RoR: Forum

Try
http://parenting.ivillage.com/newborn/nbreastfeed/0,,3wrw,00.html

Post 41

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 12:13pm

One more thing regarding Ashley's post 33:

================
At our corner bar I never pay for a drink. They get sent over in a steady stream from guys who don't identify themselves or speak to us - just enjoy the thought or idea of us, maybe.

Very weird.
================

Now it could just be "the thought or idea," but I'm leaning toward "the sight." I picture guys buying you drinks, not to impress you (as you said, they're doing this anonymously), but in a cunning attempt to lower your social inhibitions while you and your friend are in the bar.

I picture guys thinking to themselves (while watching you and your friend sit together) -- and this must be read in a sort of Beavis & Butthead manner (to make light of its reproachable vulgarity) -- the following thoughts: [Go on ... heh heh, heh ... KISS HER! ... heh heh, heh ... yeah, c'mon now ... heh heh, heh ... stick your tongue down her throat, baby!]

Ed
[of note: this is the first-ever public viewing of The B & B Hypothetico-deductive Theory of Drink Buying for Paired Females -- ie. the latest addition to a popular and engaging periodical: the Ed Said Chronicles]

Post 42

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 2:01pm

This quote from a review of the movie The Island on space.com reminded me of you guys:
"This happens despite the fact that the clones have had their sex drives bred out of them, which only goes to show that nothing can stand in the way of the noble human pursuit of nookie."

Sarah

Post 43

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 5:06pm

============
the noble human pursuit of nookie
============

Sorry! Just had to repeat that gem. [hehe!]

;-)

Thanks for showing some empathetic understanding for the 'other' gender, Sarah. I like the great quips and jib-jabs, too (no offense taken!).

Ed

Post 44

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 6:55pm

Well Ed, don't ever change. I love the fact that SOLO is full of unique and eclectic characters, and you are one of the best.

Thanks for a great belly laugh today.

Post 45

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 10:11pm

Come on! Its obvious that men would be attracted to lesbians. Its an excellent combination of challenge, the possibility of having sex with two women at the same time, and being able to say "Oh well, she was a lesbian, no loss, couldn't have happened anyways".

Post 46

Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 10:49pm

Tim,

==========
Well Ed, don't ever change.
==========

All I can -- in this time, place, and circumstance -- promise, is that my capacity for change (ie. my identity) won't ever, itself, change. The reason that ... [oh wait, I'm rationalizing again, going hyper-literal and all that ... but, but ... you were ... ah, I see! ... ]. Well Tim, what I was about to say was: Thank you very much for the compliment!

==========
I love the fact that SOLO is full of unique and eclectic characters ...
==========

Exactly. SOLO is a place for nonconformists. SOLO is a place for individualists who aren't afraid or inhibited to 'express' their individuality in a passionate, yet rational, manner. I've said it few times before, and I don't expect that I will ever cease to shout it from rooftops (or soap boxes, etc) ... nobody does it better than SOLOHQ. Hmph!

==========
... you are one of the best.
==========

Alright, alright, now you're encouraging me (and are you SURE you really want to do THAT?!)! ;-)

Thanks Tim!

===========
Thanks for a great belly laugh today.
===========

Oh, well, let me be quite clear here, Mr. Sturm: The pleasure was at least half mine (and doncha' forget it!).

You know, life is really great (when you bring something unique to it)!

Ed
[getting up to take my forgotten dose of lithium, now]

Post 47

Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 1:46pm

Ed post 31 was amazing... and true.

I still remember my younger days at the rock club. The place was full of young "experimental" girls. I put that in scare quotes because it was obvious they just loved the attention the guys gave them as they made out with each other three feet away from a crowd of onlooking guys.

Girls kissing girls to get guys... THAT I could never understand.

---Landon

Post 48

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 6:48pm

Actually it probably shouldn't be construed as "the [heterosexual] male fascination with lesbianism" but only with beautiful females, sans any men other than oneself who is watching this, enjoying sexual rapture. (When there's a male involved, he's superfluous.) But the greater number of sensuous women, the marrier. That's how it looks to me. (Notice, BTW, most women get no kick from seeing males make it together. Why? Maybe because from infancy women with women made more sense to heterosexuals--not just sexually--than men with men. My informal surveys confirm this.

Post 49

Monday, October 24, 2005 - 7:55pm

Mr. Machan thank you for stating the case for this position better then anyone. This post is a model of objectivity. The idea of beautiful women expressing themselves in this manner... well ... It is the best thing I can possibly think of :)

- Jason

Post 50

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 2:11am

Tibor said:

=======
Actually it probably shouldn't be construed as "the [heterosexual] male fascination with lesbianism" but only with beautiful females ...
=======

Okay. But only because beauty (lack of asymetry) is indicative of reproductive fitness.

=======
... the greater number of sensuous women, the marrier.
=======

Which is point 3 of my thesis.

