gossips lied), but I'd have to think hard about recipients for such an endeavor.
An old neighbor of mine would've been first in line, but most of my current aquaintences are either phobes when it comes to crossing that line OR they happen to be fine with gay sex so long as they're pitching rather than catching.
Now, as to women...well, I like boobies probably better than your average bear, but that's about the extent of my lesbianism.
So, I guess you don't need to lend me that strap-on after all. Dang it. And here I thought I might broaden my horizons again. ;->
I would start with Cheney because if you don't use lube anal sex can hurt real bad.
Now, if we're talking pleasure, well, my last boyfriend was always begging for it, but I'm the sort of bitch who likes to leave a man a *tiny bit* unsatisfied so that he's real sorry when your ass is walking out the door.
I have my eyes on a cute red head at school but i think she might be too young for me. Though, I suppose if I shoved a ball gag in her mouth it would all work out just fine.
And there is my oldest friend's ex-girlfriend who really could use some straightening out (oh the ironic pun) in addition to being supercute.
And there is a guy in the library who sings under his breath when he's listening to his mp3 player.
Well I've got all day, in fact I can generally outlast any woman...
But seriously : Nobody. I disapprove of rape on principle, for a start. And secondly, I can't really imagine any circumstances where I would want to use a strap-on. If it don't fit, don't force it, is my guiding principle. I'm happy enough with the way nature made me.
Which leads me to a naïve question : Is there really any sexual pleasure in sodomy for a woman? In the best of cases. I'm aware there is for men, as sodomee (not from experience, but because that's the way God made us), but I've always been sceptical for women, for want of any positive experience.
Which only proves that I haven't been around, most likely.
On the other hand, I can theoretically imagine being on the receiving end of a strap-on, in the right circumstances (candlelight and Dubonnet on ice, etc)
Oddly, it's always women rather than men that get busted on the anal sex question.
I have friends who love it and friends who hate it and friends who are willing to do it not because they particularly love it but because they like doing it for their lovers.
I only meant in that some women love giving them and others hate it and some don't mind but are more into the fact that they're pleasing a lover than the act itself.
Ms. No got it right, except the significant portion of the population that has never tried it. It has been my experience that of the women who have tried it, more than half really love it. Of course, I do know a bunch of perverts.
Betty, we definitely have to hook up if you come to town. I'll take you to coffee at the Naked Lounge. I've lost touch with my polyamorous neo-pagan friends in the last few years, but I'm still good for conversation. ;->
Apple v Ann Summers in iGasm spat Ann Summers attract's Apple's ire for iGasm sex toy advertising Jonny Evans
High street adult retailer Ann Summers has landed itself in a heap of trouble with Apple.
The retail chain has been promoting a £30 sex toy called the iGasm, a device which connects to any music player and offers users an erotic vibrating treat in time to the beat.
A News of the World report claims Apple is furious about Ann Summers' promotion of the device, and is demanding all posters for the gadget be taken down, under threat of court action.
The neon-pink posters depict an underwear-clad female silhouette holding an oval white device with two cables - one connected to a pair of white headphones, the other heading down toward the female's knickers.
The sales pitch urges music fans to: "Go at it hard and fast with a pounding drum 'n' bass track or chill with an ambient classic."
Apple is claiming the ad to be an abuse of the silhouette-based images it uses in its own advertising.
Ann Summers hasn't bowed to Apple's threats, the report explains.
What can I say in defense of the masculine sub-species? OK so mechanical devices are more reliable, but the human ones are perfectible? Some of them? (choose me choose me!)
Well, that one will fall down once they start selling devices with artificial intelligence. Which learn and adapt to the response of the subject. If it hasn't been done yet, it soon will be. Look for them at your local sex shop.
Actually Judith, this is a possible sex-therapy technique. You start with the iBuzz or equivalent, to a particular piece of music. You get used to it, with regular use. Then you invite your boyfriend, to the same music. We're talking conditioned response. Clockwork Orange in reverse.
I had a friend who developed the ultimate vibrator for his girlfriend. Shortly thereafter, they broke up. Whether the rest of the male sex also lost her I never bothered to determine.
Ha! What great fun! And while he does tend to wax...er, orgasmic, to some degree, I can't help but agree that science often paints itself into a box because it makes the a priori assumption that there must be a purpose for everything. Or, more precisely that we can possibly know or already do know what those purposes are. I tend to believe that there is a cause for everything, but I'm not so hepped up about having to have reasons if I can operate well enough without them.
I was recently directed for shits and giggles to a bit of educational YouPorn --- truly, it's instructional rather than prurient although it's certainly graphic and likely to get a rise out of some watchers so if I can dig up the link let this serve as a pre-warning which will later be followed by a link specific warning not to watch in the office or public or in front of the impressionable or easily offended.
At any rate, it's a rather clinical demonstration of how to induce a G-spot orgasm and it's really rather spectacular to behold.
I don't forsee ever having cause to practice it myself unless I'm playing guinea pig but for those of you in the gallery who like to send women into blissful rapture I'll do my best to find the darn thing.
The link below contains material of a graphic, sexual nature. There is sound because there is verbal instruction, but if you are not in a private place you should keep the sound very low because it isn't ALL instruction.
As for the evolutionary purpose of the female orgasm...
Obvious when you think about it. It adds a whole dimension to female insatisfaction. And that is the prime motor of human progress, surely.
Bear with me. A woman who knows what good sex is, and withholds it, because the mood is not right, or the man is being a schmuck, or hasn't achieved his goals, or whatever. This is way more potent than a woman merely withholding sex as a bargaining chip.
Nope, Betty, I noticed as well. It's 99.9% straight up vanilla. Generally the kinky stuff must be paid for.
Most everything is pretty much the same and good gracious what is it about watching women drool and slaver and choke and then play in the boy butter like it was going to cure every skin ailment they ever had?
I mean, yeah, the sites are clearly aimed at a male audience, but it's sort of disheartening to see the lack of creativity desired.
I think so. Lemme see if I've got the right take on it. A flat out "No" is something that a guy comes to expect, but if it's coupled with the challenge of "You're not good enough" he's driven to work toward that goal in whatever sundry means are required.
Sounds too complicated to me. I think orgasms make women enjoy sex more, want it more, anticipate it more, and makes them do it with more people, thus increasing the chance of offspring. Simple as that.
If women didn't enjoy it there'd be a whole lot less sex going on.
I Don't think women use sex as a weapon or bargaining chip to the degree we might think listening to the chatter about it. For one thing I wouldn't put up with it because it's unflattering to the women, and for another it's not been my experience.
I think you've probably got the right of it --- that feel-good sex promotes the species.
As for using sex as a bargaining chip, I've certainly known women who do, but not among any that I consider friends and they've been more rare than not in my experience.
Of course, who I know and call friend is largely due to who I am and what kind of people I enjoy being around. Certainly there are plenty of people in the world who are highly materialistic or cruel or uncompassionate or lazy or whatever, just because I don't hang out with them doesn't mean they don't exist.
I have often wondered about the persisting "truth" that men want sex a thousand times more than women do and that even women who enjoy sex have libidos that pale in comparison to the male of the species.
Some of that is biological --- male and female hormones do different things --- but a lot of it is societal as well. There are far more pressures bearing on women to be chaste or at least more chaste than men. Promiscuous men aren't viewed with the same disdain as promiscuous women. In fact, men don't generally get called promiscuous. It's simply accepted as fact that single men who can get laid as often as they want will do so. Women --- who feasibly could get laid half a dozen times a day every day of the year --- generally don't.
As I said, some of that is libido, some of that is physical vulnerability and some of it is societal pressure.
As you say, women who try such stuff are usually caught out pretty quick, and probably not very well liked. In my younger years I knew one or two quickly modified their behavior when the BS flag was raised. So I agree that they exist, but I don't think they get along very well. In fact, in a strange twist, the few I knew, (one of whom married a friend of mine), were actually vulnerable to abuse and neglect once their barriers went down...if that akes any sense. They were sort of emotionally handicapped to begin with.
I think men are generally more promiscuous, but there's a wide range of difference in both sexes. Not that I'm a great catch, but I have on occasion felt a strong obligation to have sex with a women on a first or second meeting when I really could have passed. I'm talking 10 or more years ago, mind. I guess what I'm saying is that the difference in desire and activity between the sexes is exaggerated. The bad press faced by men in this regard is overlooked. One being the accepted stereotype of fucking anything in sight. What's worse is that it's pervasive and largely unchallenged...we see it in advertising, and in how men are portrayed on TV and movies from adolescence to old age. But as you say, the resulting image isn't all that disdainfull, which under the circumstances may even things up for us.
Finally, I think women want it just as much, but many, (not all), like a warm-up period of anywhere from a few hours to a few dates, and then watch out. Men are a bit quicker to the draw.
A woman who knows what good sex is, and withholds it, because the mood is not right, or the man is being a schmuck, or hasn't achieved his goals, or whatever. This is way more potent than a woman merely withholding sex as a bargaining chip.
I think what you're saying here is that a man who knows that his woman responds to and likes sex as much as he does will see that woman as much more "powerful" if she declines rather than one who is just being petulant and withholding out of spite or to get her way...because the woman is giving up an enjoyable experience to make her point so it must be a powerful point she is trying to make..."I want this just as much as you do but the timing is off and to make my point, I'm willing to forego it until it's set right."
Face it, guys get off a lot more on pleasing a woman they know they can be successful with than with one they can't please. So having to give THAT up is more punitive than giving up the other...
Finally, I think women want it just as much, but many, (not all), like a warm-up period of anywhere from a few hours to a few dates, and then watch out. Men are a bit quicker to the draw.
