Topic(s) Fore Discussion. . .

Discussion in 'New Member Introductions' started by Imported, Aug 6, 2003.

  1. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
  2. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    thefrench_h: too many (bad) litterature for such a subject "Does size matter"...
     
  3. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    prepky: hmmmm I found that website, completely useless, that is all one persons opinion...and it sounds like a lot of the information he spouted was made up, like the visual tests...based on what 2 female friends thought would happen, and yet he states it as if it happens, and as a person that is "above average" I still had problems believeing the BS that was on that page... ???
     
  4. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    Doubtless_Mouse: I read a portion of the article in question and had to stop. The statements, "women's natural tendency to be promiscuous," or "the principal law of nature is that any species should reproduce and grow in numbers." This idiot needs to go back to school and actually pay attention in his anthropology classes. Women by nature are not promiscuous, because they have been coded to seek one mate. The principal law of nature...this guy is a moron. Many studies have been conducted that discuss this idea; the truth is that a species will only grow to a set point. This point is determined by the availability of food. No food=no growth. The point were I had to stop reading this gibberish though was when he started to quote Darwin, "Natural selection. This means that only the best should live and the weak should take a back seat. This principle of survival of the strongest..." The theory of evolution as developed by Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace did not state that the strongest survive but instead stated the survival and reproduction of the fittest. And the fittest referenced in this statement did not mean individuals but instead was referring to specific traits in a species and the species as a whole. Our whole life both men and women can really be boiled down to a instinctive desire to spread our genes. We have many adaptive and evolved traits to support this goal. I understand that in our society, we have the freedom of speech; I guess that basic right also gives people the freedom to be stupid.

    Do women prefer big ones over small ones...I don't know and I don't really care. I care about the one women I chose to spend my life with. I care if she prefers what I have to something different (actually smaller seems to be better in this area as it hurts often.)

    just had to say something on this article...bad and dumb
     
  5. jonb

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,308
    Likes Received:
    2
    You're right, Doubtless. Most polyandry consists of a woman marrying either 1) a set of brothers, or 2) a set of men who are particularly close. It does not involve women as simply sluts. Promiscuity and organized polyandry have the same genetic effect, though.

    Human sexual behavior is incredibly diverse. The only universal is the incest taboo.

    Then there's this line that bugged me: "If two out of ten blacks have smaller penises than the average white one, but the other eight have larger penises, then who has bigger dicks?" In reality, it's more like "If forty-nine out of a hundred blacks have smaller penises than the average white one, but the other fifty-one have larger penises..." Either way, it's fallacious to assume that the entire group has bigger dicks just because they average bigger. And sampling can be biased: A survey of the NBA revealed the average Chinese man to be 7'5".
     
Draft saved Draft deleted