=======
... most women get no kick from seeing males make it together. Why?
=======

Because of genetic reproductive fitness -- as I've been saying. There is no species-wide reproductive benefit to male-to-male intercourse (though there may be psychological benefits for existing individuals). Women who got a "kick from seeing male make it together" weren't as reproductively successful as those who didn't (ie. as those who insisted on getting kicks only from male to female sexual intercourse).

p.s. I recognize that bonobo chimps are bisexual (they care more about achieving orgasm -- moreso than mate gender). I recognize the universal need for sexual gratification (ie. they're are no heterosexuals in prison). I'm arguing that lesbianism serves a purpose in species reproduction (think cows & bulls here!) -- and that is all I'm arguing.

Ed

Post 51

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 10:39pm

     I repeat...and stress...that any attraction that heterosexual males have regarding 'lesbian' females requires that the 'lez' has a female 'lez' friend, AND that both are 'bi-'. --- Without such, the supposed fantasy totally disappears as a 'fantasy.'

     Now, an interesting question is, what, if any, equivalent (if any!) 'fantasy' exists for:
       1) heterosexual FEmales
        2) homosexual      Males
        3) homosexual  Females

(Need it be said that comments from one in category 'X' about category 'Y' are pointless?)

     Plus...Is a 'fantasy' of this type ("stranded on a desert isle with...A and/or B") all that radically different betweenst (amongst?) 'straights', gays, and/or bi-s?

LLAP
thought-provokingly,
J:D

Post 52

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 11:10pm

Oh crap, am I ever going to catch hell for this (for taking John Dailey's bait). From the armchair -- I, with trepidation, respond:

============
Now, an interesting question is, what, if any, equivalent (if any!) 'fantasy' exists for:

1) heterosexual FEmales
============

None. Danielle Steele is, was, and always will be the ticket (says Fabio, who graces many of her covers: I can't believe it's not butter!). Hetero women have an evolutionary interest in engaging multiple men for friendship/protection from the world -- but only the most fit male for copulation. Though, as the truism goes, she may change her mind and "trade-up" -- when someone more fit comes along.

============
2) homosexual Males
============

A harem. A bunch of men idolizing you -- either sexually, or spiritually.

============
3) homosexual Females
============

None. Infidelity rates among lesbians pale in comparison to those of male gays. This is likely because of the evolutionarily-enhanced importance of interpersonal relations among females. Evolutionarily speaking, females survived by making solid relations, males survived by producing solid values (food, etc.) -- ie. by being providers, not relaters.

Ed
[hands open -- ready to catch "hell"]

Post 53

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 6:00am

Interesting, Ed - except it was among the females that the Trader Syndrome arose...

Post 54

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 7:54am

Allllright Robert, here we go again! You seem to be baiting me -- so I'll take the bait once again: How do you know that?

The best-ever theory explaining the abrupt extinction of homo sapiens neanderthalensis, is that homo sapiens sapiens (modern man) out-traded them economically. We conquered not by sharper teeth, nails, nor any superior physical prowess (they were physically built better for survival on earth) -- but with our sharper minds.

Now this implies that we were trading as a group. It also makes it harder to believe your theory, which proclaims that -- for some unknown time -- only the females traded.

Ed

Post 55

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 8:40am

No, not only - only that they most likely initiated it [for the stated reasons] and were the prime instigators of utilizing it...

[But, in saying 'stated', I stand corrected, as it seems the last part of my evolution series was never posted... so, as soon as can get it retyped and into the queue, will give the stated reasons ]

(Edited by robert malcom on 10/26, 8:45am)

[It is now in the queue]

(Edited by robert malcom on 10/26, 9:07am)

Post 56

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 7:59pm

Adam Buker wrote: ""But seriously, isn't it every man's fantasy to be able to find a lesbian that would make love to him? "

Joe Maurone replied, "That's if you're assuming she's a lipstick lesbian from a porn video and not a butch lesbian wearing boots and flannel listening to Melissa Etheridge and could tackle you in football and has armpit hair and...well, unless you like that sort of thing....not that there's anything wrong with that..."

LOL! Joe, that's almost as funny as the original article!

- Bill

Post 57

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 8:32pm

Ed:
     Interesting...'armchair' (could it be any other kind, at this point?) analysis.

     I'm tempted to agree with you, but, methinks that most data re the subjects are not only incomplete (for actual 'scientific' statistical confirmation), and also that there may be impressionistic bias re what apparent 'data' for one to interpolate as 'info.' --- Regardless (or, 'because of?' I'm not sure), I iterate, my impressions are the same as yours.

     I was also tempted to add the categories re (totally functional) hermaphrodites (with and without 'preferences') as well as fully-changed transexuals...but...thought I oughtta keep it to a simple 2x2 matrix. --- However, feel free (after all, we're talking 'Pacific desert isle' here.)

LLAP
J:D

Post 58

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 10:09am

John, thanks for that reply. Regarding:

-(totally functional) hermaphrodites (with and without 'preferences') and

-fully-changed transexuals

... Wow, I think that any speculation couldn't break free from folly (ie. these particularities are still so rare that it precludes any rational generalization to be made regarding them). You mentioned that this might even be true of what I had to say about gay and straight folks. We're merely either drawing different lines in the sand, or drawing lines more or less forcibly (and I agree to disagree).

If you flip a coin twice, and it's heads both times, you might come to the irrational conclusion that it's an unfair coin. That's the general area that I think we are pscyo-socially at, with the last 2 categories you mentioned.

Ed

Post 59

Sunday, November 6, 2005 - 12:42pm