Pharyngula

Posted by: badgersdaughter | March 6, 2010 12:34 PM

Lynna, I'm in favor of "Poison-pen succubus." it gives you the perfect mix of dangerous, impudent, and irresistable.

Posted by: llewelly | March 6, 2010 12:38 PM

I thought prostate stimulation was scheduled for Episode XXXVII?

Or did we already cover that?

Posted by: Ol'Greg | March 6, 2010 12:46 PM

Why does a woman find it natural to have spontaneous sex with a man she cares about in other ways

Probably because she'll be treated badly if she doesn't do this. The consequences make the sex seem worthless in comparison.

:( :( :(

Posted by: JeffreyD | March 6, 2010 12:49 PM

To all who expressed condolences or concern, thank you. Time to retire from PZ's Playhouse and put JeffreyD back in the box he came in. Maybe I will come back new and improved. One can always hope. (smile)

Thanks for all the fish.

Posted by: badgersdaughter | March 6, 2010 12:54 PM

I don't think we want to use "descent" in the same sentence as "penises." Boo.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | March 6, 2010 12:58 PM

LOL at the anthropomorphized penis cartoons. However, I think the "brain" looks surprisingly like one of a pair of balls, and that is closer to the correct metaphor for the male approach to sex, IIRC.

"Lynna, MM, MM, OM"

in my head it sounds like "Lynna, OMNOMNOM" making you sound like a voracious devourer of flawed reasoning. It could work!

PPS for Poison-Penned Succubus does have swagger, but is also a postscript to a postscript, so it would have to be spelled out. I like it because it fits in with the rest of the Pharyngula sisterhood. We, the Committee, will sleep on it.

David M., thank you for your poetry-appreciation comments. I was inspired because today may be the beginning of the end for the snowpack in my yard. The temperature will be well above freezing, and I may even wash my windows just to encourage the first psychotic robin of springtime to bash his sex-addled brains even more than he's already doing. I think he has a crush on me.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | March 6, 2010 12:59 PM

Maybe I will come back new and improved. One can always hope. (smile)

I sincerely hope so. Please be well.

Posted by: jenbphillips | March 6, 2010 1:03 PM

I got sidetracked by the 'nym challenge and the dangling genitalia*, but Lynna's poem did indeed kick ass.

*btw, PZ, thanks ever so much for the 'Not safe for Saturday morning kitchen viewing' link in #4--Criminy, man! Think of the children!

Posted by: Patricia, Ignorant Slut OM | March 6, 2010 1:05 PM

jen @11 - Unfotunately that is exactly what will happen. If my poor gent makes a complimentry remark about my cooking - yeah, but what does penis think, is going to pop into my head.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | March 6, 2010 1:10 PM

I use my meatspace name out of sheer lack of imagination. Oh, and, because it means I can show off with my publications.

If I was particularly proud of anything I probably would want to show off :P But the link I just added has my name in it anyway. I'm actually pretty open about my identity online. I figure there's more safety in people knowing who you are than in being anonymous.

Besides when I was a kid people could never get nicknames to stick.

Posted by: badgersdaughter | March 6, 2010 1:17 PM

This guy's video about God is cute too. Check it out. :)

Posted by: Lynna, OM | March 6, 2010 1:20 PM

badgersdaughter @672 in the previous chapter:

Optimally, it means, "I've always thought this old-fashioned stuff was sweet and touching, and you're the woman I choose to do sweet things for."

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 6, 2010 1:31 PM

erk. there was a whole paragraph with break after this and before the sluttiest and horniest woman :-p

was gonna say that the other side of the coin is that if she does want instant sex, she can't usually have that either.

women's sex lives are ridiculously complicated by the fact that the timing of when and with whom they have sex (or not) determines so much of their non-sex lives. it's pathetic.

Posted by: llewelly | March 6, 2010 1:33 PM

Jadehawk, OM | March 6, 2010 1:26 PM:

even the sluttiest, horniest woman is going to think twice about just fucking some random dude, because said random dude might decide to degrade her afterwards for having had sex with him (what is it with that, anyway?!)

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 6, 2010 1:36 PM

In my opinion, nobody, male or female, is seriously attracted to someone who they believe is totally unworthy of love.

Posted by: llewelly | March 6, 2010 1:41 PM

badgersdaughter | March 6, 2010 12:59 PM:

In my opinion, nobody, male or female, is seriously attracted to someone who they believe is totally unworthy of love.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | March 6, 2010 1:48 PM

I need coffee. I read that as 'probate stimulation' and was wondering what rabbithole we were going down this time.

Posted by: badgersdaughter | March 6, 2010 1:50 PM

I'm not arguing that people don't, in a practical sense, sleep with other people who are, objectively speaking, unworthy of love. I'm saying that the person either finds something lovable about them, or fabricates something, or rationalizes something. Even nice people can let their emotions color reality, and even assholes can be charming and attractive.

But I don't mean to be all negative. Looking for attractiveness and worth in a partner is a good thing. Sometimes we're just not very good at applying it.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | March 6, 2010 1:53 PM

Re PZ's comment @37: Ok, then, will do. Let the hurt feelings be swollen with an influx of new blood. I will send the ultra-sensitive from exmormon.org to the Whine Fest at moonieville. That will be my good deed for the day.

Posted by: blf | March 6, 2010 1:57 PM

So, if your harasser is brought to you by god, and is therefore promulgating idiocy with at least one part of his brain, you cannot bring him up short, nor make fun of him in any way. 'Cause that would be the strong picking on the weak.

Eh? The harasser has The Mightly Mythman on his side. You know, the one who is omni-everything. There's no contest here. The harasser has all the power…

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 6, 2010 2:01 PM

I'm saying that the person either finds something lovable about them, or fabricates something, or rationalizes something

Posted by: Ol'Greg | March 6, 2010 2:08 PM

Ok, then, will do. Let the hurt feelings be swollen with an influx of new blood. I will send the ultra-sensitive from exmormon.org to the Whine Fest at moonieville. That will be my good deed for the day.

If they become so utterly clogged with concern trolls that virtually nothing can be said it could actually become really fun to watch.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | March 6, 2010 2:15 PM

Have you been wondering where to go for Easter? Probably not. But just in case, the mormons know where to send you:

...the Mesa Easter Pageant has grown until it is now the largest annual outdoor Easter pageant in the world, featuring a cast of 450 members and with 400 additional crew members who work backstage, helping with costuming or assisting various other aspects of the production.
     Today, the pageant is an hour-long presentation of the life and miracles of Jesus Christ, presented with spectacular costuming and inspiring dance and music. It is performed a number of times each year during the two weeks before Easter, with performances in both Spanish and English....
     The Mesa Arizona Easter Pageant is presented on the north lawn in front of the Mesa Temple Visitors Center at 525 W. Main in Mesa.

Posted by: negentropyeater | March 6, 2010 2:19 PM

I'm not arguing that people don't, in a practical sense, sleep with other people who are, objectively speaking, unworthy of love. I'm saying that the person either finds something lovable about them, or fabricates something, or rationalizes something.

Can you explain what "worthy of love" means ?

And how do you know if that person is "worthy of love" if you don't know the person and have hardly spoken with him/her ?

For many men and women, an unwritten rule of casual sex is that you shouldn't have too much of a conversation before sex because that could be a turn off.

In that case, the main "lovable" thing is whether that person makes you horny or not.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | March 6, 2010 2:23 PM

Bringing questionable actions by mormons to the attention of the public succeeds in putting a damper them, at least in this one, small case: College drops LDS-targeted recruitment

The president of Northwest College in Powell says he'll keep religion out of his recruitment efforts after a recent mailing to Mormon high school students raised ire on campus.
     Paul Prestwich wrote an e-mail to students and faculty members on Tuesday saying religion won't be the focus of the school's formal recruitment efforts in the future.
     Prestwich, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, sent about 1,000 letters to LDS teens last month touting the benefits that the school and community offer students of that faith. The letters were written on school letterhead and were accompanied by a letter on church letterhead from Fred Hopkin, president of the Mormon church's Cody Wyoming Stake.
     Some students and faculty members were angered by the mailing, saying it inappropriately blurred the separation of church and state....

Posted by: Sastra | March 6, 2010 2:27 PM

Ol'Greg #46 wrote:

If they become so utterly clogged with concern trolls that virtually nothing can be said it could actually become really fun to watch.

No it wouldn't: it would resemble a UU meeting. Or, perhaps, a circle jerk.

"I do not agree with you, but I really respect how you arrived at your position with such thought and sensitivity, and so I would never try to force my views on you, and try to change your mind. I love you just as you are. Hooray for diversity, and this kind of honest, open, respectful discussion!! Okay, now it's your turn."

Posted by: Ol'Greg | March 6, 2010 2:33 PM

Honestly I don't understand the "shut up and fuck me" anyway.

I also don't understand the virgin/whore dichotomy.

I pretty much just avoid anyone who talks about women like they were a species, even a species with subtypes.

Posted by: negentropyeater | March 6, 2010 2:34 PM

No it wouldn't: it would resemble a UU meeting.

What is a UU meeting ?

Posted by: badgersdaughter | March 6, 2010 2:38 PM

Can you explain what "worthy of love" means ?

Well... I was working with the idea that it was different for each person, assuming a baseline state of general functioning mental health. That's probably not satisfactory.

And how do you know if that person is "worthy of love" if you don't know the person and have hardly spoken with him/her ?

I don't think of it as a black or white, like or love, do I want to treat this person as a friend or as a mate, sort of thing. It's possible, I think, to love someone a little based on first impressions or talking to them. They might smell right, match some sort of mental rightness picture, or say the perfect thing at the right time. It might give you something to stand on when contemplating whether to take the next step.

For many men and women, an unwritten rule of casual sex is that you shouldn't have too much of a conversation before sex because that could be a turn off.

In that case, the main "lovable" thing is whether that person makes you horny or not.

Gee, am I ever naive.

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 6, 2010 2:40 PM

If they become so utterly clogged with concern trolls that virtually nothing can be said it could actually become really fun to watch.

You're evil, you two. :-)

"I do not agree with you, but I really respect how you arrived at your position with such thought and sensitivity, and so I would never try to force my views on you, and try to change your mind. I love you just as you are. Hooray for diversity, and this kind of honest, open, respectful discussion!! Okay, now it's your turn."

<facepalm>

Posted by: Ol'Greg | March 6, 2010 2:49 PM

What don't you understand about casual sex, just wanting to have sex, nothing else. And it's not something specific to a man/woman situation, but also man/man, woman/woman, men/women, men/men, women/women, men/woman, women/man ...

No, personally I don't... as in for myself I don't. Intellectually sure. I mean I believe that works for some people. I get that it does.

But it doesn't work for me. At all. I'd just as soon get paid then.

And these days I don't trust that people can just be nice to the people they're involved with and appreciate the time spent together either. But I don't project that onto anyone else.

I just, at this point in my life, think relationships are worthless and sex is overrated.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 6, 2010 2:52 PM

Those people must be extreme extroverts...

also, I'd like to officially thank SC for introducing me to WWHM. that site is making my belly hurt from too much laughing.

Posted by: Sastra | March 6, 2010 2:54 PM

negentropyeater #58 wrote:

What is a UU meeting ?

Unitarian Universalist Meeting.

The UU's are a very liberal modern church which grew out of a gradual historical coming together of a version of Christianity which rejected the Trinity and believed in universal salvation; enlightenment humanism; and transcendentalism.

Problem is, some of those strands, have elements that contradict elements of other strands. So you get a happy group of Armstrong-style Christians, wiccans, new agers, atheists, secular humanists, and "I'm not religious, but I'm spiritual."

It's not always happy. The mystical, transcendentalist branch is trying to infuse God, spirituality, and the "sacred" back into services, and the atheists feel left out. Unless, of course, they're into the circle jerk thing, and don't really give a crap what people believe just as long as they're really nice and don't try to "force" their views on them by the violence inherent in rational argument and persuasion.

You "share" your truth, and allow others their truth. They have an innate horror of debate -- that is, in religion. All paths are valid, there (except the ones that come out and say other paths are wrong.) In politics, they're usually rather fierce liberals, and outspoken environmentalists.

Posted by: Quackalicious | March 6, 2010 2:57 PM

Could someone at least trash the study I posted? Honestly, people.

Josh, I refer you to the Russell Brand video link on www.maloneymedical.com under Quackery (now the bottom of the menu, because it isn’t as important). I think “white boy” might be a future official title.

Gracious, if you are going to try and attack someone, at least get the phobia right. It’s needles, not blood. I don’t care about blood, copper, iron or baking soda flavored (have you had that checked out?) I could do minor surgery just fine, I just get a vasovagal response when someone shoves a needle in my arm and decided it wouldn’t be a great thing for me to do office blood draws. The hospital labs do great, and I don’t need to worry about transport. And thank you very much, I could get blood out of a stone. Intense phobia makes one very, very focused on proper technique.

As to the poor person who does the foot baths that I mention on my site, I have already undergone the “ritual” one of you suggested. Yes, most of the stuff in the tub is the electrodes, but the color changes all the time, and when I had her switching the current I could definitely feel the shift. Putting your feet in with live electricity is pretty interesting. I don’t have any data on foot bath benefits, but she does great massage and the foot baths are a side thing for her.

I also list a whole range of other people, primarily as a public service to people looking for someone who does a specific therapy. Why pick on the foot bath person?

Some people pay for bacon, some people pay for foot baths, some people waste their money on snowmobiles. Why do you all care so much? Is it foot bath envy? Admit it.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | March 6, 2010 3:02 PM

Those people must be extreme extroverts...

You would think, but I'm pretty extroverted actually. I could *talk* to people all damned day. Well actually I usually do.

Posted by: nixscripter | March 6, 2010 3:02 PM

Am I the only one to notice this in the video? Starting after the working relationship and heading into the bar, the dialogue was something like:

Heart and mind will pipe in here, and remind you of your girlfriend at home, and say it would be wrong to do anything with someone else.

Penis will philosophically question the basis of right and wrong, and suggest you go ahead anyway.

I was just struck that this is what the evil moral relativistic atheists are accused of doing.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 6, 2010 3:04 PM

Why don't you just wank?

:-/

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 6, 2010 3:08 PM

You would think, but I'm pretty extroverted actually. I could *talk* to people all damned day. Well actually I usually do.

maybe it's because of our culture's obsession with looks: a lot of people do try to keep their bodies presentable, but far fewer feel the need to do the same to their brains.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 6, 2010 3:12 PM

I guess I'm too crazy to be the kind of person you want for casual sex. I take it too seriously. Fair warning.

Posted by: ~Pharyngulette~ | March 6, 2010 3:14 PM

a lot of people do try to keep their bodies presentable, but far fewer feel the need to do the same to their brains.

Heh. Love this! I want it on a bumpersticker.

This is how those OMs happen, people.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | March 6, 2010 3:16 PM

Non-sexy left-over from last thread, Sven @#664:

AE, wait, you're a biologist, right? (I mean, of sorts...plants and shit? wasn't it?) and you...enjoy DF Wallace?

Yes, and yes. I know of two others: My wife is a biologist and DFW fan also...also, I know another botanist, who at least likes IJ. My heart broke a little when DFW entered the Great Concavity.

Posted by: Sastra | March 6, 2010 3:25 PM

Quackalicious #70 wrote:

Some people pay for bacon, some people pay for foot baths, some people waste their money on snowmobiles. Why do you all care so much?

I don't understand this question. Are you saying that you yourself don't care whether or not any of the alternative modalities really work, as long as they provide a placebo effect, and someone goes away happy? They feel better, and they thank you, personally. So it ought to not matter to anyone else.

It sounds to me like you're advocating fraud, as long as it isn't caught. As others have pointed out, it does matter, and it does get caught, and it does cause harm. If a pharmaceutical company deliberately cut corners, cheated, and put out a medicine they knew was a placebo -- would they get a free pass from you, if they have a nice ad campaign which convinces people they feel sooo much better, just like in the commercials?

You're in an odd territory here...

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 6, 2010 3:30 PM

Great summation Sastra. Not that Qvack will understand it. Qwack, the folks spinning the fables you attempt to treat your victims with need to get serious. If there is real energies being sensed there, prove it. Get the sensing reproducible enough you could publish in say Science or Nature. A Nobel Prize would be waiting with your name on it if you could prove that. But, with appropriate double blind studies (which have been run, but you ignore), there is no energy you are "seeing". Just fraud and fakery. Which is why we condemn your "profession".

Posted by: Caine | March 6, 2010 3:31 PM

Jadehawk @ 27:

Explains the "mysterious" rise in women's libidos when they're on foreign vacations ;-)

Yep. Otherwise known as the zipless fuck.

Posted by: Sastra | March 6, 2010 3:35 PM

@ Quackalicious --

While you're here (assuming you still are), I wonder if you could answer a question I've wanted to ask you:

What are your feelings concerning Andreas Moritz: is he a cancer quack? Do you condemn his methods, and his "theories" on the causes of, and cures for, cancer?

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 6, 2010 3:44 PM

Argh, I forgot to reply to the big quackalicious quote. Sastra already did most of that in the meantime...

Yes, most of the stuff in the tub is the electrodes, but the color changes all the time,

So what?

and when I had her switching the current I could definitely feel the shift.

What shift? The current?

Putting your feet in with live electricity is pretty interesting.

Doesn't surprise me at all.

I don’t have any data on foot bath benefits,

Translation: I don't even care if it works or not!

but she does great massage and the foot baths are a side thing for her.

So maybe the foot baths are just another form of massage?

I also list a whole range of other people, primarily as a public service to people looking for someone who does a specific therapy. Why pick on the foot bath person?

Some people pay for bacon, some people pay for foot baths, some people waste their money on snowmobiles. Why do you all care so much? Is it foot bath envy?

Because you are trying to get people to fall for a fraudster.

If you can't understand why that is evil, I can't help you, you'll need a psychiatrist.

it's a different sort of fun, with a hefty dose of adrenaline mixed into it...

Ah, that I can understand. I pretty much lack the desire for adventure, but I think I understand the basics of it. :-)

plus, men smell and taste good.

That makes sense.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | March 6, 2010 3:44 PM

Quack... I'm not a scientist. I'm not in the medical field either. I work with computers and I write music. That being said the first thing that jumps out about your study is that the claim is that reiki improves the patients actual illness but the self reporting tests for the patient's perception of their illness and these are not the same.

It is nice that it makes them feel like they are better, but honestly if some one feels like they are better and they are not better then they may even worsen their illness in the long run by overestimating what they can deal with.

The real test for reiki as a real medical treatment would have to be able to show an actual improvement in the illness and not just the patient's state of perceived well being.

Think about it. If it wasn't reiki, but was something else that comforted the patient it might also cause them to feel better. But if the illness is not improved by it then it is nice, but no different maybe then having your friends stop by, or having a therapy dog come through.

Posted by: negentropyeater | March 6, 2010 3:47 PM

I'm trying to find an explanation for a phenomenon that I can't reproduce in my own mind.