I can't remember right now where I heard/read it --- hell, it could've been a stand-up comedian --- but the jist was that a woman knows whether or not she's willing to sleep with a man within the first ten minutes of meeting him. Then it just takes however long -- hours, to days to weeks -- for the guy to get that information out of her. ;->
Judith, lots of wisdom in your 9906 post, especially, "Face it, guys get off a lot more on pleasing a woman they know they can be successful with than with one they can't please. So having to give THAT up is more punitive than giving up the other..."
Women who have an easier time reaching orgasm, or ones who have several, enjoy sex much more and are better at it. They probably understand better what men experience.
Ms. No, There's a bit of truth in those old sayings. But it's funny what happens when a woman is attracted to a man who shows interest but doesn't take the bait, (or play the game). The signals get much more obvious, sometimes to he point of downright insistance.
Speaking of orgasms, I knew a girl who loved buses, and in London you tend to ride them a lot. When possible she'd get right above the back wheel, but it really didn't matter that much. And then, fully clothed, and with very little help...bang!
Thank you Judith, that was a lot closer to what I think I was thinking at the time...
But the point I was referring to, which was not perhaps clear, and is probably going to be disputed, is that within an established couple, the woman is more often the sex-giver, and the man the sex-taker, than the other way round. But whatever.
I realize I am probably a curve breaker...but am close friends with three women with the same "problem"...we have much higher libidos than the men around us.
Like Ms No, I have a self-selecting group, but from gossipy coffee clatches I've gathered that after the late 20's this is pretty true across the board.
In _Dr. Tatiana's Sex Guide for All Creation_ the author talks about the biology of promiscuity and it seems that with very few exceptions promiscuity is of greater reproductive value to women than to men.
uhhmmm that would very strongly depend on the economic system you are working within, Betty.
The question being that Madam gets the big prize -- the baby to bring up -- and if she's been free and easy, then there's no particular man who has a particularly strong incentive to spend sweat and cash on bringing up a child that may or may not be his.
limited, secretive promiscuity can insure that there is someone to help raise baby. If possible dad A winds up dead, then the female can usually convince possible dad B that he is the real dad, ensuring that SOMEONE will give a hand.
I know more than a few unfortunates (partly having taught high school so long--I've had the single parent and their kid who becomes a single parent, because this tends to repeat itself) who have no hope of support from dad A, much less roping in a B. It feeds the cycle of poverty, as well.
I generally don't like posting in here, but I feel compelled to address Alistair's muse. Not to agree or disagree, but to throw in my two cents I can only speak for one long-term-relationship-monogamous-type person--me--in which there is zero interest without the emotional element; and our relationship has been (25 years) mutually fantastic, and when one or the other is disinterested or dealing with health issues, as we have in the past few years, we manage to maintain a close partnership and don't put a lot of pressure on each other, which makes it a whole lot better overall. That wasn't the case when we first got married and I got pregnant. Those changes, from pregnancy and a baby, were disruptive to us and it took a while to get past them.
But I have not, for the last fifteen years at least, even passingly had an interest in being anywhere but where I am now. I'm pretty selfish about sharing even that much, but my own experience is that total mutual satisfaction is possible without a great deal of frustration, but not without effort. I don't know about frequency because my mind or Bob's isn't much occupied with that. I'm talking about intensity, and without that I'm not even interested, and without the emotional element, you can forget intensity. Since having a full hysterectomy it's been an issue to deal with, and before that Bob's diabetes got so bad it was an issue too; but the fact that our focus has always been that way has helped a lot and we have moved through difficult times well together.
But with us, anyway, we're either in the mood or not. There's not a sense of anything ulterior, and if one clearly isn't in the mood, that's all it is. It's nothing personal and there's no effort to manipulate with it. If it is due to some issue, we don't hesitate to say so, whether it involves the other person or it's something we're dealing with internally or health-wise--if we can even figure it out ourselves.
And one other note: We fight like hell, but it is completely and intentionally NEVER connected with sex--either as a cause or as a means of "making up." I'm not saying we never had problems about it when we were younger (as I already posted), but it is not an intentional part of our confrontations. Bob believes, partly from his experience in a previous marriage, that it is very emotionally damaging and potentially deadly to the relationship. I'm glad to take his word for it.
One other thing (and this reminds me of Judith describing when she first encountered Keoni): I was engaged to someone else before Bob and I started dating, and before that I dated one of his closest friends for over a year. But I was in love with Bob from the first time I met him, and figured it would never be because I was dating his friend and he and I both had too much respect for this guy. So it was almost three years from the time we met before we began dating. But I would have settled and married someone else (not his friend). I loved the person I was engaged to, and we might have even worked out, though I doubt it; but I was not in love and never have been in love to the extent I still am after 25 years--closer to 30 if you count the time we weren't together.
9911. AC, Yeah, buses, especially old vibrating ones. Ha! I'm not sure if women are the sex-givers more often, but I wouldn't dispute it. But it can fluctuate within a relationship over time. Arky points out her experience. I had mine. I was not interested at all for a period of about 6 months and to this day I don't know why. It was certainly not my wife-at-the-time's fault. Go figure.
9914. Betty, nice to meet you. Yes, but dad A doesn't need to die, does he? I have never been a dad A, but I'm sure there's some live ones out there.
9915. Arky, I'm in awe of relationships like yours. I think it's more than just a little admirable, and if you don't mind what you might have been missing, well then, even better.
I never miss a thing--and I mean that literally--in our interactions, and I certainly missed a lot on so many levels of partnership before we started dating. Whether it's our relationship itself or that we're both so darned good, I have no idea (;->), but I had enough experience with dating and interacting with a variety of people--long-term and short--before we ever met to have a good idea of what was out there, and I had almost 3 years before we could even be together to continue to shop around. And he's had way more than I have, being 8 years older and previously married.
And we're not all that admirable, really. Stubborn may be the case (in fact, I'm sure it is), but whatever "in love" is, I know we're still there, and I know I haven't ever been in love with anyone else. I've loved people, but it's not the same thing. We're more volatile than most couples, probably, and by no means a perfect match. I'm in awe of people who are--if they indeed exist--I've also seen enough of them split up to the surprise of everyone. I was mostly talking about the physical aspect.
I can't think much about that stuff without wondering how Bill and Hillary are as a couple, really. I don't get it. I really don't. Are they honest with each other, I wonder? IOW, for people where sexual issues with one or both have really adversely affected their relationships and they stay together--not just after once, but after repeated incidents with multiple people over literally decades--what binds them? If it's being in love that keeps them together, what a torture. Or is it? Can they compartmentalize and regroup and move past each crisis that effectively? More than anything else, it's what makes Hillary Clinton an enigma to me.
well arky, I'm talking about non-human subjects, for the most part, though one need only look at US Fighter Pilots during the 1940's to see how it works rather effectively in humans as well. It's easy to pick out the failures but increasingly through genetic testing we are finding out how common cuckholding, etc. is in the human experience and how effective (and undetected) it has been as a reproductive strategy.
Women are also more fertile with the more partners they have, in part because men are more potent if their partner is promiscious.
I don't fall back on biology to "defend" the kind of lifestyle I have, but it makes me sleep a little easier knowing that there is nothing profoundly wrong with me for not wanting to be monogamous and having a loving but casual attitude toward sex.
I think people are hardwired in some significantly different ways and that socialization evens out most of the pack so that even if they don't practice monogamy, they still claim it as their ideal.
You shouldn't have to defend it. Unfortunately a lot of women/girls in poverty aren't ensuring--for whatever reason--they either aren't going to have children or that those children can be adequately cared for. So biology and socio-economics are at odds in a way that is contributing to the growing gap between rich and poor and the growing number of women and children in poverty.
I think the Clintons are dear friends but also aware of the advantages to them if they stay together --- and they've certainly reaped those advantages. I imagine that they are better partners in other ways than sexually and that whatever hurts and trials that has caused, they still have enough something in their relationship not to seek a way out of it. Certainly, divorce would be political suicide for Hillary, but I tend to think it's not quite that cynical a reason that they stay together.
Look at it this way, unless one of them were to fall deeply in love with another person, what would be the advantage to ending their marriage?
Certainly, divorce would be political suicide for Hillary, but I tend to think it's not quite that cynical a reason that they stay together.
I agree, but I've argued with people who think it's her only motivation. According to one of those two books, Bill did fall in love with someone before becoming president and Hillary wouldn't divorce him. I don't know about that. As long as he's been in politics his proclivities have been known in AR, but his lack of control as president and his public humiliation of her--not with the affair, but with letting her stick her neck out defending his innocence--would surely have compromised a close platonic relationship.
What a nice, pretty little corner I've painted myself into.
My remarks on the female orgasm have ended up portraying me as one who believes that women routinely use sex as a bargaining chip (though what I said was precisely the opposite). My position is far more nuanced than that, ladies and gentlemen. Please bear with me.
I completely agree that, in general, people (in an egalitarian relationship, understand) have sex when they are both in the mood.
A lot depends on what gets you in the mood.
Now, bearing in mind that human variability is infinite, and that there is therefore considerable overlap between the sexes, so please nobody get offended [with the crowd in here, if I said that men tend to have dorks and women tend not to, somebody would object].
I have the impression, and I'm pretty sure that it doesn't come exclusively from stand-up comedy (and anyway, it wouldn't work in stand-up comedy if there wasn't an element of truth in it), that men are more flexible, in general, about being in the mood.
Famously, men are more inclined to seek sex without emotional engagement, or to fake the emotional engagement that the other party requires. This can work within couples as well as outside them.
Thus, in the general case, and with heavy-handed oratorical precaution, women are more likely to moderate their sexual response -- unconsciously for the most part -- in function of their degree of satisfaction about general or specific issues.