Person A feels horny.
Person B feels horny.
Both persons find it more satisfying to have sex with another person than to wank alone.
Person A and B meet in cyberspace, or via a pink phone line, or in a club, or bar, or sex club, or sauna, or in a cruising area.
Person A and B think they satisfy the criterias each one has in his/her mind.
Person A and B have sex together at one's home, or in a sex club, or sauna, or in the woods, or in the car.
Person A and B leave each other after having had a good time.
They never meet or hear from each other again.

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 6, 2010 3:48 PM

true that. it's a pretty damn small intersection though

*officially robs Jadehawk of the right to complain*

Posted by: Sili | March 6, 2010 3:50 PM

I'm married now

Posted by: iambilly | March 6, 2010 3:53 PM

Lynna, OM @ 48

Have you been wondering where to go for Easter? Probably not. But just in case, the mormons know where to send you:

And I will be staying as far away* from there (specifically Scranton, PA) as possible.

-----

"Casual Sex"? Like, cut-offs and Birkenstocks? Hawaiian shirt and chinos? Jeans and flannel shirt? I'm confused.

-----

Love, Lust, and Lagrangians all originate from the same organ.

But what about LaRouchians?

-----

* By 'as far away as possible' I do not, necessarily, mean distance. I have been living near Scranton (and working in Scranton) for almost 19 years and it is as far away as possible from just about anywhere.

Posted by: IndieGirl | March 6, 2010 3:56 PM

I have been a lurker on Pharyngula for almost 2 years now. I like reading the comments as much as I like reading PZ's post. The recent train wreck and pearl clutching going on at Intersection led me to comment here.
Janine, 'Tis, Wowbagger,Knockgoats and all the rest of regulars here - please, keep doing all the good work. I have learnt a lot from all of you. You make my evenings fun, especially reading this never ending thread and its evolving discussion. The only other time I have been glued to Pharyngula as much, is when the trolls come by and I sit back to watch with glee the way you tear them apart (I am in awe of your knowledge and patience).
Thank you.

And PZ, thank you for providing us readers with a platform where content matters more than style, where honest discussion leads to better understanding.

Posted by: Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM | March 6, 2010 3:57 PM

At the time that Miss Cleo's scam went down, I had a roommate who was from Jamaica. She said that Miss Cleo's accent was so very fake, that it was laughable.

Posted by: Caine | March 6, 2010 3:59 PM

Janine, the only reason I remembered the name "Miss Cleo" at all was the skits Debra Wilson did of her on MadTV.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | March 6, 2010 4:04 PM

is that reiki improves the patients actual illness

Is it a claim or just an implication too. That's another problem with alt med. Because if it is a claim then it can fail, but if it is an implication then it is preying on people's ignorance.

You see you can back off and say "I never said it would cure the illness" and thus stay away from lawsuits.

But you did drain some one out of money for being a sucker who wanted to believe that it would actually cure them.

At that point it becomes dangerous. Did it really cure them? Did their belief that it would keep them from seeking real treatment that shows an actual testable effect on their illness?

How much money are we talking about? Did they need that money?

Yes to some extent the patient has to be willing to discriminate.

But in order to keep people from making the mistake of doing fun pleasant things and mistaking them for actual medicine then information available has to be accurate. It has to be free of ambiguous implications.

But then the alt med practitioner has to make a real stance. Does reiki actually heal illness? Or is it just a feel good thing?

But then that would cut into profits. So you see people trying to keep patients ignorant so that they can profit from that ambiguity.

But then of course it's the patient's fault for not knowing better when push comes to shove, right?

You see, that is just dirty and nasty.

Keep people ignorant but blame them for the consequences of ignorance? Where have I seen that strategy before....?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | March 6, 2010 4:06 PM

When I was an undergraduate I met a young woman who found me physically attractive. We went out a couple of times and then became very sexually involved with each other. After six months I considered our relationship and realized it was purely sexual. I knew little about this woman and much of what I did know I didn't like. What's more I didn't even find her very sexually attractive. So I broke off the relationship. My penis hated me for months.

They had one thing in common,
They were good in bed.
She'd say, "Faster, faster,
The lights are turning red."

-Don Henly & Joe Walsh, "Life In the Fast Lane"

When I met my wife* I made sure I knew her mentally and emotionally before we had sex.

*Someday I'll tell the story about that. It's mildly funny.

Posted by: DominEditrix | March 6, 2010 4:08 PM

This talk of "love", I think, misuses the word. It isn't "love" when one has just met, or even "lovableness"; it's the absence of immediate dislike/loathing/negativity. If, half-an-hour into a conversation, the otherwise physically attractive, pheromone-positive potential partner suddenly reveals that s/he is a fan of Glenn Beck, or a YEC or a Birther - well, that would negate any interest on my part, be said person the embodiment of physical perfection or not.

I suspect that, as women are frequently socialised to believe that pure lust is a Bad Thing, that women don't feel it, that a shut-up-and-fuck attitude on their part indicates they've been brainwashed by the patriarchy, etc., there tends to be a greater need to rationalise some sort of emotional connection.

[When a friend of mine went to medical school, there was actually a professor who declared that women only engage in sex for two reasons: They wish to procreate with their husbands or they are forced. A voice rang out from the rear of the auditorium: 'What if she's just really horny?' The professor expressed shock and outrage at such obscenity. Some hours later, the students expressed shock and outrage to the administration, who had the good sense to remove the old goat from the classroom.]

IMNSHO, whilst the madonna/whore dichotomy made a certain amount of sense in Ye Olden Days, when living was hard, birth control non-existent and providing a future for Someone Else's Genes counterproductive, its modern mutation has more to do with the fragility of the male ego and fear of comparisons. That OMFSM! [or, more likely, OMG!], what if her previous lover(s) were bigger, better, more satisfying, etc. is an insecurity-based aversion to a woman with some experience. [And, come on - even a burger-flipper at McDonald's needs some training and experience to be good at the job. Why do we pretend that sex is any different? Two nervous virgins on a wedding night strikes me as a truly bad way to start a physical relationship.]

And don't those fratboys grasp that, should they diss their female companions-in-lust, we ladies can get some revenge on the grapevine? Does any male really want to discover that his name is written on the women's restroom wall, with the caveat 'Don't bother - his dick is 2" long and limp!'? I suspect not.

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 6, 2010 4:11 PM

also, I'd like to officially thank SC for introducing me to WWHM. that site is making my belly hurt from too much laughing.

I feel more like crying over the amounts and depths of stupidity in the universe... I had to stop reading after 3 posts or so. :-)

But a skim-read reveals that many of them are about sex and relationships, so it's probably best if I don't read them anyway.

Do it sometime. You'll learn something. I already have.

But what about LaRouchians?

...How... offturning...

I had composed a long comment about sex and the problems with the various assumptions often attached to it, but don't have it in me to post it. Relationships. Hard.

It would certainly be interesting.

Posted by: badgersdaughter | March 6, 2010 4:16 PM

...there was actually a professor who declared that women only engage in sex for two reasons: They wish to procreate with their husbands or they are forced.

He had it on the best authority. That's what his wife told him.

Posted by: SC OM | March 6, 2010 4:18 PM

When I met my wife* I made sure I knew her mentally and emotionally before we had sex.

Damn. So out comes part of my unposted comment:

I've never understood this business about supposedly wrecking a budding relationship by having sex "too soon." If you feel like you had sex with someone before getting to know him or her well enough, OK - get to know the person better. If you're feeling confused about what sex meant to someone, ask. I know a lot of relationships that started as one-night stands or something close and turned into something long-term.

***

I'm not sure what your other story was meant to illustrate, 'Tis. (By the way, did you get my email?) It turned out that you weren't compatible for anything other than a sexual relationship. So what does that mean with regard to the sex?

***

Totally want to hear the story of your meeting. :)

Posted by: Sastra | March 6, 2010 4:19 PM

Ol' Greg #112 wrote:

But then the alt med practitioner has to make a real stance. Does reiki actually heal illness? Or is it just a feel good thing?

Silly; reiki doesn't "heal illness" -- it allows the body to heal itself!

That's one of the standard claims of alt med. If it wasn't for pollution, 'bad' food, and/or negative thoughts, the body would never get sick. The immune system in its natural state cannot fail to keep out the wickedness of the world. We're the ones who have weakened the all-powerful Natural Immune System with our bad choices, and our culture. Reiki (or chiropractry or homeopathy or woo-flavor-of-the-moment) simply gently corrects the flow of vital essence to where it was before, when we felt okay. Your own body does all the work.

It's like when a faith healer says it's not him who cures people, it's the power of God. He's just a humble conduit.

Posted by: DominEditrix | March 6, 2010 4:23 PM

Janine @108: For years, I'd respond to TV adverts for telephone psychics with 'if they were really psychic, they'd call me'.

Then, one day, Miss Cleo did. [Well, OK, a tape of Miss Cleo did, offering me a reading if I'd just press 1.] I was so grateful when the Do Not Call list came into existence.

One of my neighbours is seriously into woo; she went to a psychic on the advice of a friend and was amazed and convinced by the psychic's knowing her daughter's Chinese name. Um, thought I, your frakking friend went to this woman first and just may have mentioned that cute little baby called Wei-wei, followed, perhaps, by the psychic suggesting that she "saw" something involving the mother of Chinese baby...

Another of my friends has a sister into reiki. Hell, if I want my qi played with, I'll follow the Marjanović path and do it myself.

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 6, 2010 4:23 PM

In a turn of fair play, the BBC has blocked it in my country.

Mine, too.

oh, shaddup :-p

I'll ponder the exact meaning of this for far too long.

Posted by: Walton, Extra Special Dumpling of Awesome | March 6, 2010 4:25 PM

Completely off-topic:

I'm glad I'm not the only person who finds sports fans entirely incomprehensible.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | March 6, 2010 4:27 PM

SC,

My point in the story about the first woman was that some men will walk away from freely offered sex because that's not enough to sustain a relationship. The first woman was a sex object and I hate people who objectify others. Yes, that means I was not happy with myself when I realized the first woman was only a sex object.

As for the rest of the story, I wanted to know my possibly prospective wife as a person. After I was sure I knew her reasonably well as a person, then I was willing to have sex with her. The first time we had sex we made love, we didn't fuck.

Posted by: SC OM | March 6, 2010 4:29 PM

Well, hell. Here's another chunk:

It seems to me that people make a lot of assumptions about about others' decision to have sex, especially since there are these cultural tropes out there. So if a woman has sex with a man quickly (whatever that may mean to him), he might assume she isn't interested in a relationship with him (otherwise she'd be following the "rules"), has sex with every man she meets, is interested in a relationship and is using sex to push things to the next level, wants a relationship and is therefore "giving herself" to him, has low self esteem, etc. But none of these need apply, of course. She could just find him attractive and want to have sex, be interested in a relationship and want to have sex, be interested in a relationship and want to be physically intimate as a way of getting to know him better, be impulsive, and so on.

People are from all different backgrounds and have very different ideas about what sex means in different contexts, as this thread has shown. I think people should stop making assumptions and, if they're interested in pursuing a relationship with someone, go for it; if not, not.

(I think there's also a problem with women making assumptions about why a man hasn't tried to have sex, also based on weird cultural ideas that people should work to push aside.)

Huh. I feel like I posted something similar a while ago....

Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com | March 6, 2010 4:33 PM

What Would Penis Do?

Don't we already know what a penis does?

Posted by: Josh, Official SpokesGay | March 6, 2010 4:35 PM

Please say that I was not the only one who thought of this. But I am afraid that implies very nasty things about my fake husband.

Well, I was shocked to discover that I have an official. . . mmmm. . ."mouthpiece." Don't go gettin' too big for your britches, 'Tis. And no, I'm not paying you either. The expense of upkeep for my Pharyngula Wives is considerable, and I'm afraid I can't spare a shilling for you.

Posted by: badgersdaughter | March 6, 2010 4:38 PM

People are from all different backgrounds and have very different ideas about what sex means in different contexts, as this thread has shown. I think people should stop making assumptions and, if they're interested in pursuing a relationship with someone, go for it; if not, not.

Of course, very wise. Thanks.

Posted by: ecorona | March 6, 2010 4:39 PM

can I just say, again, that it makes me absotively crazy when people so casually interchange "girl" and "woman"

Posted by: Paul W. | March 6, 2010 4:41 PM

Jadehawk:

But such a person is pathological and the exception, right?

hopefully. but really I just used that as the most blatant and crass example. less pathological examples exist, too. unless mere physical attraction without any attraction to the personality already falls into "lovable" for you. moments of "just shut up and fuck me" happen, for women as well as men.

So right.

As a non-mysogynistic (I think) mostly-straight man who does like casual sex, I get very annoyed with two classes of people:

1. People (often women) who assume that being able to enjoy casual sex is indicative of a pathology, and

2. Mysogynistic men who make it a bad idea for women to indulge in casual sex with guys they don't know well---either because the particular guy will turn out to be more or less misogynistic and fuck her over, or because he'll be careless and indiscreet about his good fortune, which will be bad for her rep because of the ambient misogyny level.

A lot of men who go to prostitutes do it not because they want to dominate and humilate a woman into doing something she shouldn't do without love, but because they want to have sex, and don't want the usual baggage around sex---in particular, continually being judged in a variety of ways, and often found wanting.

They don't want to be judged physically unattractive, and rejected. They don't want to be judged an unpromising mate, and therefore an inappropriate sex partner. And they don't want to deal with a lot of women's hangups about sex and particular sex acts.

A fair fraction of men (not me) who go to prostitutes are reasonable-looking, hard-working guys with no particular wealth or status, and no immediate prospect of a great relationship with a fulfilling sex life. Maybe they're single, or maybe they're married and not getting enough, or maybe they get enough, but just want to get blown without a big hassle and it being a huge favor rather than a fun thing all around. (Some women resent even being asked and think a guy's "selfish" if he wants that, or if wants it more than very occasionally.)

Some are good-looking guys with fine careers who'd be "a good catch," but don't want to lead women on---they don't want to pretend that a woman is a wife prospect just to get laid, or go unlaid. Many women don't want to date anybody who isn't a husband prospect, and don't want to have sex with anybody they're not "serious about." A lot of guys don't think they should have to accept that those are the rules, made by women, regulating their sex lives. So they look elsewhere.

I've never gone to prostitutes myself, partly because I'm phobic about STD's and partly because it's a nasty industry. (Largely because it's criminal. I don't think it should be; it should be legal, well-regulated, and taxed.)

I have had a fair bit of casual sex and liked it a lot, but I've been involved in long-term relationships for most of my adult life, and dealt with the monogamy thing.

When I wasn't in an LTR I haven't always liked "the rules"---or liked being suspected of misogyny for not liking them, and thinking casual sex is a reasonable option.

Why on earth should guys like being judged sexually unacceptable when, say, they're stressed out because their career's going badly? That's always bothered me---it amounts to kicking men right in the gonads when they're down---although I've oftener been on the lucky end of that, with some other poor schmuck going unlaid, compounding his misery about his situation.

I've often felt uncomfortable hearing women talk about those nasty shallow men and their desire for casual sex, in the very same conversation in which they run various men down as romantically and therefore sexually unacceptable, complaining about the shortage of worthy men, and how offensive it is for the other men to express a desire to have sex with them.

Think about it. If you sit around talking about how this guy's ugly, that guy's stupid, this other guys a nerd, and three other guys are just boring, or losers career-wise, or insecure, or whatever... and then you turn around and complain about the shortage of men who meet your standards, how are all the rejected men supposed to feel?

Are they supposed to just accept that they should be celibate because they're ugly, or geeky, or not as smart as you, or not especially talented at anything you appreciate, or don't make enough money, or are rightly insecure because you're so picky about so many things? Are they supposed to just accept that they should lead mostly sexless lives, because they're unworthy of being "serious" about? And are they supposed to be sympathetic when you complain about not getting laid because all the good men are taken or gay, and nobody worthy treats you in the fashion to which you wish to become accustomed?

Many women's standards are often pretty hard on guys, and viciously judgmental and self-righteous about it.

I'm not saying that men's standards don't suck, too. They often do, and that's a big part of a complicated problem. Too many men care too much about physical beauty, and not enough about anything else. And they care about physical beauty as a status symbol, even when it's not critical to whether they'd actually want to have sex with a woman. They look for women who are trophies, and value other things less, even if they'd be happier fucking the non-babe than sitting around not getting laid and bragging about the babe they bagged last year. Ick.

(Sadly, many women buy into that, too. Women judge men by the physical attractiveness of the women they attract, far more than men or women judge women by the attractiveness of their male partners. That leads to a positive feedback of mating success or failure, which is nasty.)

I'm mostly straight myself, but one of the things I've always identified with and envied about the gay community is the fairly widespread acceptance of casual sex. (Not that it hasn't caused problems; some of my friends are dead because of HIV.)

If you look at the substantial fraction of gay dudes who engage in fairly frequent casual sex, I think that indicates that the men-wanting-casual-sex thing isn't mostly a matter of misogyny and wanting to dominate women. It's just men being men, and when you're talking about men who are attracted to men, zooom, you're off!

I'm really glad that when I lived in a mostly gay neighborhood, I was mostly straight and in an LTR with a woman. Otherwise, I'd likely have been one of those guys, like one of my housemates, going off to the bathhouse or a gay bar several nights a week and having sex with scores of people every year, some years. (When I wasn't in a monogomous LTR.) And if I'd been a little harder up for money, I might have been having sex for money (I got offers, and I really don't see anything wrong with it). And I'd likely be dead now, like that housemate, because that was right when HIV was rampant and people didn't realize what was going on yet.

One thing that saddens me is that liberals seem to have lost the sexual revolution. Conservative Christians have more sex, mainly because they're usually married. (They marry earlier, and often either stay married longer, or remarry sooner.)

Liberals are often single, and mostly not getting laid, because they mostly don't have sex outside of an LTR, even though they don't think there's anything basically wrong with it.

We need to do something about that.

Sex is important, and we, as a society, should be having more of it. We liberals and lefties should at least be keeping up with the Joneses---the fundies down the street.

I propose that we establish a Sexual Security Administration, and guarantee a certain baseline standard of sex availability for everyone, regardless of race, sex, income level, or physical disability (e.g., not being hawt).

Everyone who wants to work should be able to find a job. And everyone who wants sex should be able to find sex, too. Hmmm... maybe we can kill two birds with one stone... :-)

*dons flak jacket*

Posted by: Lynna, OM | March 6, 2010 4:45 PM

Oh, look, WWHM has a reference to my home state on the front page:

...some of the personal ads you are about to read may cause you to gag, retch, heave, or relieve the contents of your stomach into a bag of Tostitos. Your vagina may twitch, shake, shudder, or perhaps rappel down your leg, grab a protein bar, and move to Idaho to start a new life harvesting potatoes.

Posted by: Walton, Extra Special Dumpling of Awesome | March 6, 2010 4:49 PM

Think about it. If you sit around talking about how this guy's ugly, that guy's stupid, this other guys a nerd, and three other guys are just boring, or losers career-wise, or insecure, or whatever... and then you turn around and complain about the shortage of men who meet your standards, how are all the rejected men supposed to feel?