I've just presumed that billary were running what we quaintly called in the 70s 'an open marriage'. Plenty of political, economic, social reasons for staying together, but if they want to get some on the side, no problem.
In general I agree with all that, Alistair. My area of departure was wrt this:
Thus, in the general case, and with heavy-handed oratorical precaution, women are more likely to moderate their sexual response -- unconsciously for the most part -- in function of their degree of satisfaction about general or specific issues.
In my experience, ON THE CONSCIOUS LEVEL, that doesn't enter into it. I can't speak for my subconscious.
Well as has been said by experts who have been trying to find the viagra for women, the female sex drive is a very complicated thing, not the least of which relates to the fact that women's bodies are getting flooded with fluctuating hormones throughout the month. (Women are getting flucted?)
Men's hormones run on a much more even keel so just from a physiological pov it would not be surprising that there are common differences.
It would also seem that there are important differences in the role that sex plays in a man's life vs. a woman's. I remember an article that was interviewing hookers and one said almost all of her clients, after their business was complete, made some comment to the effect that, "Man, I'm going to sleep good tonight!"
I don't think you not giving the orgasm enough credit...it cures cancer, diabetes and stupidity.
I did some research, but most of it sounded useless, the only thing I found interesting was this article that loans scientific credibility to the phrase fuck dumb.
This is probably why I like sex so much, there is that one moment when everything gets flicked off and I feel absolutely peaceful. It is the next best thing to a lobatomy.
From Betty's link: "And in women, the hippocampus, the memory part of the brain, was deactivated."
Perhaps this is why some women are ready for the next one in no time. And I always thought it was because they REMEMBERED how good the last one was. Seems maybe they forgot they had one.
Maybe it's just me, but sex and orgasm are not the same thing... I'd much rather have sex without an orgasm, than the other way around.
Why is it that when women say this nobody believes us? Or they think that it's got to be some maudlin thing about feeeelings?
I mean, if all I wanted was to get off, I can do that myself with a near-perfect record. No man anywhere is ever going to beat that.
What I can't do for myself is provide all the other stuff -- kissing, skin to skin contact, companionship. That's the really cool stuff and if it comes with the bonus of orgasm so much the better, but that's truly not my focus.
Hmmm, like most herbs, it seems to have many uses:
In herbal medicine, damiana is used to treat conditions ranging from coughs, to constipation, to depression. The herbal supplement is reputed to help with Energy, Emphysema, low Estrogen, Frigidity, Hot Flashes, Impotency, Infertility, Menopause, Parkinson's Disease, PMS, Inflammation of Prostate, Lou Gehrig's disease, and more dealing with reproductive organs in both males and females.
I'd heard of Yohimbine being used, but I've only ever smoked Damiana.
Uh, it doesn't get you high, but it smells marijuana-like enough for the paying audience when one has to smoke-out on stage. We used it when we did Hair.
I would think there would be lots of things that kill the urge to lust. Illness is one of them. Looking at or seeing or thinking about something that makes you sick would be another. A plate of liver would do it for me every time.
Is that really true? I mean how often do men die in the process...I mean besides nelson rockefeller. Or is that a medical exaggeration that has been carried on for no good reason, like avoiding seeds if you have diverticula. I mean I can see it if a person's heart is extremely fragile, but is sex more strenous than say a flight of stairs? Even for heart patients, don't the recommend exercise?
Out of curiosity, I checked it out and it seems that only 1% of men die from sex after heart attack and of those 75% are in extramarital affairs with much younger partners...
Well old nelson rockefeller was about 65 when he died in flagrante with a 25 year old intern...rumor was he died because his blood pressure was 65 over 25.
Or is that a medical exaggeration that has been carried on for no good reason, like avoiding seeds if you have diverticula.
What? You think it's a good idea to open yourself up to a bout of divirticulitis? Spoken as one who ignored the advice to avoid certain foods and has had three or four brutal attacks.
From another site: The National Digestive Diseases Information Clearinghouse (from the NIH) used to caution against seeds and nuts, but now agrees there is no evidence that they are harmful. Many doctors, though, continue to advise against them.
In fact, the best prevention for even developing diverticula in the first place is a high fiber diet and fiber often contains things that one might think could get lodged in the system. But what really gets lodged is stool. I remember reading, though I can't remember where, that there has never been a pathology report that sites a seed or nut as having caused diverticulitis. They believe that diverticula come from a low fiber diet and lots of straining and constipation.
I always wondered how you were supposed to keep your stools soft and easy to pass if you weren't allowed any fruits or veggies. Fuggetaboutit...eat your fruits and vegetables, seeds and all, eat your whole grains, drink lots of water and stay regular. No straining on the pot.
Of course, if you find something bothers you, don't eat it....there's always individualized medicine. But in general, the no seeds/nuts advice is, well, nuts.
I was watching jeff foxworthy's act on tv the other night and he's very funny. very basic.
he says women spend all this time analyzing guys and relationships and trying to figure out what makes them tick. He says though that guys are really simple. They're only ever thinking 2 things... gimme a beer
Avoiding seeds doesn't prevent diverticulitis. It can prevent severe agony when you have it. If you don't have it you might not know that. If you do, it won't take many experiences to adjust your eating. My dad had diverticulitis as well, and it's no picnic. We all had to adjust because we were kids and the family meals had to change, but it worked. After a while you learn what you can and can't deal with.
Sorry to burst you diverticula, but there has been no evidence that avoiding seeds prevents diverticulitis:
You're not bursting any bubble of mine...I never claimed seeds and nuts CAUSED it; I meant that it can bring on days of agony after you've already developed the diverticuli. Seems strange to me that after eating wasabi peas or raw broccoli (I can eat it cooked) or sesame-seeded chicken, I develop a bout of gas, pain, diarrhea, and can't even sit up for the waves of pain from my colon and yet, those things are supposed to be hunky dory because some doctor has theorized they're okay for me...they are NOT, not for ME. Your milage may vary...but for someone who already HAS the pockets in their colon, I would say, based on experience, that avoiding foods that cause a flare up when you eat them is sound advice.
I agree with you that it is nuts to avoid those foods if you think doing so will prevent developing diverticuli...doing so after you already have them is not nuts.
Exactly. I don't go out of my way to hear him and he can be gross, but when I do listen I get more laughs than I do when I listen to Foxworthy. And his "I don't care who you are" is a nice, subtle little touch that probably flies over the heads of most of his fans and critics. But hey, even Imus doesn't offend me, so what can I say?
“Women have made significant educational gains — they even tend to get better grades than men. Women are working hard to balance the roles of work and family,” according to AAUW Director of Public Policy and Government Relations Lisa Maatz. “Despite all this, the gap still exists.”
Analyzing U.S. Department of Education data on 19,000 men and women, the AAUW found that one year out of college, women in 1994 earned 80 percent of what their male counterparts made. By 2003, ten years later, the comparative figure dwindled to 69 percent of men’s incomes....
Even when AAUW researchers allowed for factors such as lower-wage careers that women tend to choose and leaving the workforce to have children, the wage disparity persisted: Women one year out of college made 5 percent less than men and the gap more than doubles, to 12 percent, when men and women are 10 years out of college.
Here's some more fun from the statistical abstract.
A woman with a doctorate makes less than $5k per year more than a man with a bachelors while a man with a doctorate makes over $20k more than a man with a bachelors.
A man with a bachelors makes nearly $30k more per year than a man with a high school diploma. A woman with a bachelors makes less than $5k more than that high school diploma male.
And then there is the professional degree...a man with a professional degree makes nearly twice ($137,050) what a woman with a professional degree does ($70,812).
NEW YORK — It's a question that often prompts a boastful answer or a bashful one: How many sex partners have you had?
Now the federal government says it has authoritative statistics, documenting that men are far more likely to play the field than women.
A new nationwide survey, using high-tech methods to solicit candid answers on sexual activity and illegal drug use, finds that 29 percent of American men report having 15 or more female sexual partners in a lifetime, while only 9 percent of women report having sex with 15 or more men.
OK, men, help me out here. I was travelling last week and sat next to a man on the plane both times. Invariably it seems that men sit in the seat, regardless of how large or small, and anchor both feet, knees spread, as far as they possibly can and stick out both elbows commandeering both arm rests. They take up as much room as they are possibly allowed, and then some. (This one guy kept poking me with his elbow...didn't seem to bother him at all.) Women inevitably sit with arms in and legs crossed closely together in an attempt to take up as little space as possible and avoid touching anyone.
I wonder, what happens when you have 3 seats across with all men...who gets those center armrests? Or is there a struggle all flight long?
re #9958...reminds me of the old joke where this woman goes to the doctor and he tells her she only has 6 mos to live. She said, doc what should I do? He said, marry an economist and move to north dakota. She said, will that help me live longer? He said, no, but those 6 mos will seem like a really really long time.
Thoughtful, sounds like you are over-generalizing based on an inadequate, non-random sample. Also, when we are traveling together, my wife usually is usually guilty of comandeering the armrest between us.
It seems curious to me that there is no common term for the female equivalent of misogynist other than "man-hater." "Misandronist," a word with which I was unfamiliar until I just attempted to find the antonym for "misogynist," is apparently quite rare. Perhaps misandronists are rare as well??
Girls want things that make common sense The best for all concerned And the boys say they're concerned, that they are Concerned with decisiveness And it's a hard logic to follow and the girls get lost...
Talking heads, circa 77 (just playful provocation...)
Crap, now the study is gone, but if I recall correctly the point was that women don't push for the salary as often as men because they are more likely to get turned down for being pushy than men are --- and they're well aware of it.