Are they supposed to just accept that they should be celibate because they're ugly, or geeky, or not as smart as you, or not especially talented at anything you appreciate, or don't make enough money, or are rightly insecure because you're so picky about so many things? Are they supposed to just accept that they should lead mostly sexless lives, because they're unworthy of being "serious" about? And are they supposed to be sympathetic when you complain about not getting laid because all the good men are taken or gay, and nobody worthy treats you in the fashion to which you wish to become accustomed?

Many women's standards are often pretty hard on guys, and viciously judgmental and self-righteous about it.

Quoted for truth.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | March 6, 2010 4:49 PM

SC, I'm not ignoring you. I've got to make supper now and then I'll have to spend some time composing a reply to your questions and comments.

Posted by: badgersdaughter | March 6, 2010 4:53 PM

Rejected. Pish-posh. I have only a few not-negotiable criteria for men these days. I want a man to be honorable, more intelligent than me, practical, healthy, and loving. What he looks like doesn't so much matter. I just really want him to be him.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | March 6, 2010 4:58 PM

Also Paul, I've been rejected too.

Sword cuts both ways, dude.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 6, 2010 4:59 PM

Paul W, what you describe seems to be significantly worse in the U.S. than in Europe (though it can be a problem there, too). certainly the aversion to casual sex is greater there, for all sorts of reasons (at the top of that list would be toxic belief that sex is an inherently misogynist game in which the women goal-tend and the men try to score). Certainly for me, casual sex in he U.S. has completely stopped being appealing, because watching some guy try to "trick" me into fucking him is off-putting.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | March 6, 2010 5:02 PM

Are they supposed to just accept that they should be celibate because they're ugly

Would you fuck absolutely any woman, regardless of her looks, intelligence, or whether you even liked her?

Posted by: SC OM | March 6, 2010 5:03 PM

that's the second time Walton's posted the soccer-fan sketch too. Perhaps teh Thread is entering a time warp of some kind...

I'm not sure if I have or if I just think I have, though. Of course, there's bound to be some repetition.

I want a man to be...more intelligent than me,

Well, in my case that's not possible.*

Or desirable.

*:P

Posted by: Walton, Extra Special Dumpling of Awesome | March 6, 2010 5:06 PM

Paul W, what you describe seems to be significantly worse in the U.S. than in Europe (though it can be a problem there, too).

I'm British and have never lived in the US. Yet the part of Paul W's post I quoted at #148 is entirely familiar to my own experience (though I don't necessarily agree with the rest of his post).

Posted by: badgersdaughter | March 6, 2010 5:11 PM

SC, I am sure it would be difficult for you to find a man more intelligent than you. :) I'm just sick and tired and reactionary from trying to bring up babies who want me to take care of all their emotional, physical, and sexual needs without giving me very much in return. And to me the sexiest guy is one who has fun teaching me something, quite as if he thinks I'm worth bringing into his mind and heart. (And no, it's not a Daddy thing. My father didn't teach, he dictated. He was arrogant and contemptuous and belittled me for wanting to go into his line of work.)

Posted by: Caine | March 6, 2010 5:14 PM

Paul W. @ 144:

Many women's standards are often pretty hard on guys, and viciously judgmental and self-righteous about it.

I'm not saying that men's standards don't suck, too.

I agree and I'm on the distaff side. Perhaps it's simply a product of the time I came of age, ('70s) but I had lots of casual sex (with both men and women) and enjoyed all of my various partners. Attitudes have changed so much since then though, I think it's damn near impossible to have joie de vivre sex life when it comes to casual sex.

Posted by: SC OM | March 6, 2010 5:16 PM

OK, so Paul W.'s post seem largely a cultural critique with an emphasis on the pernicious effects on women. Mine was a cultural critique with an emphasis on the pernicious effects on men, so who am I to judge? However, it really is important to look at which sex benefits and which suffers in broad terms from this culture, especially if we're going to talk about sex work.

SC, I am sure it would be difficult for you to find a man more intelligent than you. :)

Ahem. I think I said impossible.

Posted by: SC OM | March 6, 2010 5:20 PM

Oh, no! First time I've hit "Submit" accidentally! Please add an emoticon to (and replace "im-" with "not" in) my last comment.

Posted by: SC OM | March 6, 2010 5:25 PM

And to me the sexiest guy is one who has fun teaching me something, quite as if he thinks I'm worth bringing into his mind and heart.

Sure. Do you also want a guy who thinks he can learn from you? If not, why not?

Posted by: blf | March 6, 2010 5:27 PM

I'm going to … bloody stop calling both ends of the stick the short end.

You need a different stick then.

Posted by: badgersdaughter | March 6, 2010 5:34 PM

Sure. Do you also want a guy who thinks he can learn from you? If not, why not?

Of course I want a guy who thinks he can learn from me. I rather like the description of Chaucer's clerk: Of studie took he moost cure and moost heede./ Noght o word spak he moore than was neede,/ And that was seyd in forme and reverence,/And short and quyk, and ful of hy sentence;/ Sownynge in moral vertu was his speche,/ And gladly wolde he lerne, and gladly teche.

Posted by: Josh, Official SpokesGay | March 6, 2010 5:35 PM

God damn it, SC. I have spent the past hour reading the train wreck of personal ads featured on WWHM. I am hermetically sealed to the chair - I cannot stop reading. Sweet fuck, that blog is funny.

Posted by: windy | March 6, 2010 5:42 PM

Honestly I don't understand the "shut up and fuck me" anyway.

Those people must be extreme extroverts...

Did you miss the "shut up" part?

Posted by: DominEditrix | March 6, 2010 5:47 PM

Jadehawk @163:

this has fuck-all to do with "how Real Women™ were supposed to play sex games", and everything to do with the anti-woman society we live in. unless you can completely isolate yourself from it and spend your entire live in an egalitarian, liberal enclave, having stories about your sex-life spread in your environment is toxic, regardless of how you personally react to or feel about such rumors.

Somewhere along the line, I got the impression that the scenario was a college campus.

And yes, it completely has to do with "how Real Women™ were supposed to play sex games" - RW™ are supposed to hold out, to refuse to engage in anything until they've been wined and dined and wooed, are supposed to play hard-to-get, thereby indicating that they are worthy of Being Taken Home to Mother and not Sluts. And that, of course, is indicative of a society that still, for the most part, fears women's sexuality. [An aside: Study the predominant joke subjects of a micro-society and it will become apparent what worries them most. In the Ozarks, for instance, it's women's wiles and city folk.]

Just what kind of environment do you live in? One doesn't need to live in a utopian society to acquire a social group that thinks similarly on certain subjects or to avoid screwing about with anyone in the workplace, where issues of favouritism, power and competition are in play.

I think I read this issue as primarily a college [or high school] campus problem simply because I couldn't see the immature + diverse acculturation + closed society scenario taking place elsewhere.

I'd be much more embarrassed if it got round that I couldn't finish the Times crossword than whom I fucked on alternate Tuesdays. But that's in my social group of choice, where sex isn't taken nearly as seriously as mental prowess.

Posted by: SC OM | March 6, 2010 5:48 PM

the only reason I didn't just estimate that majority at 100 % and (who knows) quietly jumped out the window is that the world population is so large nowadays that there must be some statistical fluke in there with standards I might fit. (I still was totally taken aback by the Mad Women of Pharyngula phenomenon.)

But of course. Through the internet generally and in your field specifically you can communicate with women who have time to recognize how amazing you are and may be compatible. (I think you're phenomenal, but in a totally different way.) Use it!

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 6, 2010 5:55 PM

I don't want to go into detail here, but feel free to email me.

I would, but it looks like you don't have time to answer.

And I didn't get anything done today. <headdesk>

Did you miss the "shut up" part?

No. I understand "extroverted" as "acting on one's feelings in the presence of other people", not as "logorrhea".

Posted by: SaintStephen | March 6, 2010 6:07 PM

@ Paul W. #144:

I now understand why you were given the Molly Award for January. I enjoyed your post immensely. I'm definitely in there somewhere, in and around Item 2, and besides #144 is a perfect square, and a truly great number. (For those of you scoring in math class).

I must admit my eyes have never automatically locked onto your name as Pharyngula scrolls down my screen, but they will now.

Bravo. Take the rest of the weekend off. ;)

Posted by: badgersdaughter | March 6, 2010 6:19 PM

You want to be the relationship equivalent of a well-appreciated clerk?

LOLMAO. No... I don't want to BE like that, though I will not turn down well-appreciated. But I just liked the idea of a guy who is smart, serious, well-spoken, honorable, tactful, happy to learn new things, and not afraid to make a good well-founded argument in support of what he thinks.

Posted by: negentropyeater | March 6, 2010 6:25 PM

What is the lesbian community like?

Haven't seen any study on the frequency of casual sex amongst gay men and women. So what I'm about to say is purely anecdotal, but from what I've gathered, lesbians have on average significantly less frequent casual sex than gay men. To be checked (too lazy to check now).

What would any community be like if you simply took the last thousand years of culture away?

That's always been a question I had, what would it look like if we could do away with all the different ridiculous social norms about sex that have been imposed upon us by religions ?
If we could just follow our natural propensity towards sex (orientation/frequency) and could we separate this from the LTR/family/child making+education constructs ?
I don't know if this makes any sense, it's getting time when my brain needs a rest.

Posted by: windy | March 6, 2010 6:28 PM

No. I understand "extroverted" as "acting on one's feelings in the presence of other people", not as "logorrhea".

I don't think either of those is quite right. As I understand, extroverts like to seek out social interactions, have an easier time doing it and often thrive in large social gatherings. So someone who enjoys casual sex would have to be a little bit extroverted by definition, since it involves establishing a new social interaction, but I wouldn't say they have to be "extremely" so. Some people might have an easier time making that sort of connection than having a meaningful conversation with someone they don't know. And casual sex usually involves only having to interact with one person (no offense, neg), so it is not necessarily more stressful for introverted people than, say, mingling at the department social event.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 6, 2010 6:41 PM

shit all that and I forgot:
I also am surprised that nobody mentioned sexual selection. Wasn't that Darwin's explanation for lots of human geographic variation? I'm sure I recall Jared Diamond talking about it in the Third Chimpanzee, too. Is it not part of the conversation any more?
OK, now I shut up and read for a while.

Posted by: SC OM | March 6, 2010 6:52 PM

Crappy, but that was the whole point of it. Self-identifications of cherry-picked contemporary Americans? Racial categories are social constructs, I get it. Red herring: I was explicitly talking about something else.

Uh,...

OK, I’ll go read some stuff, and look for some data.

OK.

Posted by: SaintStephen | March 6, 2010 6:55 PM

Ack! I should have said "I'm located somewhere just below Item 2 in Paul W's #144."

Just re-read it. No misogynist here. Pain isn't a turn-on for this country boy.

(*Out for a while to enjoy the day*)

Posted by: SC OM | March 6, 2010 7:10 PM

No, we weren't dishonest. Both of us were using each other for sex.

Openly? Fine. (Didn't seem to be what you were saying, though....)

While the sex was great there was nothing but great sex. We didn't do anything with each other besides having sex.

SO?!

I had been with this woman for months and I didn't know anything about her. We rarely talked and never talked about anything consequential. I knew more about her roommate than I did about her. Six months of one night stands does get tiresome.

Again - so? If you had wanted to know more about her [than sexually], you could have asked. If not, not. Who cares?

When I met my wife I knew "this is a woman I want to know." We talked about everything and anything. We learned about each other. We discovered we were compatible in the major things and willing to compromise about certain minor things. In short, we got to know each other. I never did that with the first woman.

So?

By the time we got around to having sex, and it was me holding back, we had fallen in love with each other. The first few times the sex wasn't as good as I had experienced with the first woman. But we discussed sex just like we discussed everything else. We taught each other some things to enhance both my pleasure and hers.>/blockquote>

Why couldn't you have done this if you had had sex earlier?

Sure, my wife and I have fucked as well as made love. But the fucking is good and the love making is excellent. Even now, when I'm in my 60s and my wife is mumblety-mumble years younger than me, we have an active and pleasurable sex life.

And if you had had sex earlier?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 6, 2010 7:13 PM

Sven, your link fu in the beginning of comment #195 is weak.

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 6, 2010 7:22 PM

My entire point here is that—and again, I could be wrong—but my claim hypothesis is that there is geographic clustering of phenotipic variation. I am questioning the every-trait-with-its-own-independent-cline assertion.

I can only give examples of traits that don't covary. If you go from Sudan over Rwanda to the Congo, one "racial" feature after another – skin color before nose shape, hair shape somewhere within the skin color gradient... – changes from "white" to "black". If you go from Turkey to China, the variation is so continuous as to be imperceptible on the ground as far as I know.

Even with sexual selection*, I can't see how anything but a serious geographic barrier could restrict human gene flow enough for phylospecies to emerge. It doesn't take many Jadehawks or scooter**s to get the genes flowing.

* It clearly exists, and probably explains the spread of things like blue eyes – all blue-eyed people are descended from one person that lived some 6,000 years ago, IIRC.
** Hasn't been present in this thread, but has said in another that he's "sexually adventurous" and that he has pretty successfully... sampled as much of human phenotypic variation as possible (well, female only, I think, but still; doesn't matter here anyway) just for the sake of having tried it once; doesn't seem to have known that not every man is "sexually adventurous" like him.

Posted by: Paul W. | March 6, 2010 7:30 PM

SC:

OK, so Paul W.'s post seem largely a cultural critique with an emphasis on the pernicious effects on women. Mine was a cultural critique with an emphasis on the pernicious effects on men, so who am I to judge?

I hope it's clear that I was posting what I posted largely for balance. I do understand that women get screwed over in many of the same ways.

I also think that the problems that result from different statistical trends between the sexes cause problems for both sexes, though in different ways because of the asymmetries, and that women often get the shorter end of a stick that's short on both ends.

However, it really is important to look at which sex benefits and which suffers in broad terms from this culture, especially if we're going to talk about sex work.

Absolutely.

One of the things I think is pathetic is how much of a market there is for female sex workers, and how horribly stigmatized they are. Many guys would buy sex from a woman, but would never marry a woman who'd ever sold it. (Which is just a more extreme version of the "slut/stud" asymmetry which hurts everybody.)

I also see downsides to legalized sex work. For example, if we don't do something about the difference between men's and women's attitudes with respect to looks vs everything else, many guys may go for paid-for casual sex with nice-looking prostitutes, and leave many not-as-nice-looking women with other (undervalued) virtues having little to "trade on" in finding a mate. If we can't make the differences in values go away, sometimes it's advantageous if people have to trade one thing for another, at least in the short run, rather than opt out.

The utter ickiness of that thought is one of the things that convinces me that ID is false, and there is no God.

BTW, the Sexual Security Administration proposal was a joke, but I hope a thought-provoking one.

Posted by: redrabbitslife | March 6, 2010 7:37 PM

Hm. I was looking for a one-night stand (or one week, whatever) when I first met my husband, and I think he was, too.

We were both a little freaked when we turned out to really really like each other.

Pitfalls of casual sex, five years this month.

Posted by: Caine | March 6, 2010 7:42 PM

redrabbitslife @ 210:

We were both a little freaked when we turned out to really really like each other.

Pitfalls of casual sex, five years this month.

:D When I met my husband to be, the sexual attraction between us was damn near electric. The only thing on our minds was sex. Lots and lots of sex. We'll have our 31st anniversary the 11th of this month.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | March 6, 2010 7:49 PM

If you had had sex with your now-wife on the first date/meeting, would you now be married? If not, why not? What difference would this have made?

I don't know. All I do know is that I had recently got out of a sex-driven relationship and I didn't want to get into another one.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | March 6, 2010 7:51 PM

Well, I hate to sound like a fuddy duddy, but I'm with 'Tis, sort of, on the sex-planation. Sex is better, as in excellent over quite good, when I also have other emotions such as caring, sharing, and growing (in both knowledge and self-awareness) to bring to the physical act. And, I guess I'm just more relaxed in such a situation; and relaxation is more of a turn-on for me than is novelty. Can't say I've always been this way, but I am this way now.

Which is not to say that I don't also enjoy fucking just for the fun of it. Yay! Celebrate and honor the human body. Whoo, boy!

So why do I prefer a caring relationship, (doesn't have to be Love with a capital "L", but at least some level of mutual appreciation), to casual sex? Because the sex is better that way for me. And I so adore a good sexual relationship.

To each his or her own.

I certainly don't attach pseudo-moral constraints associated with definitions of sluts, whores, madonnas, marriage-only and so forth to my sex life. Most of the people in my community do attach those ideas to sex, and they would display and perhaps act on condemnation of me if they knew about my life as a single woman. So I don't tell them.

Posted by: Caine | March 6, 2010 7:58 PM

Lynna @ 217:

In my area, the self-appointed morality police are in a position to destroy one's income.

Yep. Discreetness counts.

Posted by: SC OM | March 6, 2010 8:00 PM

I don't know.

Whatever. (And still no email. :|)

All I do know is that I had recently got out of a sex-driven relationship and I didn't want to get into another one.

And all I do know is that I have no idea what this has to do with what I asked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p_tvjqSrBk

(This is not the sexiest scene from the film. Is it on YT?)

Posted by: llewelly | March 6, 2010 8:02 PM

Jadehawk, OM | March 6, 2010 6:26 PM:

Anyway, this thread is making me feel like a gay man stuck in a woman's body, and not just because my first reaction to negs mentioning darkrooms was "ooh, why can't we have those?!"

Posted by: SC OM | March 6, 2010 8:07 PM

Well, I hate to sound like a fuddy duddy, but I'm with 'Tis, sort of, on the sex-planation. Sex is better, as in excellent over quite good, when I also have other emotions such as caring, sharing, and growing (in both knowledge and self-awareness) to bring to the physical act....

Oh. FFS. Because others have been arguing to the contrary. Right. Can you stop with the friggin' strawmen, please?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 6, 2010 8:10 PM

The Redhead and I knew each other a long time before getting intimate (we met in Jr. High, and finally consummated our relationship in my Jr. year as an undergraduate). We've been married for 35+ years. We offer no moral judgments upon those who behaved differently. Every person is slightly different, and their urges/timing is different. We find the logic of the frat "boys" (whore/madonna) to be laughable. What ever works for you. I drink to that...

Posted by: Lynna, OM | March 6, 2010 8:14 PM

Uh-oh, I just realized that I inadvertently intimated that 'Tis Himself is a fuddy-duddy. Not what I meant. I meant: I agree with 'Tis Himself about the importance of getting to know someone if you want to have a relationship that includes great sex, and that also extends beyond sex. And I realize that this attitude may come off as fuddy-duddyish in some circles -- so I emphasized that I operate that way because it works best for me, and not because I feel that there is some moral law that dictates my way as the best or only way.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ | March 6, 2010 8:16 PM

Well, both of those are arguable points. The Lib Dems are probably more secular, on balance, than the other two major parties

And that's what actually matters. Of course there is variance among individual MPs. The relevant issue is what that variance sums up to.

As to them being "on the left", it depends on who you talk to.

Obviously I was asking you, Walton. You concede that the Liberal Democrats are more secular than your party, and to the left of your party. You also offer that the Green Party and the Socialist Workers Party, both actively secular parties, represent the left. And we may note that a great many people who left New Labour when it became too right-wing have chosen the Liberal Democrats as a more practical vehicle for reformist leftism.