Basically, it means that people who say women make less because they aren't aggressive enough are completely ignoring the fact that women are far more likely than men to be penalized for being aggressive.
A man who pushes for a higher salary is a go-getter and a woman who pushes for a higher salary is a bitch.
As I'm always telling spook: A bitch is simply a woman with an opinion.
When I was on the college debate team there was one other female. She never got to drive the van. Until the day she asked to. But it never occurred to anyone to suggest it--the guys all just traded off.
Cap'n Dirty sez, "The wimmen on the Tomater Sloop get to steer all they want. That's how my daughter got to be one of the best skippers on San Francisco Bay."
Until the day she asked to. But it never occurred to anyone to suggest it--the guys all just traded off.
Any chance that you are overly committing to assigning unnecessary importance to what is likely nothing more than an oversight or habit of thought? Hmmmmm?
For instance, my mother, who was an extremely intelligent advocate of women's rights, repeately didn't notice that I had pet hamsters visible in her direct line of sight when she entered my bedroom (when I was about fifteen) until I mentioned it to her.
As Simone de Beauvoir said, there are 2 kinds of people on the earth...there are human beings, and there are women. And when women start acting like human beings, they're often accused of acting like men.
Spook's a friend of ours No knows. Whenever we get in a debate I throw that out. It disarms an opponent pretty well, but of course it's a shameless use of gender to advantage. ;-)
Any chance that you are overly committing to assigning unnecessary importance to what is likely nothing more than an oversight or habit of thought? Hmmmmm?
Who's 'Spook', and why is his own opinion intolerable?
Projecting much? Who said his opinion is intolerable? I happen to know him and didn't see that expressed by Arky or by him...YOU projected that simply because Arky made that remark to him.
It takes some motivation and intelligence to stay married and employed. A woman can be clinically brain dead and still bring a child to term.
And clearly, Conn'd needs neither motivation nor intelligence to show his ass on the internet.
Women initiate most divorces, or have children out of wedlock which results in most of child poverty.
You are out of what little mind you have...women DO NOT initiate most divorces, men who want to move away from the responsibility of having both a family and a mistress to take care of do. And who impregnates a woman, hmmmm? Oh, sorry, you may not be cognizant of how females become "with child" though one would think you could extrapolate from the raising of hamsters how that comes about.
That's just stupid. I can't respect such a worldview very much.
The lines just write themselves. I seriously doubt the world is waiting with bated breath for you to respect anything...I'd run screaming from the room were you to voice your opinions on what or who you respect. And avoid anything you mentioned like the plague.
Women initiate most divorces, or have children out of wedlock which results in most of child poverty.
Women initiate between three quarters and four fifths of all divorces in the US. This is the truth, and I'm sorry if the truth hurts, JAH. Of course, the female amen chorus almost always feels that all these divorces initiated by women are justified while almost all men who initiate divorce are jerks.
I believe most all of them, male and female, are jerks.
Not surprising...I think you feel most everyone besides yourself is a jerk. Your ego knows no bounds.
Now why don't you tell us all how to raise our children. It's always those who aren't married who know best how to be that way and those without children who know best how to raise them.
It is true that women initiate most divorces in the US. It is also probably true that most men and women are jerks, however there is no evidence that jerkitude correlates to divorce. There is also no evidence that intelligence and divorce are correlated. Hence, the shit is in your brains.
I'm not sure how women's insistence on caring for the children that they have while men abandon such responsibilities is evidence of *women* creating a childhood poverty epidemic. That misses the central truth that it takes two to tango, or in this case, procreate.
Maybe you're just pissed off that your mother was so busy advocating for women's rights that she didn't notice your hamsters.
It also takes two biological parents to do a decent job of raising most kids.
Which is my point that jerks don't want to acknowledge. In many single parent households, the kids are effectively acquiring their memes through peer pressure. This is exactly what you don't want but that is what is effectively promoted by single parenthood.
It also takes two biological parents to do a decent job of raising most kids.
I disagree...there are tons of single parents raising responsible, happy, and well-adjusted children out there.
But why I think you should recognize this fact is another question...you evidently aquired the blinders you wear early on and have no intention of ever taking them off to look around at the world and see just how misguided some of your prejudices really are.
FWIW, CBS's Sixty Minutes did a segment yesterday on how black children from single parent homes are internalizing such garbage from rappers as never cooperating with law enforcement officers. Because of this, the homicide case closure rate is dropping into the single digits in many of the dysfunctional family areas. Apparently no LWer really gives a damn about this.
Who would call these children 'responsible, happy, and well-adjusted'? Basically, they're just allowed to run wild by their single caregivers.
Why is it that when a Bush gets arrested for drugs or alcohol you're not bitching about how two parent neo-con parenting makes addicts out of children? But every failure that my daughter has in life will be followed by a whisper "her parents got divorced."
what happens to "personal choices" when we talk about the children of single moms? How about asking "why do those kids find those choices so appealing?" God forbid someone think instead of finding a woman to blame.
Let me say this as nicely as I can, concerned: stuff it up your ass.
We, as a nation, systematically destroyed the black nuclear family over the course of 200 years of slavery. We, as a nation, continue to disenfranchise and marginalize African Americans and we now incentivize single motherhood both monetarily and spiritually by the way in which we provide public assistance funds and our insistance that every pregnancy is a wanted child.
Notice that Con doesn't have much to say about the evils of divorce and single parenthood among the wealthy. Somehow those kids aren't keeping him up shivering in the middle of the night in fear for his life. Why is that?
Because rich kids have other safety nets and supports when their parents split up. It's the poor kids that fall through the cracks and end up leading lives of desperation and crime.
Forgive me for not getting worked up about the long term prospects of Ivy Leaguers (if you can), whether they behave stupidly or not. As Ms. No noted, they usually have more fallback options, not to mention support. They also suffer from dysfunctional families, but not nearly as much.
The residue of anti-family mid-20th century Communist propaganda still infests the social thought processes of the Left. As has been noted, most 'revolutionary movements' have attempted to discredit the conventional family structure. But we're way past the point where doing so serves any positive purpose, revolutionary or not.
Betty, Ms No, Well said for the points you're making. But back to one of Con's subjects - I have to agree that woman have long gotten a pass on their irresponsibility toward the family. During the late 60's til now, they have pretty much been able to abandon husbands and kids citing culteral oppression, career goals, or whatever... And if they happen to WANT the kids, well that's always their option, although not the options of fathers. I'd bet many dads would love to take their kids and leave. But when a man does it, it's considered kidnapping til proven otherwise.
I've watched an episode or two of "Snapped", a true-life series about women who murder their husbands for a variety of reasons. Amazing how often they get away with it.
...on the Oxygen channel, brought to you in part by E Harmony.com.
The idea that the black family was destroyed by slavery has been almost completely rejected by historians at this point.
We know that African kinship structures were rather different than European institutions in the Atlantic World. We also know that those structures varied a great deal within Africa. We know there were attempts at retaining African kinship networks in the Americas. We also know that some segments of the freedmen population invested considerable time, money and energy in re-uniting with their families. So if slave culture tried to destroy the African family it did a pretty shitty job of it.
If we take a cross cultural look at family patterns we find that African Americans in the US are more likely to marry than any other diasporic Africans.
And while the wonderful _Welfare_Warriors_ has chronicled how the welfare system penalized two paretn families who needed financial help, I think it's a little irresponsible to say that single motherhood is rewarded by a public assistance program because no such system exists anymore.
anomie, I think you are trivializing a great deal of struggling and real oppression experienced by women with your "whatever". Also, I support an "abortion for men", that is a man terminating his legal obligations to a child before the tenth week of pregnancy. So yeah, anyway, it's mostly men who are deadbeats, if we are looking at the statistics, so maybe I could take this whole conversation more seriously if we were talking about the real problem instead of pointing to the occassionally irresponsible mother. Or maybe we could look at mothers and say "gosh what makes so few of them total shitfucks as parents? They must be doing something right!"
Gods forbid anyone praised a woman for doing a good job.
Betty, I'm sure I sounded a bit glib, but really I'm quite sympathetic. I have always been an advocate of gender equality and I'm happy that women started breaking out in the 60s. It's been great for men too in some ways. The problem is that men for the most part stayed the same and are still oppressed, having to live up to the American male work ethic.
And you're just being silly about deadbeat dads. Of course there are many more. Men don't get custody. Men can't get away with excuses for being unemployed. Men can't run off and self-actualize for a year or two and then come back and claim parental rights...not without a big arrears. These are solely female perogatives.
Men usually pay support even where joint custody exists.
I had a friend who paid child support to the mother while the child lived with him for years. Honest to goodness. The judge just didn't care.
There was a recent case in Florida where a man proved he wasn't the father, wasn't married to the woman, and still had to pay child support.
In California divorced men have ot pay support for kids that aren't theirs simply because they were married to the mother at the time of birth.
If some of these injustices were perpetrated against women, there would be hell to pay. But with men it gets hardly a notice.
So please understand, I'd like to be suportive of women AND men. And I applaud you on your abortion-for-men stance. Never heard it called that before, but it seems only fair.
How can you in one breath say that slave families weren't destroyed and in the next say that there were active attempts to reunite those un-destroyed families? Nobody risks life and limb and liberty to repair something of no value or which he does not miss to begin with.
If you read even a minimal amount of slave and free black literature from the 19th century it is quite clear that the systematic separation of families and the use of slaves as breeding animals was a major concern among blacks at the time.
There have been a lot of attempts --- most well-meaning --- to re-Africanize American blacks, but the truth is that by the early part of the 19th Century there were very few Africans being brought to the U.S. The vast majority of blacks here were Americans of however many generations descended from Africans.
They were Americans raised in a Christian nation which revolved around a traditional family structure. The first, Christianity, they were encouraged to embrace and the second was used to further degrade and subjugate them.
Did the history of their African culture help to mitigate some of the effects of slavery? Yes. The African family structure of extended and "adopted" members into a sort of clan was able to be expressed on plantations because slaves made families where they found them.
Does this mean that being denied the primary family unit recognized and rewarded in the U.S. did not then adversely affect them? Hardly. Just as unwed mothers and multiple parent households and especially matriarchal households are not societally rewarded today.
Uh, hate to break it to you guys, but the 60's are nearly half a century ago. Don't let's start dancing to the backlash tango.
Anecdotal evidence can be brought up to expand on any point of view, but bizarre court decisions in the particular do not exemplify the norm. I'm not familiar with the custody laws of any state but California at this time but I know that the current trend here is to push for as close to 50/50 custody as possible regardless of the wishes of either parent because it is GOOD FOR THE KID to have both parents in his life.
Have women traditionally had certain advantages when it came to child custody and spousal support? Well, in the last 50 years, yes, they have and in many cases still do. Do men still have advantages in almost every other sphere of life? Yes, so let's not start crying over the oppression of the Anglo-Saxon, Protestant male just yet, it makes him look like a pussy.
When people from privileged positions start crying out about how oppressed they are I have to grit my teeth. Not getting everything you want, just the way you want it every second of your life doesn't make you oppressed. Having to surrender certain powers and privileges because it was unjust for you to hold them isn't oppression. It isn't pleasant and you may not like it, but it's not oppression.
That being said I think it does a disservice to women not to hold them accountable for their actions in the same way that men are held accountable. I have no tolerance for and no patience with that particular school of feminism that insists that women are somehow a kinder gentler more fair and just species. It's crap. It was crap when the Victorians were pushing their Cult of Womanhood and it's crap now and until women can take the harshest parts of equality they won't get the complete rewards of it either.
I'm not especially excercized over the idea that things may swing a bit father in one direction or the other before we get a balance. I don't think it's the end of the world if women get a pass in certain areas for awhile, men got the advantage for thousands of years. The advantages women have and the length of time they've had them are relatively minor in the great scheme of things.
Remember, 100 years ago women couldn't even vote in this country. It's going to take a little while before society sheds its view of woman as victim mentality and that's really only to be expected. It won't last long.
Think about this though: Men today play a far more active and present role in the lives of their children than ever before. We have stay-at-home dads fer Pete's sake. That never would have become a legitimate lifestyle choice for a married couple without all those bra-burning radical feminists.
It's hard for me to respond because I agree with almost everything you say. I also understand the anecdotal nature of some of what I said. But listen. You help make my point in that you are attempting to silence my opinions simply because I am a man, and because you have certain preconceptions about my role, my history, my race, religion....etc, and therefore you perceive any discussion on my part as...whining. (Not mine personally, but as a male making an argument).
As to history and trends...you're right. But justice os personal and lives are destroyed one at a time. Not all men are pillers of stength, means and ability, and even down through history working men were oppressed and abused, underpaid...we still die younger for Pete's sake. So...using your attitude...don't give me that crap about men having all the bennies. Only some men did. I'm glad men are more involved in family these days. I'm glad women have more options. I wish attitudes would adjust all round so that both genders can live the life they want to live.
But I see it's still not manly to point out both sides of an issue.
The Victorian age...yes. I think a quick study would show that most men were poor or working class who owned little or nothing and lived hand to mouth as farmers, laborers, servants, drivers, ditch diggers, sewer cleaners, factory workers, chimney sweeps...
You help make my point in that you are attempting to silence my opinions simply because I am a man,
I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. Nothing in my post even remotely suggests that men don't or can't hold valid opinions about or shouldn't contribute to this discussion. I'm disputing part of what you say not because you're a man but because I disagree with the implied idea that women are an enemy to be vanquished.
and because you have certain preconceptions about my role, my history, my race, religion....etc, and therefore you perceive any discussion on my part as...whining. (Not mine personally, but as a male making an argument).
No, I don't in the least consider discussion to be whining, but to come from a postion of relative power and try to put on the mantle of the oppressed is not discussion. It's melodrama. Injustice is wrong and it doesn't need to be tarted up with hyperbole.
What I was attempting to point out is that I agree with you that women have some unfair advantages within the court system with regard to family law and also with regard to getting the benefit of the doubt in some matters of sexual assault and murder, but DESPITE those things women are not running the world, disenfranchising men right and left and generally emasculating everything in sight.
They do not have the power to do that because half of the voting population is still male. Men have a voice and a vote. Their fate isn't being decided for them without their being able to affect it --- hence the swing toward more equitable custody and property divisions in the wake of divorce. Hence the growing number of successfully prosecuted sexual harrassment and sexual assault cases against women. This shows the steady progression toward real equality that is still occurring in the aftermath of the flashier bits of Sexual Revolution.
Not all men are pillers of stength, means and ability, and even down through history working men were oppressed and abused, underpaid...we still die younger for Pete's sake. So...using your attitude...don't give me that crap about men having all the bennies. Only some men did.
That's a class issue, not a gender issue and while things have always been bad for the poorer classes, men and women alike, even in the poorer classes men could vote and own their own property. No, lower class men didn't have it good, but lower class women had it worse and even upper class women didn't have many of the rights that lower class men had.
How does the ruling class stay in power? By focusing the attention of the lower classes on one another. Poor White against poor Black, rural against urban, men against women. So long as Mr. Middle America can be pointed in the direction of Ms. Middle America and told that she took his job and his kids and his house and his money and all she did to deserve it was be born with a vagina, Mr. Middle America will never look over his shoulder to notice that the boot on his neck isn't a stiletto, but the jodphur of Mr. Corporate Fat Cat.
Ms. No, I think we're talking past each other, and we're both generalizing too much, and it's confusing. I agree with you about everything you say, but I started out talking about family law, so to speak, and not gender issues in general. Having said you agree with me, you then dismissed that in favor of a larger topic wherein we are on the same side if you read me carefully. Believe me I'm as liberal as it gets on the subject.
Not sure where you saw the hyperbole but it was not intended as such. Women are an enemy to be vanquished? Who said that?
I agree I spoke to some class issues, but the human condition can't be so easily compartmentalized as that. You act as if no man, anywhere, ever was oppressed because of gender. Nonsense.
We are quick to blame men for everything while women are too often a willing partner in their oppression. This is true culturally and in single relationships where even many modern women want a man to be a man... Note: Ulgine wants a well read "plumber".
I say we should match our expectations to individuals and not gender stereotypes. Until we do, we're all oppressed!
I don't have much real criticism of women's efforts, including most real world female liberation efforts to reach equality with men. My criticisms have to do with the fact that our children (future generations) somehow seem to get left out in the cold in all this, and this leads to their alienation from society, and I doubt even the most ardent multiculturalist wants this to happen, because that leads to opportunities for certain fundamentalist religions to gain influence, including one in particular that I have been rather critical of.
There's something deeply wrong when LW social experimentation turns out to be a fairly direct path to some of the most repressive social institutions on earth.
AfAm history is what I focused in at one of the pioneering history programs in the country including doing some grad work. I think I've done more than the minimal reading on the topic. You and I are having an interpretive disagreement and if you want to call me a shithead for believing in agency that's fine, but please don't imply that I am ignorant and uninformed.
What I was saying is that there is complexity involved with African kinship patterns that gets glossed over when we say "the black family was destroyed". Well which black families, from which regions, during what period? And what of the sources who were concerned about blacks not being allowed to marry, etc? They were Xtians who were trying to assimilate in order to prove their equality through sameness and hence were invested in emulating European familial structures.
I'm certainly no apologist for slavery or the US's denial of basic human rights to black folks. I mean, I *have* actively worked on research to support reprations claims. But what I'm arguing, what historians have accepted, is that there has been some agency.
I also said that attempts at destroying the family were unsuccessful. We have more than enough evidence to show that people maintained family relationships through the grapevine, letters and pressure on slave owners to hire them out to or near plantations where their family members were. I'm not saying it wasn't brutal, and I'm not saying that there wasn't real, horrible anguish. And some families were destroyed, but I'm saying there are several paintbrushes here, not just one. I am also saying that considerable numbers of people found a way to maintain the cultural traditions and relationships that mattered to them. What I am saying is that white people weren't nearly as successful at controlling black people or destroying their familes as they would have liked to have been--though you are right, it sure wasn't for lack of trying.
10034. anomie Note: Ulgine wants a well read "plumber".
I am tired of fighting with my husband about money. I make more than him. That's all. I have a college degree; he doesn't. If he was a plumber, he'd make more.
I guess I'm just angry that he can make more as a plumber than I can ever make being a homemaker in my 'spare time' outside my paying job. Yeah, I earn more than him, but to hire out myself as child minder, chef, chauffeur, and cleaner is more than I earn in my day job.
And some men expect the standard of that kind of 'mom' they grew up with. Meanwhile, there is a tendency in most modern marriages to hire out man-work such as car repair, lawn mowing, plumbing, house painting, window washing, general home maintenance, etc, which the 'dad' did back when 'mom' was making cookies.
Power and the money, money and the power Minute after minute, hour after hour Everybody's running, but half of them ain't lookin What's goin on in the kitchen, but I don't know what's cookin ~Living in the Gangsta's Paradise
There's a lot of truth what you say about paying for man's work while women are holding down two jobs, one of which doesn't pay.
So the solution is not necessarily a well-read plumber. You want a well-read whatever, who isn't afraid to get his hands dirty doing plumbing, lawns, child minding, cooking, etc.