To debate the "natural home" of secularism is a semantic distraction, but clearly any secularist in the UK looking for a home will find it more easily to the left of your party.

The first of your points is just meaningless partisa rhetoric on your part, as you well know. I'm dismayed; it's not like you to use tactics which are transparently equivalent to "Are you still beating your wife?"

When the subject has already been known to beat the spouse in the past, it's a legitimate question.

You're dismayed, Walton? When I criticize you, I have the goddamn decency to explain myself and answer your objections. Now let me repeat:

I just wanted to point this out to you, since you have frequently criticised my choice of party affiliation in the past - based, I believe, on some misconceptions on your part about what British Conservatives stand for.

Really. Citation needed, Walton. Exactly which misconceptions do you suppose that I have, and where are the quotes that suggest I have them?

But strange gods was wrong.

Again, citation needed. Exactly what was I wrong about? Quotes, please.

This is not the first time you've made vague and inflammatory criticisms of me and then ignored my requests for clarification or evidence.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | March 6, 2010 8:23 PM

SC, I've just sent you an email.

Posted by: jenbphillips | March 6, 2010 8:32 PM

I know what you meant, Lynna, but probably because I feel the same way. My fornicatin' days were pretty high-volume, but I cannot honestly say I enjoyed most of the sex I had back then...mostly because it was all about validation for me (am I attractive/interesting enough to get X into bed? Am I the best he's ever had? Am I making the right noises?) rather than any physical fulfillment on my end. Being in a LTR (married for 13 years, together for 17) gives me the security I need to let go of every inhibition I ever had, to ask for what I want, to fully give myself over to the experience in a way that wasn't possible when I was so preoccupied with...posing. So while it's admittedly less frequent than either of us would like, it's eminently more satisfying.

(Oh, and for the record, I'd never fuck this guy--not even back in the day)

Posted by: DominEditrix | March 6, 2010 8:37 PM

Jadehawk #221: Oooh, clearly hit a nerve there...

You're naive if you think that males don't suffer from sexual rumours, true or false - think "X is gay" in a homophobic community - say, that jock frat, perhaps. And there's a reason the suicide rate is higher amongst gay teens/young 20s than amongst straight kids.

My point was that it's a lot more complex than your posited women-can-be-destroyed-by-sexual-rumour-men-can't. You've "seen it happen often enough to all sorts of people ["people"="only women", from your previous asseverations] - really? Hordes of women, from all over, having to leave town?

BTW, should you ever to a big city, there are het sex clubs with appropriately dark atmospheres where you can find that anonymous fuck-in-the-dark you want. They're not just for gay men anymore.

Posted by: Caine | March 6, 2010 8:43 PM

SC @ 232:

Meaningless.

I don't see why. Myself, I had much casual sex in my earlier years, and as noted upthread somewhere, I enjoyed all of it. While I've never had any personal difficulty indulging in it, I've known a great many people who don't want to indulge that way, especially if they are looking for a LTR. As they are looking for love, meaning and substance, they initially put sex farther down on the priority list. Different strokes and all that.

Posted by: SC OM | March 6, 2010 8:50 PM

Yes, you're deeply spiritual. So answer my earlier questions.

To be clear:

Please respond to my suggestions about getting to know people better and so forth.

Posted by: Caine | March 6, 2010 8:56 PM

Rev. BDC, you're well below boygenius's tmi level, so you're fine. ;) BTW, bacon recipe at #99.

Posted by: SC OM | March 6, 2010 8:56 PM

I meant: I agree with 'Tis Himself about the importance of getting to know someone if you want to have a relationship that includes great sex, and that also extends beyond sex.

sex + beyond sex = good

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 6, 2010 9:01 PM

BTW, bacon recipe at #99.

Oh nice.

I've been thinking about how much i liek chocolate and bacon together. Now cupcakes. Oh yeah

Posted by: llewelly | March 6, 2010 9:05 PM

leepicton | March 6, 2010 8:39 PM:

What is this Intersection place and where is it and why would I want to go there?

And what is WWHM?

Honest, I try to keep up with the never-ending thread, but it's just not always possible.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | March 6, 2010 9:07 PM

If you're trying to pick a fight, SC, sorry, I'm not playing.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 6, 2010 9:12 PM

and typos

Coast Brewing Smoked Porter is affecting my typing....

yes the beer,

no seriously.

Posted by: SC OM | March 6, 2010 9:15 PM

Yes, windy. Exactly.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | March 6, 2010 9:18 PM

It would be helpful if you clarified this, since it's hard to tell what you are disagreeing about.

I don't have a clue about what SC is disagreeing about. I made a post giving part of my past history, she asked some questions, I responded, Lynna made a couple of comments, then all of a sudden she's writing stuff like "meaningless" and "Do you need to know Jesus?" My guess is SC is trying to pick a fight. Why she's doing this I don't know, but that's what it looks like to me.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 6, 2010 9:26 PM

Oooh, clearly hit a nerve there...

You're naive if you think that males don't suffer from sexual rumours, true or false - think "X is gay" in a homophobic community - say, that jock frat, perhaps. And there's a reason the suicide rate is higher amongst gay teens/young 20s than amongst straight kids.

I have never claimed anything about any other sort of rumors, but nice try.

My point was that it's a lot more complex than your posited women-can-be-destroyed-by-sexual-rumour-men-can't. You've "seen it happen often enough to all sorts of people ["people"="only women", from your previous asseverations] - really? Hordes of women, from all over, having to leave town?

BTW, should you ever to a big city, there are het sex clubs with appropriately dark atmospheres where you can find that anonymous fuck-in-the-dark you want.

Posted by: A. Noyd | March 6, 2010 9:30 PM

strange gods before me (#255)

If you aren't interesting to women, make yourself a more interesting person. Broaden your interests, learn how not to dominate the conversation, and put yourself out there where the women already are.

Don't forget hygiene. Learning not to smell like something that died a week ago is always very helpful. You'd think this would be obvious, but apparently it's not.

Posted by: windy | March 6, 2010 9:31 PM

Better watch out. If you're not careful, you'll develop an addiction to hardcore gay male porn!

Oh, now you tell me!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 6, 2010 9:38 PM

Better watch out. If you're not careful, you'll develop an addiction to hardcore gay male porn!

I believe that is spelled "pron"

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ | March 6, 2010 9:42 PM

Oh, A. Noyd, while you're here, I want to apologize for being a shithead to you on the Danish cartoonists thread. Our disagreement did not justify my attitude. I'm sorry.

Posted by: AJ Milne | March 6, 2010 9:51 PM

... Hrm... Bitta back and forth... That's all right, sure...

But y'know, I think what this thread needs is some comic relief...

(/I'd meant to post this in the previous/objectifying men subthread, but seem to have missed that by a bit. Pity.)

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 6, 2010 9:52 PM

I really hope no one here tonight is a UNC fan...

ouch

Posted by: SC OM | March 6, 2010 10:00 PM

Still waiting

!!! Rocks! (No way that cowbell can be human, though.)

They always have problems playing my songs. So...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgSVTdAtNYE

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 6, 2010 10:05 PM

Sounds like another good time Patricia.

Posted by: SC OM | March 6, 2010 10:10 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6LO3LEk_bw

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 6, 2010 10:11 PM

http://listen.grooveshark.com/#/s/Swamp/sUAUf

Posted by: Patricia, Ignorant Slut OM | March 6, 2010 10:16 PM

Janine & Nerd - Well...yes I did actually have a good time. Besides watching the sailing boats, I had a couple of shall we say 'breathless moments'. *smirk*

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 6, 2010 10:19 PM

When the boat's heeling that far, things can get exciting and the boat can start making expensive noises quite quickly.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | March 6, 2010 10:21 PM

Good for you, Patricia. Glad to hear it.

Posted by: windy | March 6, 2010 10:25 PM

I had a couple of shall we say 'breathless moments'.

Oo-er missus?

(Nice going!)

Posted by: SC OM | March 6, 2010 10:32 PM

http://listen.grooveshark.com/#/s/Swamp/sUAUf

Yes.

http://listen.grooveshark.com/#/s/Swamp/sUAUf

Posted by: Quackalicious | March 6, 2010 10:32 PM

Yay, an actual attack as opposed to random threats and swear words! I feel so validated. You should all know that I don’t really make Therapeutic Touch, Reiki, or foot baths a focus in my practice, but I will act as their spokesperson here.

Nerd of Redhead wanted a Nature article. Even homeopathy has appeared in Nature, but got immediately pounced on by the skeptics. Here’s the defense link (old news, Benveniste for those who know this one already): http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/view,123 How about the Annals of Internal Medicine. Cochrane? I’ve got both below on Therapeutic Touch

For Ol’Greg, we’ve got large studies of long term, hospital based results for Naturopathic medicine, but I refer you to Dr. Novella’s “homeopaths on the run” comments page for my comments, the research link, and Enzo trashing the link without reading the study. I’ve finally got Dr. Novella to come out and play, but my really cool ALS idea was put in “wait mode” instead of just posted. I guess he wants to read it through before it goes on the blog. I must be that scary.

I didn’t casually throw away the Rosa study on Therapeutic Touch. Other people have thrown it away for me: Altern Ther Health Med. 2003 Jan-Feb;9(1):58-64.A nurse-statistician reanalyzes data from the Rosa therapeutic touch study. Cox T. “Based on this reanalysis, the authors' recommendations against the use of TT can and should be challenged because of inappropriate design and analysis as well as incorrect statistical assumptions and conclusions.” PMID: 12564352

In the meantime, the Therapeutic Touch nurses didn’t stop doing research just because Dr. Barrett yelled “boo!” Nurs Clin North Am. 2007 Jun;42(2):243-59, vi. Energy-based modalities. Engebretson J, Wardell DW. “Research on touch therapies is still in the early stages of development. Studies of Therapeutic Touch, Healing Touch, and Reiki are quite promising; however, at this point, they can only suggest that these healing modalities have efficacy in reducing anxiety; improving muscle relaxation; aiding in stress reduction, relaxation, and sense of well-being; promoting wound healing; and reducing pain. The multidimensional aspects of healing inherent in patient care continue to be expanded and facilitated by our understanding and application of energy therapies.” PMID: 17544681

I know, they are “only nurses,” (give me a veteran nurse over a snot-nosed doctor any day) so here’s the latest Cochrane answer to whether touch has any effect on pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Oct 8;(4):CD006535. “Touch therapies may have a modest effect in pain relief. More studies on HT and Reiki in relieving pain are needed” But we all knew that. Moms kiss and make it better. People need a hug. There are chemical pathways fed by human touch.

Distance energy work is a different matter. Let’s call it prayer because that’s the most common form. I’m citing the 2007 Cochrane because the 2009 Cochrane has other Cochrane researchers yelling at them. “The evidence presented so far is interesting enough to justify further study into the human aspects of the effects of prayer. However it is impossible to prove or disprove in trials any supposed benefit that derives from God's response to prayer.” Can you guess the prejudice of the author? The 2009 Cochrane writers think prayer studies are a waste of time, can you guess what they believe? Researcher beliefs flavor every medical study, which is really difficult for hard scientists to get their heads around. Medical researchers don’t just massage data, they throw data in the garbage if it doesn’t fit what they want to prove.

In terms of nondenominational “noncontact” therapeutic touch: Ann Intern Med. 2000 Jun 6;132(11):903-10 “The methodologic limitations of several studies make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the efficacy of distant healing. However, given that approximately 57% of trials showed a positive treatment effect, the evidence thus far merits further study.” Ernst posted later on to say he thought it was more placeboey now, but didn’t redo the analysis.

I think Ol’ Greg wanted me to stop hurting people and here’s the reality: we don’t, at least in the kind of holistic practice I do. Good study on holistic practice: Int J Adolesc Med Health. 2009 Jul-Sep;21(3):281-97 “Interpretation: Intensive, holistic non-drug medicine is helpful for physical, sexual, psychological, psychiatric and existential problems and is completely safe for the patient. The therapeutic value TV = NNH/NNT > 5,000. Altogether about 18,000 patients treated with different subtypes of CHM in four different countries have now been evaluated for effects, side effects and adverse events, with similar results.”

David M. wanted to know if the foot bath is a kind of massage and did I feel the current. Yes, I did feel the current, but only slightly, otherwise I would have been a cooked duck. And yes, a warm foot soak is a kind of massage, with or without electrodes in the water. The point about the water changing is that even though the electrodes were the same, sometimes the water was an oily black and sometimes it was frothy. So some sort of chemical interaction is taking place with the feet. In terms of studies, of course warm foot baths decrease adrenal “fight or flight” activity and increase “rest and digest” activity. Nothing on the electrode component, but it does keep your mind from wandering and you get to watch a chemical reaction while you relax.

I think that’s everything. Oh, yes, Sastra wanted to know how much I know about Andreas. Honestly, I met the man through Hawkins’ site, briefly when I was shut down and was busy blogging everyone. He’d been trying for months to get Hawkins so was glad to take credit. When Hawkins went down a huge number of other Wordpress sites went down. He was down for the weekend and back on Monday. Hawins never lost his Without Apology blog site on Wordpress, which doesn’t make any sense if they were actually shutting him down. I’ve emailed Myers several other fun facts, but he doesn’t take responsibility for things he starts.

Is Andreas a Cancer Quack? I’ve never even looked at his website. I’ve got enough to do defending myself here. Ask him.

Posted by: Josh, Official SpokesGay | March 6, 2010 10:34 PM

You're a liar, Maloney, and a fraud. "Distance energy work?" Jeezis, can even you be that stupid?

Posted by: Caine | March 6, 2010 10:35 PM

Quackman, go prick your finger and have a faint.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 6, 2010 10:39 PM

David M. wanted to know if the foot bath is a kind of massage and did I feel the current. Yes, I did feel the current, but only slightly, otherwise I would have been a cooked duck. And yes, a warm foot soak is a kind of massage, with or without electrodes in the water. The point about the water changing is that even though the electrodes were the same, sometimes the water was an oily black and sometimes it was frothy. So some sort of chemical interaction is taking place with the feet. In terms of studies, of course warm foot baths decrease adrenal “fight or flight” activity and increase “rest and digest” activity. Nothing on the electrode component, but it does keep your mind from wandering and you get to watch a chemical reaction while you relax.

Oh you're an idiot.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 6, 2010 10:41 PM

Blockquote fail up there.

And no Janine. No there wasn't.

Posted by: Patricia, Ignorant Slut OM | March 6, 2010 10:47 PM

Nerd - You should refrain from having a nasty toxic pet like Quack.

Posted by: Caine | March 6, 2010 10:56 PM

That would definitely do it, Patricia.

Posted by: Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM | March 6, 2010 10:59 PM

Don't you miss it!
Don't you miss it!
Some of you people just about missed it!

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 6, 2010 11:02 PM

Well, OK, I spent a bunch of time reading the Social Science Research Council zone on 'Is Race Real?' Apparently this was all prompted by an editorial by Armand Leroi ([kwok] we were postdocs in the same department at the same time [/kwok] but doing such different stuff that we very seldom interacted in any way).

Social construct.
Got it.

Most of the short articles there are themselves basically opinion pieces. Most of them are hacking away at the classical concept(s) of race. Lewontin and Marks make long series of assertions without even a reference in sight; many of them differ from Leroi's assertions. *shrug* Data? What does "85% of genetic variation" even mean? Not much help.
The best one, in terms of addressing the things I was talking about in the first place and referencing its claims, was Graves:

Human genetic variation is real. It is best described by isolation by distance, meaning that individuals who have ancestry in particular geographic regions are more likely to share genes than those from disparate regions.

That's pretty much what I said in the first place. Geographic variation due (in part) to limited gene flow. Here's an example of geographically correlated human genetic variation.

I'm not even sure what the argument is about anymore if if there is one.

Posted by: Patricia, Ignorant Slut OM | March 6, 2010 11:10 PM

Nerd, perhaps sturgeon bait, we can always use more of that.

Posted by: Caine | March 6, 2010 11:18 PM

Nerd @ 305:

Nah, somebody would turn me in for all the dead scavengers...

Toss extra hard so qvuacker ends up here in ND. The vultures always look kindly on an extra meal.

Posted by: Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM | March 6, 2010 11:25 PM

If you hear any noise
It's just me and the boys

Posted by: Sastra | March 6, 2010 11:30 PM

Quackalicious #290 wrote:

I didn’t casually throw away the Rosa study on Therapeutic Touch. Other people have thrown it away for me:

No, the alternative health journals have not managed to either undermine the Rosa study, nor address the basic problem with Therapeutic Touch: in a controlled situation, practitioners cannot demonstrate its existence. For example, they cannot tell which hand is injured, and which hand is not injured. I realize that you don't care for James Randi, but you should realize that getting the $i million prize should be a simple thing -- if the TT practitioners can really sense energy fields. If Randi is not liked, then all the better when you walk away with the money. He does not set up the tests himself, you know. They are set up by mutually-agreed upon, neutral experts in designing controlled studies.

I think it's interesting that you both conflate TT with actual massage (as when you talk about the benefits of touch), and extol the virtues of TT's ability to reduce stress and anxiety, aid in relaxation, and so forth -- all normal benefits of massage. It sounds to me like placebo.

It also sounds to me like you're advocating a mishmash of science-based medicine, common sense, useful placebos, useless placebos, dubious remedies, and out-and-out nonsense, and don't quite know how to distinguish between them -- and assume we can't, either. We're just 'against everything.'

And, again you bring up the idea of the evil conspiracy of mainstream researchers throwing out genuine results, and ignore the problems inherent in journals which were formed for no other purpose than to show that alternative medicine works. Alt med journals are not trustworthy sources. And random studies in better journals need replication ... and can't get it.

Is Andreas a Cancer Quack? I’ve never even looked at his website.

Really? Given that your names are now coupled together because of this incident, I would have thought you'd at the very least be curious. I asked because I'm trying to figure out whether you will always defend anyone who is "alternative" -- or whether there are some limits, even with you.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | March 6, 2010 11:31 PM

If he was my pet, I would see a neck wringing in his future, followed by being cooked with plum sauce, and then the dish being tossed in the garbage before being eaten.

Reading this Bilbo? NoR means to cook and (for some reason) not eat another commenter! Report immediately to the Intersuction!

Posted by: Epikt | March 6, 2010 11:43 PM

Altern Ther Health Med. 2003 Jan-Feb;9(1):58-64

Aww, isn't it cute. They have their own little make-believe journal. Adorable.

Posted by: Caine | March 7, 2010 12:09 AM

DominEditrix @ 319:

Oh, puhlease.

Oh, puhlease yourself. You went out of your way to be a condescending twit. You did succeed at that. You seemed to be the only person who couldn't comprehend what Jadehawk was talking about. That doesn't reflect well on you. You can get over yourself about what goes on in "big cities" too, because *gasp* most of us have lived in them, ya know. I live in ND. However, I'm a native Southern Californian who lived most of her life there. I've also traveled extensively. This is why making assumptions is not a smart move.

Oh, and us ignunt ones, yeah, we know about the muffin thing. Idiot.