Plumbers are relatively well paid because its a sort of dirty job compared to most other skilled professions that don't require an advanced degree. And it requires a little muscle, but so does sheetrock installing. I don't see anything to resent in any of that.
Hubby and I have never had money arguments in our nearly 30 yrs of marriage. Of course we're both dirt cheap and refuse to spend on anything so that helps. One time I calculated our savings rate at about 40%.
But the other part of it is that we've both always had our own money. When we were first married, it would've killed me to ask him for money, and now that he's retired, it would kill him to ask me for money.
Instead we've both run our own separate savings and checking accounts and we split the bills. Now that he's retired, I pay more of the big bills he used to pay (taxes, insurance, etc.) but we each pay for some stuff so we are each contributing members to the 'organization'.
This piece was written by my wife's cousin (who managed the White House after Monica-Gate); it's superbly written, imho and I thought it might be of interest here . . . to some.
I had dinner with a couple of lesbians last night (young and sexy, thank you... though they are, obviously, more interested in my girlfriend than in me...) They just bought a house together. They don't seem to be suffering too much from legal oppression. Though of course they don't have access to that Crazy Little Thing Called Marriage. They don't know what they're missing, eh! (personally I don't miss it)
Well, from my experiences in Europe, people seem much more tolerant and accepting than most conservatives in upper New York state. If all people in the US have equal rights, then marriage should be an option . . . even if it makes them miserable.
Sorry, I've been away and didn't see your post in reply. I seriously doubt that I would ever call you a shithead. What you initially said just rubbed me the wrong way for any number of reasons among which low-caffeine count may have been high on the list.
What I heard (not what you said) was that Academia has decided that African Americans have a high percentage of single-parent homes because they're still, 300 years later, more African than American and slavery really didn't have anything to do with it.
Yes, it is a complex issue and there are many different factors, but I'll just have to be the lone hold-out moron flying in the face of academia when I say that I don't buy it that 200 years of breaking up families had little or no affect on today's family structure.
We'll see if my thoughts on this have changed at the end of the semester. AfrAm History 1603-Present starts tomorrow. ;->
Blue jean baby, L.A. lady, seamstress for the band Pretty eyed, pirate smile, you'll marry a music man Ballerina, you must have seen her dancing in the sand And now she's in me, always with me, tiny dancer in my hand
Well....um...okay. It's weird, but I don't suppose it's any more harmful than any other odd philosophical/social thing that parents teach their kids. I mean, kids raised as fruitarians or as militant theists or as naturalists or nudists will all have some adjustment issues when faced with more regularized habits in the general population, but nobody's totally normal anyway.
It still kind of creeps me out a little bit and I do wonder if she would've felt the same about breast-feeding boys for such an extended period of time.
Macromedia Flash and Quicktime media are disgusting. Their stupid developers assume that anyone who wants to view their shit quality video is so enthralled by marginal quality streaming content that they will overlook their unstable ever changing software that is usually not either forward or very backward compatible with itself.
Ms. No- I posted the video because of its fixation factor. We had friends who breast-fed their kids till quite old and they also home-schooled them. The children were not geniuses, by any means, and they actually turned out very maladjusted in terms of social and career pursuits.
(And speaking of the maladjusted--connie is fixating on his ass again!)
That's silly. There are very numerous same-sex couples who stay together till death do them part. Couples of this type will be heavily represented among early same-sex marriages. On the other hand, people who have a history or lifestyle of shorter-term relationships are hardly likely to rush into marriage, it's an awful lot of bother (to say nothing of divorce). Actually, that applies equally well to mixed-sex marriage.
Are heteros more lucid about relationships than homos? I wouldn't like to bet on it.
The irony in the 'until death do them part' part: the fact that at least one of them isn't likely to last much past the age of 40 as a result of his deathstyle, er I mean 'lifestyle'.
concerned, I don't understand you at all. You go off on - oh what was the term- wedlock, that was it.
Out of wedlock births, you seem to have a big problem with that. And it is all the woman's fault, all these out of wedlock births.
Crazy proposal, but how about you think before you stick your dick in a gal? That you might be doing one of those onorous out of wedlock unions?
I am so angry that you seem to blame this all on the women. Both sides like the sex. Women have the offspring, and they need help caring for it. Get a grip.
Don't give it too much thought, Ulgine...he bases his world-view on his personal experience. He's probably met one unmarried guy who is paying child support and listened to his views and adopted them as his own.
Same with the gay partners who die at age 40...he's heard of one and has never met a gay man with a partner in his 50s or 60s so presto, they ALL must kick off in their 40s.
Yes, I have a problem with out of wedlock births. Because they basically screw over our children. And to not realize that this is the case is really just a form of negligent stupidity that women are particularly prone to.
Oh, and those men who created them and refuse to pay support? What about them? Are they not PRONE to it, too?
What you may not understand (or have experience at) is that it takes a man to impregnate a woman...if they are getting impregnated by hypodermic needles, they have enough money to support a child om their own.
I am married (just once, for 14 years so far) with two kids. Can you say the same?
I agree with your assessment of women's intelligence, as expressed in 10082. That is why they have had the good sense not to get involved with you (unless you care to say otherwise, and prove me wrong).
Concerned fails to mention that his "social life with the opposite sex" has to do with furry creatures; so sharing the truth is quite difficult for him.
10050. thoughtful - 8/21/2007 4:44:37 PM Hubby and I have never had money arguments in our nearly 30 yrs of marriage.
Dang, I'd love to be in your situation!
We have our own money, too, but most of mine seems to go for paying for taxes, food, electricity, natural gas, water, sewer, insurance, all childcare including private school tuition, glasses & orthodontia, not to mention clothing on a kid who grows a size every 6 months, any child-related fun such as birthday presents, catfood and vet bills for cats I didn't want, lightbulbs, toilet paper, paper towels, cleaning products, cookware, bed linens, towels.... in other words, all the household furnishings. Hubby seems to think these expenses are a delight to me, and that I like shopping for them.
I'd rather travel. If shopping is to be a pleasure, it will be for music, clothes, cosmetics, and art - not dishwater soap and sponges.
Hubby pays the mortgage like his dad did, fixes the odd toilet leak, and he thinks it's enough. He seems to think he's treating me with a cell phone. He gets to buy sport guns, books, expensive Starbucks coffees, and books that need dusting.
This house is falling down around us. My hubby is not doing his part. I got a bid on the work a 'dad' is supposed to do, and it's over $20K. This is just maintenance work - no improvements.
Honestly, I have been thinking about it for the past 7 years. I think I am going to do the unthinkable, and run away from my child, like so many men do. Hubby will be stuck with the daily expenses and I will get to spend my visitation on something fun like surfing in Hawaii.
Ulgine, have you tried negotiating a joint budget based on a history of past spending?
i.e. make a spreadsheet of annual spending for all items that concern both of you. (negotiating, if necessary, which items are truly joint expenses, which are optional and based on personal preference, etc). The mortgage included of course. Then compare your respective incomes, fix your quotas, and set up a monthly transfer to a joint account to pay for all that stuff.
We did that, my ex and I. It didn't save our marriage -- nothing could -- but it took money off the table as an issue between us.
And why not get a bid for the housekeeping work too? Offer to pay your quota of the $20k men's work, as long as he comes up with the money to pay for the cooking, cleaning, child minding etc...
alistairConnor, bless your heart. This man I'm married to is so much in debt, that it makes sense for me to run off from my kid. He knows nothing, except I should make dinner.
Thank goodness I kept my money separate from him, and I live in a USA state where I don't need his signature.
Ulgine, I never know when you're being serious, but I think abandoned kids always miss their mother...either the one they actually have or the one they wish they had.
My girlfriend's fourteen year old son has never known his father. They divorced when he was a few months old, and he signed away all rights to his son in return for no support payments.
What sort of animal is that?
The lad is OK. I suspect that having no father is preferable to having one, then losing him. On the other hand, he's in conflict with all his male teachers. Not with me. Yet.
Until they hit their teens it's hard to know impact. Bro divorced when his child was a baby and it took a long time, but now both parents work with teachers and doctors, including deciding about a recent surgery which was going to have to be done sooner or later. They consulted with specialists and decided sooner. Grandparents can have an effect too--positive or negative.
WRT joint vs separate accounts, different couples are different. We've had joint for 24 years and for us separating would cause arguments over who was responsible for what, so in our case, if it ain't broke.... In Ulgine's I have no clue. There are two sides to every story, but it may be beyond any fix. As long as children stay priority for both, couples have to do what keeps them sane. However, it wouldn't be fair to put someone so young in the position of choosing between parents. It goes without saying, but if you have to split, the more adult the adults are able to be, the better for the kids.
My uncle relinquished rights to his son and reentered his life as a teen on the recommendation of the boy's psychiatrist. He's still a messed up man, almost 40. So is his dad.
I have some experience with abandonment. Not to cry in my beer, and not to mention that I wouldn't have it any other way, I was orphaned into an extended family. I lived only short periods with my mother, never with my father, and sporadically with my siblings...although I knew them all and generally I knew where they were except for my mother who would disappear for months at a time. So, I lived with my paternal grandparents who really weren't up to it. So I always longed for a real parent - father, mother, didn't matter...just something to normalize my existence.
Anyway, it could have been much worse. I was neglected, but not abused. As it is I don't understand family relationships very well, but I know kids miss their mother. Hang in there, Ulgine.
What's worse, a person who neglect or abandons their child and doesn't know any better, or a person who neglects or abandons their child and knows better? I say the latter, though both are terrible.
So- I can abandon him now, and cause a world of grief unknown.
Or, teach him the world of bitter as I grew up with, and I well know, and hate.
Choices, choices.
Yes, Jenerator, both are wretched.
And I think I've already done enough damage, and it doesn't matter anyway. I called to get my son into a gifted program and my husband told me I did it all wrong.
It's best my son stay here. There are many aunts and uncles left in the family. I only moved back to the midwest so hubby could be with his mom & dad when they died. It has been hell on earth. I loved the inlaws too, and they are gone.
My husband's siblings get together every Wednesday night, but I am not invited. He cooks these big dinners on my stove that I have to clean up, and I don't even get to eat them.
I just don't seem to care about people, anymore. The roar of the ocean is for me.
So, what damage is done? What damage are you doing?
Kids survive lots of shit. He's eligible for a gifted program, so you're doing something right. If he gets plenty of love and sound human values from you, he'll be OK in himself. If you don't want a daughter in law who behaves like you do, then do something about your behaviour.
How's that for two-bit pop psychology? Don't blame me, blame my mother. My little sister is currently president of a parenting association my mother founded forty years ago.
Ulgine, sounds like you really need help. Get yourself someone to talk to.
There are good and bad ways of handling this situation. If it were just yourself you'd be messing up is one thing, but your choice involves your child too. You are in a bad space, but it doesn't have to stay that way. Get someone to talk to who can lend you perspective, help you see the full array of choices that are before you, and help you make the best decision for all. But you definitely need help.
I hear the voice of someone who is so overwhelmed, she can easily make a huge mistake that will provide instant relief yet a lifetime of pain and suffering for all involved.
I'm with them, Ulgine. Pack up your kid and get out --- or better yet, tell your husband it's over and he needs to move out. He's got family there in town and he can stay with them. Your son deserves to keep his home and you weaken your position if you're the one who leaves the residence.
If your husband won't leave or tries to take your son don't get into a shouting match, get the phone and call the cops and tell them that they need to remove him for your and your son's safety.
ASAP sit down with an attorney and document any and all specific dates you can remember when your husband touched you in anger or an intimidating manner and especially any time when he got physical with your son if there are instances of that.
Ulgine, you seem too bright to out of control of your situation. I'm sure you know people are giving you good advice here, and people are willing to help you there, wherever you are.
Ulgine, pardon me for being so blunt but many times when you post here, it "feels" as though you have been drinking. I have nothing to add one way or another except this: if you ARE drinking and making these decisions, far better to remove yourself from the situation and come back to your son when you get sober.
You have gotten good advice Ulgine, as Anomie said, but we're not professionals. I feel for all based on your posts, which is all we can know of the situtation, including your husband, and I hope you all get the help you need asap.
I hear the voice of someone who is so overwhelmed, she can easily make a huge mistake that will provide instant relief yet a lifetime of pain and suffering for all involved.
It's too important to not step carefully here.
thoughtful, thank you, I don't know how I will I do it. Thank you. I will.
Ulgine, that's excellent news. You'll find someone to help you...someone outside the situation with no vested interest one way or the other. You'd be amazed at how much help is available simply by asking.
Best of luck to you on the first step toward improving you and your family's situation.
My group is presenting on sexual morality in my contemporary moral issues class --- Philosphy 101 --- and we've got a short survey we're trying to get respondants for. It takes about two minutes, it's anonymous and the more respondants we have the better. If you have a second to take it I'd really appreciate it and if you know people who might also take it please pass along the link.
We're leaving the survey open until Oct 17th at which point we'll close the survey and compile the data. I'll post results here for anyone who's interested in seeing them.
Actually, I am mortally offended to be classified in the "senior citizens" category. I think that's the first time it's ever happened to me. I feel I am being painted with an excessively broad brush. Or something.
I would require the lift to be stuck for five or six hours. Though most of that would be given up to small talk, and rescue would probably arrive during foreplay.
I would like to solicit opinions from the female members only in the Mote about something here. This is intended to be serious, because I will post only what I believe likely to be factual, but if you have fun with it, it won't bother me very much.
This is about my mother who died in January '07 after battling multiple myeloma for about nine years. She was a very courageous woman and extremely intelligent, probably being in the top 0.1% scholastically through high school that she attended in Ohio (she scored among the top 10 statewide in senior level high school examinations in several subjects.) Therefore I believe that she is about as rationally intelligent as any woman would be that I'm ever likely to encounter.
My question relates to the fact that she had informed me during various occasions during my adult years that her mother (my maternal grandmother) married my grandfather (her high school principal) during or after her senior year because he had impregnated her (they were both single). As a result, he was fired as high school principal at that high school and had to take up other employment. My mother maintained that she 'hated' her father primarily because of his philandering.
Well, I just recently learned from my youngest sister that my maternal grandmother regularly cuckolded my grandfather after they were married and confided her infidelities to my mother (the oldest girl). My mother never told me this while she was alive, but she obviously told my younger female siblings about this.
As far as I know, there was never any physical abuse in any of these relationships, (excepting presumably spanking children) although apparently there was a plot among one or more of my mother siblings when they were teens at one point to have my maternal grandfather murdered because of family conflicts.
I never assumed I had all the relevant facts. But what I am interested in is what are female Motier's opinions about my mother's likely interpretation of all this.
I tend to believe that my mother believed that her mother was 'ruined' by her father and that most, if not all, all men were likely to perpetrate similar on women without consideration. Because of her resulting demonstrated attitude throughout most of my life and knowing what I do about her intelligence, etc. I believe most women are not even this rational or fair minded. Am I wrong about any of this?
As additional evidence, my mother always asserted that she believed that I do not feel normal physical pain. I can attest beyond a shadow of a doubt that I do, but my saying so to her never had any effect that I could discern. I have been merely lucky enough to be free of serious childhood or adult diseases.
I was never alienated from my parents, beyond what is now considered normal, but I became distrustful of their judgment as parents in some regards at about age 12, which might have been misconstrued by them as something else.
It sounds very complicated and beyond getting much gender perspective on. What was your mother and father's relationship like? Did their relationship seem to be affected by her parents' marriage?
The student/principal relationship is such a skewed one to begin with and leaves lots of questions about both partners' views of marital partnership.
I'm not sure what "intelligence" has got to do with all this. In my anecdotal opinion, that tends to increase the propensity to believe things that simply ain't so, despite all contrary evidence. I think that there exists a quality of emotional intelligence, which although not inversely proportional with IQ, is not correlated with it.
I agree with AC. My FIL was extremely intelligent and very accomplished...a real renaissance man...but in many ways he was emotionally immature due to his relationship with his mother which he never got past. So intellectual capacity has little correlation with emotional maturity. I've know other people who were of average intelligence and yet extremely emotionally well balanced.
I'm not sure it has anything to do with male/female issues other than clearly your mother had opportunities to distrust her father which may have led to trust issues with all men...esp if her relationship with your father was one of mistrust too. She may have projected such distrust on you as well. But then again, she had reasons to distrust her mother as well and may easily have had trust issues with all people regardless of gender.
In my family, I believe my father's mother was frequently raped as a young woman. (She came from Poland at 16 and worked for 'rich people in New York' as a house girl...which I'm sure, in those days especially, included a lot more than just dusting and laundry.) I surmise as a result, she had a great deal of anger toward all men which, as fate would have it, she had 3 boys, all of whom have had issues with addictions of one sort or other. (Upon my grandmother's death, my uncle was overheard looking at her in her open coffin and saying, "you can't yell at me anymore, mama.") Their upbringing also led all these boys to have issues with raising their own sons upon whom they were very hard (much like their mother treated them) and all of whom have had addiction issues as well. But they had no issues with loving their daughters (as they had no experience on how to raise daughters and thus were more available). None of the girls have had issues with addiction. Again, these cause/effect links are all just my guesses given my experience of the family history.
All I'm suggesting is that these experiences are often passed down from one generation to the next. It takes a very strong person to emotionally rise above their upbringing and personal experiences and not let it influence how they raise their own family.
I've also seen 'family baggage' do a flip from one generation to the next, eg, grandma was too permissive, so mom is too strict, so child is too permissive and so on.
Concerned, I'm sorry you lost your mother, and it is frustrating when these issues arise and the person you'd be able to learn the most from about them is no longer there to ask. Believe me, the stuff I learned about my brother after he died was absolutely shocking to me and I'd be most interested in talking to him about what I've since learned. Of course, since he never shared it with me when he was alive, there's no reason to think he'd share it with me after death either. Though we continue to live on and as a result our relationship with the deceased continues to change, there's no reason to think their relationship with us has changed at all, since, for them, it stopped upon their death.
Occasionally I imagine conversations with my parents about critical issues I face. Kind of in the vein of "What would Jesus say?" I was very fortunate to have admired both my parents greatly and vice versa.
Concerned, I don't know about your mother but MY mother had a fantasy in her mind about her parents that totally didn't match up to any reality her two sisters witnessed...and my mother insisted that this fantasy upbringing was true, right up to the day she died.
I know just from personal observation that she saw a very different father than the one who actually existed and though I tried to get her to see my perspective, she never would...he was frequently hateful and mean and I think she just blocked that out of her reality. To her, he was sweet and loving and didn't drink...he was "just tired".
So it's hard to know what our parents really experienced or allowed into their memory banks and hard to know if what they shared with us was real or imagined.
If you're younger than 35, you'll probably live long enough to put David Levy's prediction to the test. Levy says that by 2050 we'll be creating robots so lifelike, so imbued with human-seeming intelligence and emotions, as to be nearly indistinguishable from real people. And we'll have sex with these robots. Some of us will even marry them. And it will all be good.