Posted by: A. Noyd | March 7, 2010 12:47 AM

@ strange gods before me (#266)

I was a bit perplexed by how much issue you took with what I was saying, but I've noticed that's just one of the things that happens among regulars here. And since I'm blunt and socially insensitive* by nature, I tend not to pick up on another person's attitude unless he or she is calling attention to it, nor do I fault others for their attitudes unless they're being hypocrites. Neither of those were the case there, though. If you feel you had something to apologize for, I accept it, but there weren't ever any hard feelings on my part.

......
*I guess that's to make up for being hypersensitive towards absolutely everything else.

~*~*~*~*~*~

Sastra (#314)

It also sounds to me like you... don't quite know how to distinguish between them -- and assume we can't, either.

People who can't understand their own limitations aren't everyone else's limitations end up rationalizing their way into conspiracy theories and other wackiness. It's pretty much required. I don't see any polite way to disabuse them, either, because it's breaking a big-ass taboo to stop pretending we're all mental equals. Maybe that's just my limitations speaking, though.

And wouldn't the world be a truly odd place if we accorded everyone respect based on what they thought they deserved?

Posted by: Bastion Of Sass | March 7, 2010 2:03 AM

Think about it. If you sit around talking about how this guy's ugly, that guy's stupid, this other guys a nerd, and three other guys are just boring, or losers career-wise, or insecure, or whatever... and then you turn around and complain about the shortage of men who meet your standards, how are all the rejected men supposed to feel?
Are they supposed to just accept that they should be celibate because they're ugly, or geeky, or not as smart as you, or not especially talented at anything you appreciate, or don't make enough money, or are rightly insecure because you're so picky about so many things?

If we're going to talk about "high standards" and being "picky," I often wonder about those guys who place personal ads which say something like:

SWM, 35, looking for hot blond with long hair. Must be slender, 5'5" or shorter, 18-25, college educated, employed, in excellent physical condition and health. No fatties, tattoos, or kids.

Posted by: Rorschach | March 7, 2010 2:36 AM

It's poor form to show up at a blog with a fairly regular set of members and commenters, and start going off aggressively on one of the well-respected regulars

Rubbish !
It's poor form and intelllectually dishonest to let something you think is wrong fly by just because it's being said by someone who has some street cred with the in-group.

But even Pharyngula is not an etiquette-free zone

More rubbish. This is just tone concern, pure and simple.Address the argument, not the style it is presented in.

Posted by: WowbaggerOM | March 7, 2010 2:54 AM

Great, conversations about sex. Since I can add basically nothing at all to this discussion I guess I'll go sit in the corner with Walton...

Posted by: Rorschach | March 7, 2010 2:57 AM

Many guys would buy sex from a woman, but would never marry a woman who'd ever sold it.

This thread has seen some bizarre comments, that's for sure ! This statement is so wrong, I don't know where to start .To me it is, anyway...:-)

Posted by: Caine | March 7, 2010 3:03 AM

Ron Sullivan @ 325:

Maybe things were different in the early '70s, when even ugly women like me could get laid. Also, sex is (for some of us... Maybe just old hippies?) a friendly thing, even with strangers.

Hee, I made that point somewhere up above (ah, there it is, #166). Considering all I've read, I'm pretty happy I came of age when I did. I also mentioned the zipless fuck but perhaps the time for that is way long gone.

*OK. Before that he showed me his slides.

Slides of what? This geek must know.

Posted by: blf | March 7, 2010 3:13 AM

My understanding of any boatmanship is: rule 1, keep the boat/ship afloat. Rule 2, see rule #1.

My understanding is: Rule 1, don't go near the bloody things. Rule 2, if you had followed rule 1, then you wouldn't have be sick/soaked/drowned/eaten by a shark/kraken/other beastie.

Posted by: WowbaggerOM | March 7, 2010 3:24 AM

Josh, OSG wrote (about myself and Walton in a corner together):

I find that. . . oddly pregnant with possibilities.

No, I'm pretty sure that - even if we both swung that way - there's no possibility of anything happening because neither would be able to initiate it; that's the damn problem for both of us.

At least Walton has the excuse that he's young and sheltered; I, on the other hand, should know better.

Posted by: boygenius | March 7, 2010 3:44 AM

Caine said:

Rev. BDC, you're well below boygenius's tmi level, so you're fine. ;)

:) :) :)

I do like to set the bar pretty high! Although, there are a ton of talented, diverse folks here who could best me, I'm sure.

As to the incident in question; on the list of Things I Did In My Youth For Which I Feel Shame Or Remorse^TM, it's pretty far down on the list. Most of them fall into the category of "Nothing happened, and it will never happen again".

BTW, Caine. Thinking back, one of the people I was partying with on that fateful night was from Glen Ullin. That's in your neck of the woods, innit?

Posted by: blf | March 7, 2010 4:15 AM

If the copywriter wanted to meet a lady, he should instead have spelled it blonde. ;)

Like this?

Posted by: Walton, Extra Special Dumpling of Awesome | March 7, 2010 4:49 AM

strange gods @#227 et seq.:

I don't, in any way, defend Kaminski's comments about gay people. They were inexcusable and deeply offensive. And virtually all the other Conservative activists I know - many of whom are themselves gay - would say the same.

Being part of the same group in the European Parliament does not imply approval of their leader's homophobic remarks. It just doesn't. The party groups in the European Parliament are not comparable to domestic political parties.

The Conservative Party is serious about gay rights. We have a gay shadow cabinet minister, Alan Duncan, who is one of the leading figures within the party. And, incidentally, your comments about Iain Dale are ridiculous. Calling him a "Liar For Cameron" is absurd, considering that he is often very critical of Cameron and of the party's position on several issues. And he has repeatedly spoken out against homophobia in British politics, so I don't think you have any basis for calling him "self-loathing" either. Google him, and look at his record, before you make sweeping statements that are entirely inaccurate.

Regarding abortion: I am perfectly happy to pledge that if, following the next election, a Conservative parliamentary majority lowers the 24-week limit for elective abortions, or imposes any other new substantial restriction on abortion, I will cease to support the party. I will do this even if the restriction is enacted on a conscience vote, if a substantial majority of Conservative MPs vote in favour of the restriction. I am, however, entirely confident that this will not happen.

Posted by: Walton, Extra Special Dumpling of Awesome | March 7, 2010 5:25 AM

I now want to say something which I was too tired to express coherently last night, regarding the discussion on sex and relationships.

It's all very well to argue about whether casual sex is a good thing, if you're privileged enough to actually be in a position to have casual sex. For a not insignificant proportion of the population, this never happens. And there's a reason for that.

Societies like ours, which are relatively sexually liberal and where promiscuity is widespread and accepted,* are inevitably also very competitive in the sexual arena. Where people have a free choice of sexual partners, they are going to reject unattractive people. I therefore suspect that, for many of those who engage in it, frequent casual sex is largely about ego; it's about proving, to themselves and to others, that they're attractive and sexually successful people. The flip side of this is that those who fail in the competition for sexual partners inevitably feel inadequate, unattractive and worthless.

In short: a sexually liberal society is great, for those who are naturally attractive and socially competent and find it easy to attract partners. For unattractive people, it's not so great. I'm not making any sort of broader political or social point here, and I'm certainly not advocating a less liberal society.

I do see it as analogous in some ways to economics. In a free market economy, the struggle for jobs and resources is competitive; some people will succeed and become very wealthy, and others will lose and suffer poverty and deprivation. This success or failure will often be based on arbitrary and unfair factors. This is analogous to a sexually liberal society, in which the struggle for sexual partners is competitive, and some will succeed and have many sexual partners, while others will lose and be involuntarily celibate - again, based on arbitrary and unfair factors. By contrast, a statist economy allows citizens less freedom but, conversely, guarantees some level of financial security to everyone. I'm not sure exactly what a sexual counterpart to this would be: perhaps some conservative religious environments, where young people are under a lot of social pressure to marry early and start pumping out children as quickly as possible, and hence virtually everyone manages to get married.

*(For men more than for women; I certainly don't deny that there is an unfair inequality of treatment in this regard. But even so, male and female promiscuity is much less stigmatised in the 21st century UK than in most other societies around the world and throughout history.)

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 7, 2010 5:38 AM

why do i get the feeling Walton just spent an hour writing:

"I'm too chickenshit to hit the dating scene"

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ | March 7, 2010 5:52 AM

I don't, in any way, defend Kaminski's comments about gay people.

You just did. Do you understand what an apologia is? Do you understand that's what Iain Dale did? Do you understand that by offering Iain Dale's apologia for Kamiński here, you have offered an apologia for Kamiński? These are tautologies. I'm just asking if you can grasp a tautology.

They were inexcusable and deeply offensive.

Then do they evidence that he is or is not a homophobe?

And virtually all the other Conservative activists I know - many of whom are themselves gay - would say the same.

Except for Iain Dale. I'm sure you're right about the rest of them.

Being part of the same group in the European Parliament does not imply approval of their leader's homophobic remarks. It just doesn't.

Keep repeating that mantra if that's what you need to convince yourself. In reality, the Conservatives vetted all the members of ECR for their own approval and relayed that to Edward McMillan-Scott. These are facts. If your interpretation of those facts is that such explicit approval does not actually mean Approval, you're welcome to keep making a fool of yourself.

The party groups in the European Parliament are not comparable to domestic political parties.

Except that in this case, the domestic polices of constituent parties were supposed to be considered and found unobjectionable. This isn't my opinion. This is what the party assured to McMillan-Scott.

The Conservative Party is serious about gay rights.

I don't see any evidence of that. Wait, were you about to give evidence right now?

We have a gay shadow cabinet minister, Alan Duncan, who is one of the leading figures within the party.

Ha! You are kidding.

But I am serious. Some of Hyperon's best friends are Asian. I do not doubt that he was being truthful about this. Now, what was his point? And what is your point?

Some of the Conservative Party's best MPs are gay. Great. Now you should try to tell me that because Arnold Schwarzenegger meets with the Log Cabin Republicans, the Republican Party is not anti-gay.

And, incidentally, your comments about Iain Dale are ridiculous. Calling him a "Liar For Cameron" is absurd, considering that he is often very critical of Cameron and of the party's position on several issues. And he has repeatedly spoken out against homophobia in British politics, so I don't think you have any basis for calling him "self-loathing" either. Google him, and look at his record, before you make sweeping statements that are entirely inaccurate.

Iain Dale denies that a homophobe is a homophobe. He is either lying to you, or lying to himself. If he's lying to himself, he's self-loathing. If you're suggesting that he should more properly be understood as a Liar For The Tories rather than a Liar For Cameron, I'll take your word for it.

But as for the actual substance of what he's saying, he's unequivocally full of shit. So, fuck Iain Dale, and fuck you.

Regarding abortion: I am perfectly happy to pledge that if, following the next election, a Conservative parliamentary majority lowers the 24-week limit for elective abortions, or imposes any other new substantial restriction on abortion, I will cease to support the party. I will do this even if the restriction is enacted on a conscience vote, if a substantial majority of Conservative MPs vote in favour of the restriction. I am, however, entirely confident that this will not happen.

See how impressed I am that you are willing to gamble with women's lives.

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 7, 2010 5:55 AM

Why is it, whenever I see our good not-doctor posting here, I keep thinking of this scene from Holy Grail:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGFXGwHsD_A

"You're not foolin' anyone, ya know."

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 7, 2010 5:58 AM

Because you're a sneering asshole who is incapable of providing useful advice.

lies and slander i say!

why just yesterday I linked him an excellent article explaining CO2 forcing in detail.

sorry if i seem less than interested in endless rationalizations of the young dating scene.

Posted by: Knockgoats | March 7, 2010 6:09 AM

And yes, it is relevant, if you're positing that women are at a greater risk during casual sex; statistically, they're more at risk with a partner with whom they have ongoing interaction. - DominEditrix

You could try actually reading and responding to what other people write rather than your own steroetypes - you know, just for a change. What I was "positing" is that (straight) women are at more risk than men in a casual sexual encounter. So the relative risks for women in casual sexual encounters as opposed to relationships (with or without scare-quotes) are not relevant to my point.

As for the scare-quotes, thanks for explaining what was not clear. Maybe you've heard the term "abusive relationship"? Rather implies that the term "relationship" does not, in itself, exclude the possibility of abuse, no? You could have meant that the very idea of a relationship is a mirage, we're all just using each other, or men are all just using women; one or the other of those was my guess, but I didn't want to make false assumptions, so I asked.

Posted by: Walton, Extra Special Dumpling of Awesome | March 7, 2010 6:11 AM

Really. Citation needed, Walton. Exactly which misconceptions do you suppose that I have, and where are the quotes that suggest I have them?

I think you tend to assume subconsciously, despite knowing on a conscious level that this is not the case, that those in Britain who use the term "conservative" to describe themselves are in some way comparable to those in America who use the term "conservative" to describe themselves.

In the US, so far as I understand it, the term "conservative" is increasingly strongly associated with the authoritarian religious right: people who are in favour of patriarchal and anti-gay "traditional values", and the enforcement of said values by government. Not to mention the undercurrent of xenophobia, and the fact that some conservatives today (Tom Tancredo) and some in the past (Nixon) have exploited popular racism and prejudice for political gain. It's therefore understandable that you, as an American (and one who has personally suffered from the policies advocated by American conservatives), have an instinctive revulsion to the term "conservative" and those who use it of themselves. But this revulsion has no legitimate place as regards British Toryism, which is a completely different political movement and has little or nothing in common with American conservatism, despite sharing the word "conservative".

Don't get me wrong. I realise that, intellectually, you understand that British Conservatism is different from American conservatism; I'm not accusing you of ignorance, or of lack of research. But I'm saying that since you have never been immersed in British political culture, and since you have so much reason to dislike those who call themselves conservative in America, you have an instinctive negative reaction to the term "conservative" which, perhaps, you can't help but apply when looking at parties by that name in other countries.

I will admit that I myself, for a long time, committed the same error in reverse; being a British Conservative, I assumed that American conservatives were my natural allies. It was only when I went to the US myself, and attended a conservative political event, that I really saw the uglier side of American conservatism and what it actually stands for. As such, I no longer see the bulk of American Republicans as my natural allies, and I would probably be a moderate Democrat if I were ever to move to the US. I don't know how much time, if any, you've spent in the UK; but while you have a perfectly good theoretical knowledge of British politics, your view of it is still coloured by American cultural and political assumptions.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ | March 7, 2010 6:16 AM

Again, citation needed. Exactly what was I wrong about? Quotes, please.

Hell, if you can even vaguely reference a time when you thought I said some such thing, I'll google it for you. Just afford me the intellectual honesty of either substantiating your claims or retracting them.

Posted by: Walton, Extra Special Dumpling of Awesome | March 7, 2010 6:22 AM

strange gods, at #356 I was referring to a general undercurrent implicit in all your posts about British Conservatism, not to a specific factual claim. As I said, I'm not accusing you of ignorance, nor of lack of research; indeed, whenever you make a concrete factual claim, you tend to go to great lengths to substantiate it. Rather, I just think that you haven't really internalised, on a deep-down emotional level, the differences between what the word "conservative" means to a British person and what it means to an American.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ | March 7, 2010 6:38 AM

strange gods, at #356 I was referring to a general undercurrent implicit in all your posts about British Conservatism, not to a specific factual claim. As I said, I'm not accusing you of ignorance, nor of lack of research; indeed, whenever you make a concrete factual claim, you tend to go to great lengths to substantiate it. Rather, I just think that you haven't really internalised, on a deep-down emotional level, the differences between what the word "conservative" means to a British person and what it means to an American.

Mmm.

If you're going to backpedal this far, then I think you shall have to admit you had no substantive basis on which to say strange gods was wrong.

Posted by: Walton, Extra Special Dumpling of Awesome | March 7, 2010 6:45 AM

If you're going to backpedal this far, then I think you shall have to admit you had no substantive basis on which to say strange gods was wrong.

You were, and are, wrong to argue that my support for the Conservative Party is incompatible with my expressed principles.

This doesn't mean you're wrong, as such, to personally oppose the British Conservative Party. Your economic views, as a professed socialist, are incompatible with those of the Conservatives. If you were to say that you understand why I support the Conservatives, but wouldn't do so yourself because you disagree with their stance on economics and taxation, there would be no need for us to have an argument. But that isn't the point you've been making. Rather, you've been claiming that my support for the Conservatives is incompatible with my own views on social issues - a claim which is simply wrong. And you did at one point go so far as to tell me that I should vote Lib Dem instead.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ | March 7, 2010 7:04 AM

The fact that you accused Iain Dale of being either self-loathing or a "Liar For Cameron" is sufficient evidence of this. If you were familiar with Iain Dale's personal history, or read his blog regularly, you would know that both these claims are entirely laughable.

No, Walton. Fuck Iain Dale, fuck you, and fuck your argument from authority.

The honest way to engage this argument would be to point out where I have erred in my reasoning. Shall I walk you through it?

Michał Kamiński is a homophobe.

Iain Dale is willing to deny that Michał Kamiński is a homophobe.

Iain Dale is therefore lying.

Iain Dale is either lying to you, because he is a Liar For Cameron The Tories, or,

Iain Dale is lying to himself that Michał Kamiński can call him a boyfucker without being a homophobe.

There's the argument in plain English. You're welcome to engage it logically.

Argument from "Iain Dale is so very gay and Iain Dale is so very Conservative" will not stand. It's a non-sequitur to jump from there to "Iain Dale is therefore not lying," or "Iain Dale is therefore not self-loathing."

You were, and are, wrong to argue that my support for the Conservative Party is incompatible with my expressed principles.

Then your support for the 80% of Conservative MPs who vote anti-choice is compatible with your principles. Your support for a party leader who has declared he will not hold a referendum on EU participation is compatible with your principles. Your support for a party that will not end detention without trial is compatible with your principles. Fine, but now who is this Walton fellow?

Posted by: Alan B | March 7, 2010 7:09 AM

#356 Walton etc.

I freely admit to not having followed this thread and I may have missed something important but I agree with what Walton etc. has to say about the Tory party (UK) vis-a-vis American Conservatives.

In many policy areas there is almost no difference between the current incarnation of the Labour Party ("New Labour") and the greener Tory Party.

There is also not a lot in common between the Labour Party of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and the Labour party of its founders. Labour Party electoral manifestos have not contained the term socialism since 1992 and I think it HIGHLY unlikely that they will this year. The death of Michael Foot was the death of the last visible remains of Socialism.

Since the election of David Cameron as leader, Tory party policy has increasingly focused on 'social' and 'quality of life' issues such as the environment, government services (most prominently the National Health Service) and schools.

There is a great deal of overlap between the parties as they both strive to accomodate the "swing voters" on the "middle ground". The concept of the two parties being as different as Michael Foot and Margaret Thatcher is long since gone. You can't put a piece of paper between them because of the overlap.