Some people are already there...so imbued with human-seeming intelligence and emotions, as to be nearly indistinguishable from real people. And we'll have sex with these robots. Some of us will even marry them. And it will all be good.
I've seen couples who resemble this futuristic ideal already.
I really appreciate your responses which have given me a reservoir of added perspective with which to evaluate this information.
I'm sure that my mother trusted my father a great deal, but I don't believe that the same could be said regarding authority figures in general, (who tended to be male) during my younger days. She markedly moderated several of the ramifications of this attitude eventually, but not until I was well into my adulthood. I admired some of this on her part as I grew up, but it made me considerably more conflicted for a long time until I could independently reason my way through enough of it so that I was hurting myself less.
Anyway, thanks to everybody for helping me to put some of these things into better perspective.
THEY'RE COMING TO YOUR TOWN Watch out! Here's an outline of Jexter's devious plot. Having taken control of the Mote and San Francisco politics, he may be headed for your home town!! Having problems viewing this e-mail message? Click here.
New DVD shows how homosexual activists took control of the city government in a small Christian resort community
And how they plan to do the same in other small towns
Dear Ralph,
AFA has just released a new DVD, "They're Coming To Your Town." The DVD shows how a small group of homosexual activists took over the city council in Eureka Springs, Arkansas, and began imposing their homosexual agenda on that community.
For 40 years Eureka Springs has been known as a resort town for Christians. Their Passion Play has been attended by hundreds of thousands of Christians. But the activists are now in the process of turning Eureka Springs into a haven for homosexuals.
"They're Coming To Your Town" shows how, using deceitfulness and lies, homosexuals maneuvered themselves into positions of power and then used those positions to promote their agenda.
"They're Coming To Your Town" is an eye-opener to those who are not familiar with how homosexuals use the system to attain their goals. It is a 28-minute DVD, making it perfect for viewing during Sunday School.
I urge you to order the DVD, watch it, then share it with members of your church. Give a copy to your pastor. Click here to view the trailer.
Click here to order "They're Coming To Your Town."
I'm not so sure, concerned. After all, we know humans have very different relationships with their pets than with their spouses...women have reported preferring petting their cat to having sex...people have demonstrated lower blood pressure when performing tasks in front of their pets than in front of their spouse. We also know there are many people who spend more time with their computer than with their spouse.
So if a robot can be made to fulfill a role and perform duties in a caring and nonjudgmental way, I can see where it could lead to more loyalty and satisfaction than dealing with the qwirks and foibles of a real human being. (The last point presuming that the robots are not using microsoft operating systems!)
The basic fallacy of all personal-robotics fantasies, and especially this one, is that it's always going to be exceedingly expensive business. I had a first-year computer science lecture in about 1979 entitled "Artificial intelligence and natural stupidity", which predicted (accurately so far) that this sort of nonsense will never come about, because it's rather futile to try to create a price-competitive consumer robot when the flesh-and-bone version is so damn cheap and abundant.
To put it another way, in 50 years' time, it will still be a whole lot easier to find a sexual partner, or even a lifelong soulmate, than to pay for one of these appliances, for 99% of the population. And for the other 1%, most will find they can find considerably better value for money on the non-electronic market...
Bob, after I read about it, asked about the 5-10 year cost/benefit--still looking good and running well? Figure in the cost of two or three divorces and even the middle class may come out money ahead. The old geezer with the young babe may not be what he appears--they may have been together 30 years already.
Oh well that's alright then... Doctors claim to have found the first compelling evidence that the G spot exists, but say not all women appear to have one.
Ultrasound scans revealed clear anatomical differences between women who said they experienced vaginal orgasms and a group of women who did not. The scans identified a region of thicker tissue where the G spot was rumoured to be lurking, which was not visible in the women who had never had a vaginal orgasm.
Another expert says : Lloyd said only 20% to 25% of women had vaginal orgasms during sex. "It has never been explained why that is the case; it's a mystery. This paper doesn't totally explain it, but it might do partially, and that could help us understand what those numbers are about."
You know what, ladies? A sexy feeling can be had by wearing a 60-inch string of pearls or whatever jewels.
First, take off your shirt & bra.
Loop the necklace once around your neck, then take it over your head for another loop.
Now, the next fun depends on the size of your breasts. Mine are small enough to where I can string the second link of the 60-inch loop ubder my breasts.
Then I can go jiggle them in front of a mirror for lots of fun.
It's not for everybody, but I sure had fun with it
Earrings long enough to brush the shoulders and sides of the neck aren't nearly so visually stimulating but you can do it in public and THAT'S always a thrill as well.
Sad character Skolrood. As time goes by there probably be fewer Skolrood's in the closet, don't you think, David? My sister was married for 30 years to a nice enough guy who was gay but didn't want to admit even to himself at first and then not to anybody else until he finally came out of the closet, divorced my sister and has been living with the same man ever since (6-7 years).
Jex did you catch the story by Bishop Moore's daughter in the NYT Magazine recently? He went through a couple of marriages and several children all the while, gay.
I should hope there'll be fewer Skolrood's. But when it comes to Republicans all bets are off. I think some of them get a special kick out of their own hypocrisy.
Several years ago I saw a similar one in the men's room at National Airport in D.C. There were no paper towel dispensers, and someone had gone to the trouble of making up a small, realistic looking plastic sign and gluing it on the hot air hand dryer. The sign read:
TURN ON BLOWER RUB HANDS LIGHTLY IN WARM AIR DRY HANDS ON PANTS
"Though Ms. Peirce is a forceful, locking-eyes kind of listener and talker, she is also conscientiously private. For all the good will she garnered in gay circles after “Boys Don’t Cry,” Ms. Peirce demurs on the subject of her own sexuality, saying only that her partner is going to be a professor of gender sociology and Turkish literature in California."
I don't get it...who cares what they guy did with his picnic table in his own yard? AND in his own house? Were the complainents standing on a chair looking over into his yard?
If he doesn't care about WTDs or splinters, what business is it of theirs?
"He holds it in his arms. Would you? Wood you? He tells it of its charms. Would you? Wood you? They met as you and I, And they were only friends. But before the story ends... He'll kiss it with a sigh. Wood you? Would you? And if the picnic table were I Would you? Wood you? And would you dare to say, "Let's do the same as they."? I Wood. Would you? And would you dare to say, "Let's do the same as they."? I Wood. Would you?"
He was SO adorable last night...Got pissed that he gave up a run and sulked off into the dugout ...pouting all 1/2 inning...boy needs fatherly attention
- Of the 345 people arrested 290 of them were prostitutes --- not pimps and not johns and not purchasers of child pornography.
- Nobody ever says what age the children are, but saying "children" implies the very young rather than teenagers.
- Nobody ever says how old most of the prostitutes are or whether they might also have been runaways who were coerced or forced into the sex trade when they were "children"
None of this is to say that children -- I prefer the term minors --- should not be rescued from sexual slavery, but I'm bothered that there were so many possible victims arrested compared to so few victimizers. I'm bothered that we're generating greater concern over the very young when it is teens who are at greatest risk, not only because young children are actually safer due to being more highly supervised but also because there is an underlying supposition that somehow teens are less worthy victims in the public eye than pre-teens. I'm further bothered by what looks to be a puffing up of what actually happened --- they arrested 55 rapists and child peddlers in 16 cities nationwide. Is that really a large number?
Look at it this way: in five years, they've recovered 433 children. That's fewer than 100 children a year and yet they keep trotting out the 300,000 kids a year number and saying they're all at risk for organized sexual predation. Now, either there are a LOT of kids that nobody has found yet, or the danger isn't really as widespread as they're making it sound. The law enforcement authorities are either running a woefully inadequate operation or they're feeding hysteria. To be fair it could be both.
And again, how old are the prostitutes they've been arresting? How did most of these women get into prostitution? How many of them are victims who've just managed to be lucky enough to survive past the expiration date of their legal childhood?
Okay, I realize I'm rambling and disorganized here, but does any of this strike a chord with anyone else?
The woman, known as Faiza M, is 32, married to a French national and lives east of Paris. She has lived in France since 2000, speaks good French and has three children born in France. Social services reports said she lived in "total submission" to her husband. Her application for French nationality was rejected in 2005 on the grounds of "insufficient assimilation" into France.
Ugh! I saw that and nearly vomited when I read some of the comments people left.
And what the unholy FUCK makes people think that shooting someone in the head is a justifiable response to being hit on by someone you're not interested in?
Jaysus, to think of all the mouth-breathers I could've been killing with with impunity all these years.
The animation was really impressive and I like the art design. I'm wondering how long the finished product is supposed to be and if there's ever a through-line or if the whole thing is just cut to cut to cut of robot sex.
One of the comments made me laugh out loud: "You see, Timmy, when a robot loves a horse very much...."
Most of the comments were fairly predictable, though. I have to agree that it was probably not appropriate for YouTube, but I'm glad I got to see it.
For those unfamiliar with the Rapex, it is an Òanti-rape condomÓ. Basically, itÕs a condom worn inside of you with barbs that, should any man put his hoo ha where it is not welcome, it will be stuck with barbs removable only by a doctor.
Ah, one of my all-time favorite Joni Mitchell songs -- A Case of You.
I was just thinking that if they were to make a movie of her early life they might cast Scarlett Johansen on looks alone. While Johansen is more conventionally pretty, they have very similar features.
Of cousre they'd have to strap down Johansen's more bodacious "femine wiles" and she doesn't have the voice to do Joni Justice, but they look enough alike to be related.
As you can see HERE, Alex Cox has had a rough time of late. When Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas fell out his hands (and into Terry Gilliam's supremely capable ones) his career took a downward turn. Repo Man remains a cult classic and Sid & Nancy is superb.