The efforts by all 3 parties to make themselves appear different to the voters is a waste of time: they aren't different. Labour took the Tory clothes under Neil Kinnock, John Smith and Tony Blair. Instead of Labour Union leaders having beer and sandwiches at No. 10 we went over to canapes, sharp suits and filofaxes. For 2 years the Labour government under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown (as Chancellor) did nothing at all to change Tory financial policies

In return, the Tories who were painted as mired in sleeze (they were in large measure but no more than the whole lot of them today) have moved away from the few Right Wing policies they held. The Tory symbol changed from the torch of Freedom to a stylised oak tree (symbolising who knows what) and its official party colours from red, white and blue (the colours of the torch and, of course, of the Union Flag) to blue and green.

IMHO the biggest difference in UK politics is betwen those in favour of membership of the European Union and those who want out. However, when push comes to shove, all 3 parties support membership of Europe (although the Tories would like it to be looser) while the majority of the public appear to want as little to do with Europe as possible.

Single issue anti-Europe parties such as UKIP are too small to have any impact and UKIP in particular has been financially gutted by the legal system manipulated by the Labour Government (IMHO).

All parties want to claim the high moral ground - none of them are in a fit state to take it in the public eye.

All of this is simplified. You can find old style Tories on the back benches and you can find Socialist MPs in the Labour Party. Political expediency has evened out whatever were the differences. A case might be argued to paint Tories as Right Wing (with all the negative connotations that might have on this site) and Labour as Left Wing or Socialist (with all the positive connotations that might have - or vice versa depending on your point of view). But it would not reflect reality.

Posted by: Walton, Extra Special Dumpling of Awesome | March 7, 2010 7:15 AM

And you had only one policy-based reason, CAP, why you should not. Compare that with an anti-choice voting record and an assurance there will be no referendum on the EU during Cameron's term of office, two reasons why you should not vote for the Conservatives.

Labour and the Lib Dems are much more strongly opposed to holding a referendum on EU membership or on the Treaty of Lisbon. So I'm not sure why you're holding this out as a reason why I should not vote Conservative.

Posted by: Alan B | March 7, 2010 7:22 AM

#364 Walton etc said:

Your economic views, as a professed socialist, are incompatible with those of the Conservatives.

Whether or not the writer holds such views, from my previous contribution I think you can see that " ... economic views, as a professed socialist", are incompatible with those of the Conservatives and those of the UK Labour Party.

Labour has moved from Red Socialist to Centre (very slightly Left) Democrat. The Conservative Party has changed from Blue Capitalist (with a bit of white and red but only because of the Union Flag) to Centre (very slightly Right) Democrat.

If you really want Old Fashioned Red Socialism you need the Communist Party of GB or the Socialist Workers Party, the latter being the largest Socialist party in GB. Both are tiny political nonenties.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ | March 7, 2010 7:24 AM

Labour and the Lib Dems are much more strongly opposed to holding a referendum on EU membership or on the Treaty of Lisbon. So I'm not sure why you're holding this out as a reason why I should not vote Conservative.

What can this possibly mean in reality? How can anyone be more strongly opposed to holding a referendum on EU membership or on the Treaty of Lisbon than the guy who said explicitly that there will be no referendum on EU membership or on the Treaty of Lisbon?

Posted by: Alan B | March 7, 2010 7:29 AM

#373

*The weirdest thread, IMHO, was the one where Alan Clarke linked to an article from a paranormal journal and RogerS kept insisting some rocks were giant fossilized clams.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5pkkAhETYg&feature;=related

Posted by: Walton, Extra Special Dumpling of Awesome | March 7, 2010 7:36 AM

strange gods @#375: What's your point? I support the Conservatives, but I don't find the Lib Dems especially objectionable, and would support them in preference to Labour if it were a race between the two. Neither the Conservatives nor the Lib Dems perfectly represent my opinions - nor does any party in existence - but the Conservatives are slightly closer to the policy agenda that I support. None of my statements on this stand in contradiction to one another.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ | March 7, 2010 7:46 AM

strange gods @#375: What's your point? I support the Conservatives, but I don't find the Lib Dems especially objectionable, and would support them in preference to Labour if it were a race between the two. Neither the Conservatives nor the Lib Dems perfectly represent my opinions - nor does any party in existence - but the Conservatives are slightly closer to the policy agenda that I support. None of my statements on this stand in contradiction to one another.

You know my point. The Conservative Party's voting record is anti-choice and anti-woman, the recent vote on restricting abortion was 233 in favor of further restrictions against 304 in favor of choice, and the Conservative Party may gain enough seats to swing that vote the other way. Cameron will not hold the referendum you want. So all you're left with is that CAP is more important than women's rights, yet CAP is an EU policy unlikely to change significantly for the better, while the UK's abortion policy obviously can shift for the worse quite easily. Fanciful notions that you can change the direction of a party while that party is in power are always more important than women's rights.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ | March 7, 2010 8:16 AM

Now, Walton, an explanation is still in order.

However, your major character flaw is a tendency to jump to conclusions about the moral character of people who disagree with you. It took me a considerable amount of effort to convince you that I'm not a misogynist and that I don't despise poor people, for instance.

Quite sure I've made this clear about two hundred times, but I'm happy to explain it again, because I don't want you to have the wrong idea about precisely which terrible opinion I had of you.

I never believed you had a burning hatred for women. I said you were disinterested in their lives and exhibited a cold contempt for their needs. (Pretty much those exact words; I hope they sound familiar.)

For example, at one time you said late-term abortion should be illegal simply because "Is it not more horrific for millions of people to die with the blessing of the state than for them to die through crime?"

You said this in direct response to the presentation of WHO data demonstrating that limitations on abortion caused more women's deaths.

In effect you were trading women's deaths for the sake of making a morality play about a larger number of fetal deaths.

You look back on this now and agree it was a horrific stance to take. But consider what it meant. You had to be indifferent to -- or shall we say inconsiderate, as in truly not considering -- these women's suffering to adopt that position.

You had to view them as something less than full persons, because you were literally trading their lives for the lives of something else -- fetuses -- which really are less than full persons.

I think you finally got over this when I made you think about how, regardless of whether a fetus has sensory input, the woman has more to lose: memories, desires, lovers, hopes, friends, plans and dreams. Thinking about it that way, you can so easily see how one is a full person and the other not, yes?

But you were previously willing to trade on their lives against something less than full persons. Now, how is this not cold contempt? Aquaria put it in slightly more direct language. You understand now, I hope, what we were getting at.

Again, it doesn't mean that you made a conscious decision to be that way. It means you grew up in a misogynist culture, and since you had the benefit of obliviousness granted upon you by male privilege, you didn't have to think about what you were absorbing. (Same for me, by the way, when I was much younger and held similar opinions, to my mother's lament.)

So, what else do you want to call it? What word would you apply to the choice of privileging a barely sensorily aware entity over the real life of a grown woman? If that's not misogyny, then what is it? and if that's not misogyny, then just what does it take for you to call misogyny?

You asserted what you claimed to be a major character flaw, and I responded with my reasoning why I believe that moral integrity demanded no less. You ignored my response. Take what time you need when it's a matter of some remove, but when you've publicly made this criticism of me, you ought to respond or retract it.

I'll see if you have anything when I wake up.

Posted by: Knockgoats | March 7, 2010 8:48 AM

The Tories' new European alliance, the ECR, includes not only the Polish Law and Justice Party, but also the Latvian For Fatherland and Freedom Party, whose leader, Roberts Zile, takes part in the annual commemoration of the Latvian contingent of the Waffen SS. More about Kaminski's past - and quite recent past at that - can be read here. If you support the Tory Party, Walton, you are supporting these people, whether you admit it to yourself or not.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 7, 2010 9:05 AM

Oh, this is good. Excellent.

A subThread all full up with discussions of British politics and sex-'n'-relationships.

*yawn*

A subThread I can safely ignore completely and get some grading done instead, then.

see ya

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | March 7, 2010 9:29 AM

Bride of Shrek OM #349

..honey, if you think sex is any way like economics then you're never going to get any.
Apologies to any economists out there but Walton, sex is (or at least should be) fun, exciting, tittilating, magical, erotic, sweet, hard, stomach churning, passive, aggressive, humorous, dirty, clean, noisy, seductive and sharing.

But ex-BoS OM, you've just explained what it is that I love about economics.

Posted by: iambilly | March 7, 2010 9:41 AM

On the previous itteration of the Never-Ending Time Waster we (or you (I just tossed in a couple of sequitors)) migrated from underwear to sex. On this thread, we have gone from sex to economics and EU politics.

[Long Pause]

Can we, pretty please, go back to sex? Or underwear? Or bacon?

Please?

Posted by: blf | March 7, 2010 9:58 AM

yes, federal worker working on Sunday

So not only are tax dollars going to support jet-setting atheist professors and their Trophy Wives™, the few remaining tax dollars are then being spent to pay federal employees to prop up pinko european political gays discussing their facist welfare states.

Posted by: SteveV | March 7, 2010 10:05 AM

Pinko?
We're fucking red T&T;!
Arlo Gutrie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uo9TxeqeDCE

Posted by: SteveV | March 7, 2010 10:07 AM

And we can't type worth a damm
Scum, filthy degenerate Scum, every man Jack of 'em'

Posted by: blf | March 7, 2010 10:20 AM

Sightly dated, also about bacon—and donuts!

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 7, 2010 10:26 AM

A commenter, nym of astrounit, over at Coyne's has issues with teh Thread:

In any case, the forum over at PZ’s, here and several others are completely intolerant to young people – most grievously, to bright kids who could be our greatest future asset: NOTHING WHATSOEVER is done for them, and whenever a young mind shows up, they are inevitably shot to smithereens instead of helped.
A greater preoccupation than engaging young people (one might say suckhole of entertainment) over at PZ’s is the absurd Neverending Thread. And nothing presents a greater BARRIER separating us from folks who are NOT academically or intellectually inclined from the reality we pretend we are so good at teaching about than the reigning ATTITUDE exhibited by the commentators.
Dammitt. I’m sick and tired of the games certain regulars play in order to “establish” their seniority (FUCK the Molly award, gimme a break already). I’m pissed at the spectacle of a bunch of brilliant minds tickling each other with their moist sticks, while ever-ready to take down EVERYBODY one of them deems a target, no matter how much the “insurgent” pleads for help or insight. From my point of view, from what I’ve personally seen, the online atheist community, which I once much admired and counted myself proudly in league with just several short years ago, has turned into a hideous and very nearly good for nothing bastion of what they themselves would characterize in excessively-religious people as “holier-than-thou”, and they revel in a wasteland of effort chiefly stroking the egomaniacal tendencies in themselves.

um.

ouch?

Posted by: Bobber | March 7, 2010 10:39 AM

I think, after reading through most of the comments on this thread, I've never been quite so pleased to NOT have waded into these roiling waters of discussion. Particularly the sex parts, because it would have taken far too long for me to remove the rust from my arguments, let alone my equipment.

That said, I'll put my waders back on - just in case.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 7, 2010 10:58 AM

hmmmmmm
'astro-unit'
'star-fart'

eerie coincidence? Or something...more?

Posted by: Feynmaniac | March 7, 2010 11:02 AM

Actually, I wonder if it is starfart. The styles are similar, long rants with random capitalizations. And he/she says:

ScienceBlogs regularly crashes my computer

starfart:

Never mind the possibility that my machine runs so slowly and erratically every time I visit this site, that commands by key or mouse take ten or twenty seconds or more to execute...and often render open windows a gobbledegook mess that inevitably leads to a crash.

And some of the things we wrote about that epic rant would cause someone to be a bit pissed with us.

Posted by: badgersdaughter | March 7, 2010 11:03 AM

Aaaand... economics.

Walton, you probably don't remember; I went by a different handle at the time, but I spent a brief while here trying intensely to defend basic libertarian ideals from Aristotle to Ayn Rand to Von Mises to Ron Paul, and I threw a few ideas of Hayek in there to support a personal theory that they enhanced the stew (Chris Sciabarra, incidentally, was shocked to find he agreed with me in a class I once took from him). The strong voices among the commenters here (notably Knockgoats, who I am grateful to, and 'Tis, who is treating you better than he treated me) had great fun piling on me in a flurry of incredulity and invective, and since like you I'm fairly thick-skinned and not averse to thinking hard about things, I was able to separate some of the diamonds out of the shit. I came away with a great many things to think about.

I took a look at what I'd been told, in a kindlier light than the gloom shed by the teachings of my father, who dramatically escaped Communism shortly after the Hungarian Revolution, and my patriotic right-wing history teachers in an Atlanta high school. Did the "liberals" indeed broadly agree with me in the things I thought most important? Well, let's see... support of personal choices, check. Rights of individuals, yes. Freedom of commerce between individuals, partly, but where they differed was in the practical aspect of how bad actors hurt others in the name of freedom... even libertarians say that your freedom to wave your fist stops at the other guy's face. Freedom of religion, yes. Support of the Constitution, typically, yes (if you look at who generates most of the propositions for anti-liberty amendments, you get a hint of who doesn't support it). Economic theory? Frankly, I haven't seen anyone propose a viable alternative to the corporation yet, but then again I haven't seen anyone here actually propose overthrowing them, just reforming them (although the details are sketchy here too). Hayek pointed out some interesting ways in which excess government entanglement exacerbated corporate abuses, by the way, and I think that even Rand dramatized how corporations not run on liberal humanist principles could descend into toxicity within and outwith their own immediate spheres of influence. In short, the liberals commenting here and characterizing their position did indeed believe in freedom, godlessness, and human potential.

If I was to have to criticize libertarianism in the simplest terms, I would have to say that libertarianism errs in its very simplicity. It's just not an adequate model. It's more of a "what if" scenario, a more eloquent way of saying, "wouldn't it be nice if everyone could do whatever was best for themselves, and if this automatically resulted in a good outcome for everyone". At some point I realized that it reversed the "is/ought" dichotomy and tried to turn its "ought" into an "is" by sheer force of will and optimism.

So, I got tired of reading about Libertarian writers pointing out how things should work theoretically and I started to try to think practically. When I did this, I found I agreed more and more with the more thoughtful commenters here and I started to look into things I had been avoiding. I'm not in possession of the full truth about economics, politics, and sociology now, but I am certainly in possession of more of the facts in a more realistic way than when I thought I had all the answers down pat as an Objectivist libertarian.Now I see that any philosophy that fears contact with conflicting ideas has something of a "self-esteem problem" based in a fundamental weakness somewhere.

I think you're doing well to defend your ideas in a tough forum like this. Just please don't make the very defense your ultimate aim. Keep looking into reality and seeing what fits it and discarding what doesn't. That's the most honest and courageous thing a man can do.

Posted by: monado | March 7, 2010 11:13 AM

OK, I didn't witness this, I read it in a book, but the subject was men spreading stories about women's sex lives around their mutual workplace, as in this comment he'll tell everyone except that in the anecdote I read she had turned him down nevertheless he went around telling people she had had sex with him. As the story was told, the female employee found it useless to deny, so she started admitting it to his pals who were rude enough to ask her for confirmation. But she added that it hadn't been much fun because he wet the bed each time. In the tale, he was the one who quit, hoist by his own petard because they were talking about him and he couldn't just admit that he'd been lying in the first place. I'm just saying I'd be interested to know if anyone has heard of it or tried it.

Posted by: redrabbitslife | March 7, 2010 11:17 AM

Regarding Britain's two-party system- Labour was a third party. It takes work, but given that a substantial minority of the country will never vote Tory after the Thatcher years, and that Labour is drifting to the right, there's not much choice for some but to support a third party.

Regarding my assertion that your top values lie elsewhere, I suppose it's more that they seem to lie elsewhere. Your non-negotiable from what I have read appears to be EU/ CAP. I can't argue with that.

My non-negotiables are women's and gay rights. Gay cabinet ministers, well, strange gods addressed that above. It really amounts to little more than "some of my best friends... I let them use my bathroom."

You folks ought to have a national ID card, if for no other reason than to protect your NHS. I was visiting the UK, with no travel insurance, and wound up needing a visit to a clinic. I tried to pay, but wasn't allowed to. I don't pay taxes over there. That's not right and is horrendously open to abuse. The NHS is brilliant, it's yours and you need a system to protect it. Health tourism exists.

My provincial health card provides me with the right to free health care anywhere in my country. My province pays. I keep it with me. My British husband loves it, as it protects his investment in Canada.

Re- abortion rights, to be honest, I was relying on the statement above that 80% of Tory MPs are voting to restrict abortion rights. That's a fucking huge deal for me.

Posted by: redrabbitslife | March 7, 2010 11:26 AM

Also, yes, Labour are wrong on lots of things. The default opposition position is often correct. I don't buy into the premise that what the Tory party claims it would do is what it actually would do in terms of anti-terrorist laws. It's possible, but again, I suspect there is a third party who I would trust more to protect freedoms.

Oh, and I'm sure you're very cute in the tux you once mentioned. The wife-beater toothless thing wasn't a dig, it was a (crap) joke about the Jerry Springer people.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 7, 2010 11:54 AM

Hi Jen B. I saw your earlier message but was too busy trying to meet my perceived obligations from earlier subThreads to chat.

I just typed a much longer reply into the Leaveacommentbox but then cut it out as way way TMI. (One of my students admitted to finding my pitiful 'weblog' recently and all I could think of to say was "uh...don't tell the Dean, please".) I'm going to try to figure out how to e it to you via privater tubes.

Suffice it to say that the grading is not going well. It's not going well at all. But it never, ever does.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | March 7, 2010 12:00 PM

Sven DiMilo #400

I've just posted the following on Jerry Coyne's blog:

As a Pharynguloid, an OM, and a regular at the Everlasting Thread, I am impressed by astrounit's rant. It was everything one could possibly expect from a fullbore rant. It had anger, pathos, jealousy, whining, frustration, and just a hint of "they won't let me in their club so I'll take my ball and go home."

Now astrounit, why don't you take a nap and let the grownups talk?

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | March 7, 2010 12:06 PM

Sven: Will be grading today also. Normally, I keep bourbon on hand for just such occasions, but my guts have been rebelling of late, and I might have to do this in my right mind. No matter how many semesters pass, I still get my feelings hurt by very stupid answers. I mean, I work really hard to create organized, informative, and entertaining lectures...when a student has sat through all of them, and apparently not learned anything, my first response is to loathe myself, my second to become vindictive, and my third to have a belt o' the bourbon and wade in.

Still, I hate grading like a muffucka.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | March 7, 2010 12:09 PM

MrFire #419

I was afraid you'd post this song as "THE WORST UK #1 HIT EVER."

Posted by: Quackalicious | March 7, 2010 12:11 PM

Dear Sastra,

I’m not using alt.med journal citations. I didn’t even use holistic nursing citations. As far as I know, http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/ are the standard by which evidence-based medicine is judged. A statistical expert goes through all existing studies, crunches the numbers and gives a recommendation. A close second are the annals of internal medicine, where a respected expert on alternative medicine, in this case Ernst (who hates alternative medicine) is asked to give an analysis of all existing studies.

What I showed you was the best evidence available on TT. It trumps a single, small scale study by Barrett. And, no, it’s not all positive studies, but there are moderate benefits to pain, which makes perfect sense. The other study was a nursing review of the multiple other TT studies.

It’s the Cochrane Collaboration, not James Randi, that decides what is evidence-based medicine and what is not. When I emailed him a few years back, he claimed he knew better than Cochrane or any other researcher. The man is a magician, not a statistician, and he’s created a bubble around himself by ignoring that reasonably intelligent PhDs around the world might actually be able to give a better picture of alternative medical effects than something he sets up himself in a lab. If I somehow managed to jump through all his hoops I seriously doubt I’d get paid.

You mentioned the placebo effect. What is that, really? According to The Cochrane Collaborative Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Jan 20;(1):CD003974 the “sugar pill” placebo effect doesn’t really exist anymore. The researchers compared all active drug to placebo to no intervention patient trials and concluded that placebos no longer outperform no intervention. There is some effect in terms of pain, but even that was highly variable, and the pain decrease seen in the TT study I cited before was greater than what could reasonably be expected from a placebo.

We don’t live in the fifties anymore when patients believed anyone in a white coat would fix them with a pill, and today patients are more likely to experience a nocebo effect (side effects, nausea, etc.) from an inactive pill.

But the placebo effect is alive and well if you define it as hope and trust build up in a good doctor/patient relationship. It motivates patients to do a variety of changes that affect their health, improving outcomes despite the activity or inactivity of whatever was given. This is taught in medical schools as a good bedside manner, and is the basis of good medicine. Often an effective drug treatment is not available for an illness, but the doctor continues to see the chronically ill patient and the patient benefits from the care. In our ever hurrying world, the shortening of patient visits undermines that relationship, ultimately harming the patient through incomplete histories and clinicians who don’t really have time to care.

In response to your interest, I did look at Andreas’ site. I cannot defend him. Art and art objects are fine, books are fine, but I have difficulty with anyone broadly prescribing basically one set of cures for everyone. Andreas’ had some interesting things to say about chemotherapy, but it all hinges on Abel’s chemotherapy review in 1991. Maybe Abel wrote a letter to the Lancet in 1991, but he didn’t review chemotherapy, so whatever he wrote was not peer reviewed, and doesn’t justify disregarding an entire field of medicine.

I would also not defend chemotherapy in a number of adult cancers, because the outcomes data doesn’t support it, but I have been incredibly impressed by the child leukemia collaboration, where they are getting better and better results because they act as a group rather than as independent researchers competing for research dollars.

In terms of my “conspiracy” theories, I cited two Cochrane studies on prayer, 2007 and 2009, where respected researchers came to different conclusions, apparently based on their personal beliefs. It is hardly a conspiracy theory to point out that medical researchers are capable of dumping studies they don’t like in favor of those they do. I believe we have legislation now to force pharmaceutical companies to reveal negative studies rather than simply not publishing them. Vioxx’s producer evidently had some idea of what the drug was capable of doing prior to wide release, but suppressed the data.

Finally, I think it’s time we got back to bacon. Anyone see this recent study? J Agric Food Chem. 2010 Jan 13;58(1):465-72. Production of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) enriched bacon. Evidently, good for you bacon will not be widely available because of “problems of off-odors and off-flavors.” Bacon that smells like fish…mmmm.

Oh, and Monty Python…spam, spam, spam, bacon, and spam. Why did those two float in and out of that sketch? I never got that part.

I think Myers should dress like a Viking and sing the spam song on Youtube as the start of the next thread. I have a children's Viking hat he could borrow. It would be tres chic.

Posted by: badgersdaughter | March 7, 2010 12:22 PM

Oh, for the sake of fuck. In the US, the federal Food and Drug Admninistration has recalled half the products produced by the processed food industry because of salmonella contamination in one of the most commonly used food additives ever:

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/HVPCP/

Posted by: blf | March 7, 2010 12:23 PM

We compare unfavorably with the chat down at the sports bar?

There's certainly more farting, beer-drinking, sex, shouting, insults, bacon, lesbians, and pinko atheist nazi libturds here than at most sports bars. And worse music.

Posted by: badgersdaughter | March 7, 2010 12:24 PM

Sorry, that might have seemed a little hyperbolic; there are only 94 named foods as part of the recall on the list at the above link at the time I write this. But the recalled ingredient comes from a factory that does indeed supply it to the vast majority of the processed food industry.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 7, 2010 12:30 PM

Dang, in #429, next to last sentence. The italics should be strikethrough.

Posted by: Alan B | March 7, 2010 12:38 PM

#419 MrFire

Are you really sure? Have you forgotten (in no particular order - they are all dreadful):

Orville's Song - Keith Harris and Orville
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGnuMxFnc1k&feature;=related

Mr Blobby - Mr Blobby
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvNbAxsbK8Q

There's No One Quite Like Grandma - St. Winifred's School Choir
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsXJcIODLtQ&feature;=related

Grandad - Clive Dunn
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KJGJRd8pGE

Long Haired Lover From Liverpool - Little Jimmy Osmond
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YriPIujLtsA

(There are others I can use if I am provoked!!)

Posted by: Lynna, OM | March 7, 2010 12:54 PM

Okay, 'Tis Himself, Alan B, and Mr. Fire, I surrender. Please don't post any more songs certified to be bloody awful. Thank you.

BTW, in reply to the astrounit rant on Coyne's blog, one of the main points of the rant is that young people are routinely blasted out of the water here. I went back and made note of the ages people gave for themselves recently. Without names attached, here they are:
34
64
40
25
50
mid-20s
21
60
43
27 going on 28
mid 30s
60s
35
55
almost 30
52
43
40
38
38
50
47
32
43
43
So, it seems we have a wide range of ages, and they're all talking to each other. How young do you have to be in order for the regulars to sniff you out as young, and then to kick you the fuck out just for being young and ignorant? I don't think we've established a rule, but we could start with astrounit. Get off our lawn!

Bleh. The Welcome mat is big, the topics unlimited. And astrounit was not dissed for the sin of youth as far as we can discern.

Posted by: Alan B | March 7, 2010 1:00 PM

#436 Lynna

To be fair, I did say what they were. If you chose to go to them then you can hardly complain!

Mind you, I hadn't considered Eurovision Song Contest. There is a cesspool wealth of songs to enjoy there ...

Posted by: Lynna, OM | March 7, 2010 1:17 PM

Hmmm, I forgot PZ in the list, and he is, I believe 53 or 54 -- close enough.

Yes, I was warned about the awfulness of the posted tunes, and then I clicked on most of them anyway. Morbid trait of being drawn to disaster.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 7, 2010 1:22 PM

Societies like ours, which are relatively sexually liberal and where promiscuity is widespread and accepted,* are inevitably also very competitive in the sexual arena.

Actually, I wonder if that could explain why the scene is so much more toxic in the US (and the UK?) than in Continental Europe, and why it was less toxic in the 70's? hmmm....

note to self: next time you're single, fuck your way thru Sweden to test hypothesis

:-p

Posted by: Alan B | March 7, 2010 1:25 PM

#438 Alan B

Mind you, I hadn't considered Eurovision Song Contest.

Having considered a bit more, how about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcaxHdiMAVE&feature;=fvw

Posted by: Caine | March 7, 2010 1:26 PM

boygenius @ 338:

BTW, Caine. Thinking back, one of the people I was partying with on that fateful night was from Glen Ullin. That's in your neck of the woods, innit?

Yes it is, a whole 18 miles away. Drinkin' and partyin' are serious business around here. :D

Posted by: Caine | March 7, 2010 1:31 PM

This thread needs more bacon.

Bacon and Chili Cornbread

1 tablespoon corn oil
12¼ oz. smoked streaky bacon, diced
2 spring onions, finely chopped
4¼ oz. corn kernels
½ teaspoon dried chili flakes
10½ oz. polenta
12¼ oz. plain flour
1 tablespoon caster sugar
1 teaspoon baking powder
½ teaspoon baking soda
½ teaspoon salt
13½ fl oz. buttermilk
2 eggs, lightly beaten
1 tablespoon maple syrup
½ teaspoon ground black pepper
2 tablespoons unsalted butter, melted

Preheat the oven to 200C/390F/Gas 6. Lightly butter a cake tin. Heat the oil in a frying pan and fry the bacon until it is crisp and releases its fat. Add the spring onions and cook for five minutes, then add the corn kernels and chili flakes and stir to combine. Allow to cool slightly. Combine the polenta, flour, sugar, baking powder, baking soda, and salt. Add the bacon mixture, the buttermilk, eggs, maple syrup, black pepper and half the melted butter. Mix well. Pour the batter into the prepared cake tin and brush the top with the remaining melted butter. Bake until golden (about 20-25 minutes). Serve warm.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | March 7, 2010 1:33 PM

Ah, another study on coffee. Coffee is Generally Heart Friendly

For example, coffee drinkers appear to have a lower risk of hospitalization for abnormal heart rhythms. And there's no indication that having a few cups every day increases the risk of atherosclerosis, the thickening of blood vessel walls that can lead to heart attacks and other problems. What's more, something in coffee other than caffeine might be responsible for a reduced risk of diabetes for women who regularly imbibe java.
Not every report at the AHA's annual conferences on Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology and Prevention and Nutrition, Physical Activity and Metabolism was totally upbeat for coffee lovers. One report did find a potential link between coffee drinking and high blood pressure, but the effect was described as "modest." And, like the other studies, it came hedged with the caveat that the finding wasn't based on a controlled trial -- the gold standard for assessing risk and benefit -- but from observational studies, which don't exclude all possible factors.
     The heart rhythm research looked at the rate at which 130,054 members of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program were hospitalized for heart rhythm disturbances. About 2 percent of them had hospital stays because of such abnormalities, the most common being atrial fibrillation. But the risk was 18 percent lower for those who reported drinking four or more cups of coffee a day, compared to those who didn't drink coffee, said Dr. Arthur Klatsky, a senior consultant in cardiology for the program, who led the study.

Posted by: Walton, Extra Special Dumpling of Awesome | March 7, 2010 1:37 PM

inevitably? no, not really. but I'm sure that's the direction it goes for brains trained up on competitiveness.

Actually, I wonder if that could explain why the scene is so much more toxic in the US (and the UK?) than in Continental Europe, and why it was less toxic in the 70's? hmmm....

Admittedly I wasn't alive in the 70s. But I find it implausible that it was actually easier for unattractive people to get laid then than today; we have only anecdotal evidence for this.

In any sexually-liberated society where people have a free choice of sexual partners, they are likely to choose more attractive over less attractive people. This self-evidently explains why the "dating" scene in modern society is such a competitive, self-esteem-crushing process. I don't see how any liberal society could be different in this regard.

Posted by: maureen.brian#b5c92 | March 7, 2010 1:48 PM

Walton,

You are getting your understanding of sexual relationships mixed up with your understanding of politics and economics.

They are not the same, believe me.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 7, 2010 1:50 PM

In any sexually-liberated society where people have a free choice of sexual partners, they are likely to choose more attractive over less attractive people. This self-evidently explains why the "dating" scene in modern society is such a competitive, self-esteem-crushing process. I don't see how any liberal society could be different in this regard.

Other than that, lust is really not as picky as you think, and sex is not competitive since it's not a limited resource. it can obviously be made competitive though.

Posted by: Alan B | March 7, 2010 1:57 PM

#441 'Tis Himself, OM said:

Alan B, If I remember correctly Alan C is in his mid-40s. So while several people, including you, blasted him out of the water, it wasn't due to his youth.

I thought I treated him pretty well, considering.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdZqQ5C7pN0&feature;=related

or, the more expanded version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zbz6Oa5PQuA&feature;=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC9_VKdzv9w&feature;=related

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 7, 2010 1:58 PM

or, in other words, the only time someone can be "objectively" more or less attractive is when fuckability is decided by society rather than by individuals; which in sexually liberal societies only happens when it's a competition, because competitions require "objective" ways of keeping score.

otherwise, being less or more attractive would be entirely subjective and, since personal tastes vary extremely, fuckability would be far more evenly spread across the population :-p

Posted by: Kellach | March 7, 2010 2:02 PM

Nonsense Walton, I screwed my way through the 60's and 70's when I looked even less handsome than I am now (distinguished grey and silver so I am told - laughing). Of course, the drugs may have had something to do with it. Hmmm, thinking back on it, following the Dead for a while, I learned to like body hair on women, including legs and pits (to hearken back to an earlier thread). You have not had casual sex until you wake up three days later wearing strange underwear and your...uh, lower extremities covered with Henna tatoos.

All kidding aside, my recollection of the crowd that ran with Woodstock and the Dead cared a lot less about physical appearance and more about personality. Still, there were a lot of drugs and I did have the bitchin' mutton chops and 'stache of a classic porn star. Boom chicka wow wow.

Caine is right, it is personality. If you have trouble with yours of a real kind, like terminal shyness, seek a therapist. If you are happy to be alone, drop the subject. Stop making excuses, though, please.

Posted by: Alan B | March 7, 2010 2:08 PM

My other problem is hitting the submit key when I wanted to preview ...

#459 Lynna said:

A Christian sent an email to Jerry Coyne that included this, "I beat the shit out of people like you, you cock smoking douche nozzle."

My problem is that I'm having trouble visualizing a "cock smoking douche nozzle". Is it just me, or are christian insults incoherent?

My problem is recognizing this as having anything whatsoever to do with Christianity ...

Posted by: Caine | March 7, 2010 2:13 PM

Kellach, once a hippie, always a hippie, eh? :D

Posted by: maureen.brian#b5c92 | March 7, 2010 2:14 PM

And some of us, Kellach, managed it perfectly well without either drugs or a band to follow.

Unless Tetley's Bitter counts ........

Posted by: Alan B | March 7, 2010 2:19 PM

#469 SteveV

I was saving it up ...

Posted by: Knockgoats | March 7, 2010 2:22 PM

"I beat the shit out of people like you, you cock smoking douche nozzle."

My problem is recognizing this as having anything whatsoever to do with Christianity - Alan B.

I think it's a direct quote from Paul's Letter to the New Atheists isn't it?

Posted by: Alan B | March 7, 2010 2:38 PM

#467 Lynna, OM

"I beat the shit out of people like you ..."

They wouldn't use those words in conversation with their fellow christians, but they think anything is allowable when combatting Satan or The Adversary. They are quite nasty when the mask slips.

In that case it is time they learnt a bit more about the Bible and what it teaches them:

http://bible.cc/jude/1-9.htm

http://bible.cc/matthew/5-44.htm
(and similar passages)

Somebody ought to call them on their dis-grace-full attitudes! It has nothing to do with Christianity.

"Love your neighbour as yourself" does not mean using threatening behaviour or behaviour likely to lead to a breach of the peace.

(But you know that, of course!)

Posted by: SteveV | March 7, 2010 2:47 PM

Sorry to be so slow, but I've only just found this
http://bbc.co.uk/i/q9ypy/?t=38s

And if it dosn't work for you:

I'm sorry
I'm really, really sorry
I'm so fucking sorry...

Posted by: Caine | March 7, 2010 2:50 PM

I'm an inveterate tea drinker. Back in the day, we just drank tea made out of a certain plant.

Posted by: Alan B | March 7, 2010 2:53 PM

#471 MrFire

For truly, irredemably awful, this is hard to beat.

I agree but it is interesting to see what the person who put it up thought of it:

Best Music video i have ever seen

7 words - 3 grammatical mistakes. Is this a record?

Answer: Yes - and a bad one!

Posted by: Alan B | March 7, 2010 2:59 PM

#476 SteveV

I'm not sure which I found worse in the first minute*: the televangelist or the British PM.

As far as I chose to go.

Posted by: iambilly | March 7, 2010 3:16 PM

So not only are tax dollars going to support jet-setting atheist professors and their Trophy Wives™, the few remaining tax dollars are then being spent to pay federal employees to prop up pinko european political gays discussing their facist welfare states.

No.

I have been working on converting a twenty-year-old slide to a usable digital file so it can be used in an exhibit. This involves, of course, a shitload of scratches, dust scratches (even smaller than scratches) and dust fused to the transparency (not to mention the fading and colour shifts). Graphics is not part of my job description. Therefore, my government computer is not a high-end graphics computer. Therefore, when I tell PSP to filter the file in some way, it can take up to fifteen minutes. During the time that the computer is finding it's anus, I duck over to Pharyngula (or any of the other science-y and history sites I frequent) to catch up on what is new. I am not (nor was I) wasting tax payers dollars. The computer was (is) handling that all on its own. Of course, the agency could buy the computer I need to do my assignments, but then some fiscal hawk (hard to even type that with a straight face) will complain that the agency bought an expensive computer rather than the minimum off-the-shelf dreck we normally get. The lesson? Sometimes cutting funding can lead to less effeciency. Remember that next time you are at the DMV.

Posted by: MrFire | March 7, 2010 3:19 PM

Merging this thread's sub-themes of bad music and sexual etiquette, all gentlemen can take a lesson in subtlety and non-objectification from these fine young men.

MrFire, that young fellow with the divine voice who covered that awful song... I have died, I am dead.

Snap!

7 words - 3 grammatical mistakes. Is this a record?

Have you ever tried diagramming the sentence "See Dick run"?

Posted by: badgersdaughter | March 7, 2010 3:27 PM

iambilly @ 484: Or, you could emulate that IT legend, and outsource your graphics work to a smart artist in Mumbai willing to do the job for what you spend on lunch.

Posted by: Alan B | March 7, 2010 3:34 PM

#486 MrFire

I must be missing something (maybe something to do with the cider (8.2% alc volume)).

"See Dick run" stands on its own with a clear meaning, except for the lack of a full stop (period in American). Somebody is asking someone else in direct speech to see/watch/view Dick (diminutive form of Richard) carry out an action - run.

What do you mean "diagramming"? Drawing an outline picture??

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | March 7, 2010 3:47 PM

MrFire,

Sentence diagramming appears to be a solely American teaching perversion.

Posted by: iambilly | March 7, 2010 3:55 PM

Or, you could emulate that IT legend, and outsource your graphics work to a smart artist in Mumbai willing to do the job for what you spend on lunch.

Two problems with that:

1. Do you have any idea the paperwork required to do a contract with a foreign company?

2. With our internet connection here (I interpret steam technology (and I don't (necessarily) mean the steam locomotives)) that would take far longer.

Posted by: Alan B | March 7, 2010 4:15 PM

I have googled diagramming sentences and came up on the second link with this quote:

I really do not know that anything has ever been more exciting than diagramming sentences. Gertrude Stein

With all due respect, madam, you may have lived a sheltered life. Either that or I have wasted many decades of my life.

Posted by: redrabbitslife | March 7, 2010 4:29 PM

@Caine- I thought that was common knowledge amongst travellers. Beer makes your blood vessels dilate, which makes you easy prey for mozzies.

Plus you're buzzed, so you don't notice the buzzing.

Everyone I knew took fansidar for a hangover anyhow.

Posted by: badgersdaughter | March 7, 2010 4:38 PM

I hope you don't mind if I now imagine a nice little heartwarming movie scenario, maybe with a romance added.

I secretly hoped some such thing might come of it, incurably desperate romantic that I am. :) Alas, it was not to be....

Posted by: Aquaria | March 7, 2010 4:42 PM

Weird. The Thread seems to me to be eminently egalitarian -- there are no prerequisites for entry, and you can talk about anything you feel like, and no one can shout you down as being off-topic. If he thinks this thing is for the "academically or intellectually inclined", I wonder what he thinks of ordinary talk down at the sports bar.

I just posted at Jerry's place about how age doesn't matter here--it's how thick your skin is and the ability to adapt your thinking if necessary.

Look, I'm probably the dumbest person here, maybe even the least educated, but I don't feel like I'm looked down on or that people are picking on me. Maybe that has something to do with my, uh, assertiveness? Not sure, but maybe the main thing is that I know I'm not an authority on much of anything (although I've come to the thread way too late to give advice about how to get dates/lovers--that, I'm good at!), so I can simply hang out and learn and play and shoot the shit. Getting conversation like what's here is a real pain to find in San Antonio.

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 7, 2010 4:53 PM

Have you ever tried diagramming the sentence "See Dick run"?

Accusativus cum infinitivo. More common in English and Latin than in German, so I was taught this construction explicitly.

There's no subject, because "see" is an imperative. Dick is the object (see last subthread)...

Sentence diagramming appears to be a solely American teaching perversion.

Yes. It's intended to teach the basics of grammar (I mean grammar as a science) in a graphic way. In principle, and sometimes with a lot of effort, the grammatical structure of any sentence can be shown as a tree-shaped diagram.

Beer makes humans more attractive to malarial mosquitoes

Haaaaa! :-Þ :-Þ :-Þ

Without asking awkward questions about why I was receiving internal government paperwork through a public web-based e-mail account, I sent it back with a saucy "reply all."

Aaaaah. That must have been satisfying. =8-)

Beer makes your blood vessels dilate, which makes you easy prey for mozzies.

Alcohol in general does.

Plus you're buzzed, so you don't notice the buzzing.

:-D

Posted by: badgersdaughter | March 7, 2010 5:16 PM

Grace Point Church, that is. (Yes, yes, I see the Preview button down there, sorry.)

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 7, 2010 5:20 PM

maybe even the least educated

Posted by: Carlie | March 7, 2010 5:32 PM

I'm not even touching any of these topics, but wanted to wander in to offer a little public service announcement. Always wear a seatbelt, because if I see your car careen off the road in front of me, flip over, and catch on fire, it would be really nice to watch you be able to crawl out of the car because you're still conscious from having your seatbelt on and not getting knocked out in the flipover. Do it for me as the bystander, ok? Good. Now I'm going to go get a nice stiff drink.

(yes, they were belted in, yes, they did all get out with absolutely no injuries)

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | March 7, 2010 5:42 PM

Damn, Carlie.

Posted by: SteveV | March 7, 2010 5:55 PM

Carlie
As Dr Johnson almost said; 'that would concentrate the mind wonderfully'

Posted by: Alan B | March 7, 2010 5:58 PM

Gertrude Stein was an American writer who spent much of her life in France. She was a supporter of Hitler to the extent that she wanted him to receive the Nobel Peace Prize:

"I say that Hitler ought to have the peace prize, because he is removing all the elements of contest and of struggle from Germany. By driving out the Jews and the democratic and Left element, he is driving out everything that conduces to activity. That means peace ... By suppressing Jews ... he was ending struggle in Germany" (New York Times Magazine, May 6, 1934).

(I accept that this was 1934 and many others were taken in by Hitler but memories persist in wartime.)

She also appears to have been close friends with a significant supporter of the collaborationalist Vichy government and of the Gestapo in France in WW2.

For these reasons, if for none other, I am not surprised she is not universally well known or respected in the UK. We had enough trouble in 1936 and beyond with the adbicated Edward VIII and his American wife with their friendship for Hitler.

I am sure there are many who do know and respect her in the UK but she is not a household name.

Are you really expecting me to believe that she meant exactly what she said by:

I really do not know that anything has ever been more exciting than diagramming sentences.

If she honestly meant that then I stand aghast. If she did not, she was a liar, presumably trying to con children into accepting "...a solely American teaching perversion."

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 7, 2010 6:12 PM

Carlie, I would join with hoisting a drink for the accident victims getting out OK, but I have to pick up the Redhead from the train station later (backstage tour of the Lyric). I am not surprised about the skepticism about the car fire. The Mythbusters tried to get a car to ignite with the movie mythology, and finally had to resort to pyrotechnics to get it to happen. Both the Redhead and I always wear our seatbelts.

Posted by: Alan B | March 7, 2010 6:21 PM

You were kept waiting on the 'phone having told them a car had crashed and was on fire???

Carlie: you need a stiff drink after that and someone at 911 needs a thundering good hiding!

I learnt to drive while at university 40 odd years ago. Wearing a seatbelt was not considered important but I made sure I did every time I got into the driving seat or the front passenger seat. I have never regretted it. I suspect 'your' family feel the same way!

"Clunk* click** every trip!"

* Clunk - door closes
** Click - seatbelt on.
(Widely used UK road safety catchphrase)

Posted by: Dianne | March 7, 2010 6:25 PM

@516: Are you sure she wasn't being sarcastic? Admittedly, 2010 is not 1934 but if I read an article in which someone was praised for driving out democracy and activity I'd strongly suspect sarcasm. Especially form Stein.

Posted by: iambilly | March 7, 2010 6:26 PM

badgersdaughter:

(I am now writing from home)

The problem at work is that Big Brother really does watch. There's an icon down in the lower right of the screen which glows at odd intervals -- if it is glowing I'm being monitored. Even sending emails to my home address can be touchy if I do it too often.

Also, I figure that the slow computer is actually a blessing: I can look busy as hell (which means that when others come to me to 'save' their graphics project I can sigh, look at the pile of work, say something along the lines of "I'll get to it if I can" and then look like a hero when their low-res graphisaster looks wonderful by that afternoon. I don't use my mediocre computer to avoid work, merely to look harried enough that people are grateful that I could fit it into my busy schedule.

Then again, if anyone from my office reads this, my secret is out and I'm sunk. But I can't picture any of them hanging out in a place this classy. More likely they are at a bar.

Posted by: Carlie | March 7, 2010 6:41 PM

Just had to send Mr.Carlie to urgent care to deal with smoke inhalation aftereffects - he was one of several guys who went running over to help them climb out and got a lungful of burning engine block. (*proud*)

Good point, Nerd - I saw that Mythbusters too. It was the front of the undercarriage; I think that they hit and went over a few sturdy saplings that could have torn through some pipes/wires. It was a pretty small fire overall, but all I could think of was how easily it could travel along the gas lines back to the tank. ExtinguisherMan put it mostly out before it got worse, but even about 20 minutes later when the fire department was flipping it back over it was still smoldering (I'm pretty sure the extinguisher propellant was all gone by then). There were a few people who were saying it was all ok by the grace of God, but mostly I was just glad that so many people stopped. I bet there were at least 8 calls to 911 and 6 or 7 cars stopped with people out running around trying to help.

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 7, 2010 6:48 PM

he was one of several guys who went running over to help them climb out and got a lungful of burning engine block. (*proud*)

:-)

Posted by: redrabbitslife | March 7, 2010 6:51 PM

Phew, Carlie, that's appalling. Hope Mr. Carlie is OK.

Seatbelts have saved my ass on a couple of occasions. I remember the spiderweb of glass after my dad hit the windshield with his head when I was a wee thing. I think he had concrete for brains, as he walked away.

(I think it runs in the family.)

Glad everyone made it out OK. That's one of the things that have always confused me- people thanking random deity after coming out of a crash unscathed. Wouldn't said random deity prefer to prevent said crash? I don't get it. Meh.

Posted by: Rorschach | March 7, 2010 6:54 PM

the online atheist community, which I once much admired and counted myself proudly in league with just several short years ago, has turned into a hideous and very nearly good for nothing bastion of what they themselves would characterize in excessively-religious people as “holier-than-thou”, and they revel in a wasteland of effort chiefly stroking the egomaniacal tendencies in themselves.

Uhm, soneone got their feelings hurt ?? I remember astrounit, it disappeared at some point, but I dont recall any big falling out.

I still can't believe that after the Thread started with a vid about the pitfalls in rationalising sexuality, people spent 500 posts rationalising their sexuality LOL !!

Look, I'm probably the dumbest person here, maybe even the least educated, but I don't feel like I'm looked down on or that people are picking on me.

That's because your posts, esp the rants are funny, and coherent ! And what has education ever done for coherence or clarity of thought ? Look at Walton or myself LOL...:-)

I have caught a bug during latest lot of night shifts, and not feeling very flash right now, that better improve dramatically until the weekend !!

Dawkins interview on SBS

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | March 7, 2010 7:00 PM

oh, and since we're praising safety features on cars: I'd like to thank whoever introduced shatterproof glass for windshields. If it weren't for one of those, I would have had my face smashed in by a cantaloupe-sized piece of concrete years ago: my ex and I were driving on the freeway, and some other car in front of us in the other lane run over that loose piece of concrete that was lying on the road. it spun off and smashed into the windshield right in front of me. dented the window to the point where the piece of concrete was cushily embedded inside the dent. but it didn't get thru. if it had, it would have landed in my face.

scared the living fuck outta me.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 7, 2010 7:05 PM

One more thing--I am no Wikipedian, but I figured out how to burrow back into the editing history of the Stein article. Words like "sardonic" and "sarcastic" and "ironic" seem to have been repeatedly edited in and out in connection with that quote.

Posted by: Caine | March 7, 2010 7:13 PM

The full quote seems to be "I really do not know that anything has every been more exciting than diagramming sentences. I like the feeling the everlasting feeling of sentences as they diagram themselves." It was part of On Poetry and Grammar, a lecture she gave. She then wrote a paper by the same name in 1930 or so.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 7, 2010 7:17 PM

Alan: but of course,

little known

and

not...held in high esteem

are two different things. You're conflating them. You didn't know who she was, and having looked her up you jumped to the conclusion that the reason you hadn't herd of her was because she was a Hitler-lover and therefore rightly spurned by proper-thinking Englishmen.

You got suckered by Wikipedian culture-warriors.

(And "one of our own"? She lived in France her whole life!)

Posted by: Alan B | March 7, 2010 7:43 PM

Before I go to bed (it was 00:15 or thereabouts at the start of this comment) let's get a few things straight.

Gertrude Stein may be a household name in the US. She is not in the UK. She may be well known and loved in arts and literary circles but she is not widely recognised. I understand one of her famous quotes is, "A rose is a rose is a rose". I suspect that in the UK that is more likely to be taken as a mis-quotation from Shakespeare who 310 years before had written:

What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;

Why is she not well known? Several reasons:

While she came briefly to the UK to give lectures, she does not appear to have been domiciled as far as I can see.

She was an Austrian/American/Jew, not British

She lived in America and France for much of her life.

While she appears to have had a major influence on modern literature, one reference suggests that she was not a major commercial success in her own right.

These appear to be facts, again as far as I can tell. I would guess those would be enough on their own to ensure she would not be well known in the UK.

In addition, there are incidents in her life (e.g. Hitler/Nobel Peace Prize, safe living in occupied France) which, if true, would ensure that someone with this background would not be esteemed in post war UK. We were recovering from a near disaster and from the loss of large numbers of military and civilian casualties. She died in July 1946 so there was hardly time for her to be "re-habilitated" before her death (if this were possible).

Some people take these incidents and comments seriously. Some do not. Which is true? I have no idea. The sum total of all the factors, however, would pretty well ensure she would not become well known post war in the UK. If she had not died of cancer so soon after WW2 - who knows?

Posted by: Walton, Extra Special Dumpling of Awesome | March 7, 2010 7:59 PM

because "less attractive" and "more attractive" don't actually mean shit except when sex is considered a competition for the most "high-quality" partners. it only matters when keeping score matters, and having sex with an unattractive partner will lower your chances of attracting more attractive partners.

Other than that, lust is really not as picky as you think, and sex is not competitive since it's not a limited resource. it can obviously be made competitive though.

Sex wouldn't be a limited resource, if (to put it rather crudely) everyone was eager to fuck like rabbits all the time with anyone in reach. But they are not.

In reality, sex is a limited resource. People have to compete for sex, just as they compete for money, career success, and other things that benefit their lives. And just as with money and career success, some people fail and lose out.

Sometimes, Jadehawk (and I apologise if I'm being a little unfair), you seem to have a utopian desire to return to the student hippie culture of the 1970s: free love, free higher education, idealistic left-wing politics, pacifism, and so on. But there is a reason why mainstream society has long since departed from this culture, why we had the Reagan and Thatcher Revolutions, and why the ideals of the hippie movement were never achieved in the real world. In reality, humans are competitive, self-interested bastards who are entirely willing to screw over one another for their own gain. We have to build a society which accepts this fact and channels individuals' avarice in socially useful directions, rather than expecting people to be nice to each other.

I apologise for the incoherence of this post. I'm not entirely sober. :-)

Posted by: Carlie | March 7, 2010 8:00 PM

In short, you assume malice rather than ignorance - when, in the majority of cases, ignorance is the more likely explanation.

Butting in, what strange gods is doing is trying to get you to confront the effects of your position. If you are anti-abortion, the political ramifications of you voting your position will hurt women. If a person doesn't accept gay marriage as being covered under constitutional protections, that is only possible by recategorizing gays as not equal people along with everyone else. Of course strange gods knows your position may come from ignorance; the reason to point out the results of the opinions you hold is to knock you out of said ignorance.

Posted by: Walton, Extra Special Dumpling of Awesome | March 7, 2010 8:06 PM

Carlie,

Butting in, what strange gods is doing is trying to get you to confront the effects of your position. If you are anti-abortion, the political ramifications of you voting your position will hurt women. If a person doesn't accept gay marriage as being covered under constitutional protections, that is only possible by recategorizing gays as not equal people along with everyone else. Of course strange gods knows your position may come from ignorance; the reason to point out the results of the opinions you hold is to knock you out of said ignorance.

Perhaps you're right: I don't know. In some ways, being confronted with the practical ramifications of my ideological beliefs was good for me. I've gradually learnt that it's all very well to hold a consistent and internally coherent philosophy, but if it demonstrably worsens the lives of vulnerable and oppressed people in the real world, then the philosophy needs to be revised. So maybe, in a weird twisted way, I actually benefited from strange gods (or Grammar RWA, as he was then) calling me a misogynist when we first encountered one another. But then again, I don't think this approach is helpful for everyone; some people genuinely benefit from a more gentle and civil approach to discussion.

I don't think there's a categorically correct answer to this. It really depends on the person and his or her preferences.

Posted by: Walton, Extra Special Dumpling of Awesome | March 7, 2010 8:09 PM

This is not a bar? I thought this was a bar. In fact, I thought this was the back bar of Pharyngula. [Hoists glass.}

If this is a bar, I should be thrown out now for being far too drunk. I'm going to bed. *yawns, and sways slightly from side to side*

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 7, 2010 8:15 PM

She lived in France damn near her whole adult life!

better?

pedant

Posted by: Walton, Extra Special Dumpling of Awesome | March 7, 2010 8:25 PM

I think the trick here is to find a person who is not like that, they are out there, but a limited resource for sure !

I know plenty of people who are not like that. And perhaps I was being unduly cynical. (As I said, I'm not entirely sober right now and really need to sleep.) But the point still stands that, in our society - and probably in any other free society - sex, dating and relationships are fundamentally competitive enterprises in which some succeed and some fail, based on a range of factors such as looks, wealth, social status, physical fitness, skill at social interaction, and other abilities and traits.

Posted by: Rorschach | March 7, 2010 8:33 PM

But the point still stands that, in our society - and probably in any other free society - sex, dating and relationships are fundamentally competitive enterprises in which some succeed and some fail, based on a range of factors such as looks, wealth, social status, physical fitness, skill at social interaction, and other abilities and traits.

Sex/getting laid has got nothing to do with wealth or social status, if it did I should be getting a lot more of it ! (Then again, Im not looking for any...)

Social skills and physical fitness, maybe, if you mean going out to the local in-club Saturday night trying to score, such settings certainly favor the bold and beautiful, but that's not the only way people hook up fortunately.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 7, 2010 8:41 PM

Sex/getting laid has got nothing to do with wealth or social status

Don't overgeneralize. In some times, places, cultures, and local situations it sure as hell does. It would not surprise me if Oxford was one of 'em.

Posted by: SC OM | March 7, 2010 8:50 PM

...let's get a few things straight.

Gertrude Stein may be a household name in the US. She is not in the UK. She may be well known and loved in arts and literary circles but she is not widely recognised.

I have no idea why you're on about this. With whom and what are you arguing?

If you don't like my phraseing then just leave out the esteem bit. I included it in acknowledgement that she does appear to be held in esteem in the US (as well as being better known in the US than the UK).

Who cares? What has this got to do with anything?

What a surprise: that was the idea! Ever met irony, hyperbole and English people using a phrase to mean something rather different from what seems to be the immediate meaning? For effect. For humour??

What are you talking about? Are you now suggesting that your remark about her having lived a sheltered life was written with the knowledge of who she was, for comic effect?

Posted by: John Morales | March 7, 2010 8:55 PM

Caine,

... but from where I sit, personality seriously counts.

Roxxxy is offered for purchase with the buyer's choice of five different personalities.[9][16][2][12] She is also able to talk about sports and cars.[16]

Posted by: Caine | March 7, 2010 9:01 PM

John Morales, thanks, but no. I didn't play with dolls when I was a kid, still not my thing. ;p

Posted by: John Morales | March 7, 2010 9:08 PM

Caine, not even Blade Runner-type dolls? :)

(Actually, I was using you to rib Walton (cf. #555))

Posted by: badgersdaughter | March 7, 2010 9:16 PM

...if it is glowing I'm being monitored...

Holy kadiddley. OK, I will stop teasing you now...

Posted by: A. Noyd | March 7, 2010 9:40 PM

Ol'Greg (#563)

One thing I've noticed about my male friends who say all women this or all women that is that they have a terrible tendency to surround themselves with women who confirm their bias.

Soooo fucking true. I so want to drop a dump truck on all the guys who whine about how shallow their girlfriends are. And the women who wail about their awful men. Don't like the type? Then don't mate with it. I'm not really partial to people in general, though, so it's easy for me.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Concerning the sex robots/dolls: They'll be so much more appealing when they're advanced enough to clean themselves up afterwards and put themselves away.

Posted by: Rorschach | March 7, 2010 9:55 PM

I will be in Paris though in May. Anyone from here there? I'm nervous. Very nervous about Paris.

Guy called Marjanovic lives there, seem to remember he's posted here before....;)

Posted by: Becca | March 7, 2010 10:07 PM

ARUGH! html fail.

Making Light

Posted by: badgersdaughter | March 7, 2010 10:14 PM

Don't like the type? Then don't mate with it.

Thank you! So true, that!

Therefore, I am announcing that I am fucking sick to projectile vomiting of having boyfriends with potential. I want one who's realized some goddamn potential, for fuck's sake. If I can get a nice home and career put together, even though I don't happen to have the academic credentials necessary to qualify to give David Marjanovic's least promising student a blowjob, anybody can do it.

Jesus, this invective stuff is addictive. I'll let it stand in case somebody gets a chuckle out of it, at least.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | March 7, 2010 10:21 PM

Guy called Marjanovic lives there, seem to remember he's posted here before....;)

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Unfathomably awesome even to imagine!