Website Find Of The Week

Ow, my balls!

boyvbear.jpg

Why are guys getting punched in the sack so much funnier than girls getting hit in the vagina?

Hidden psyche answer:

Because by nature, men are expendable.

PS: Here are a couple more nad shots I found artistically elevated:

God Vs Satan

satanvgod.jpg

2 Balls 1 Foot

ruthlessnadshot.jpg





Comments


  1. Well, plus, getting hit in the vagina might feel good to some women, depending on their perversion level. This might explain the lesbian phenomenon of fisting, which makes absolutely no sense to me.

    Balls and Men?

    I am guessing not so much with the feeling and the good.

    Like


  2. Ouch. I can’t find the humor in this. Most of the pictures made me cringe. I could only scroll down half the page before I had to abandon the window.

    There are reputedly some people with such sensitivity that seeing someone else being touched makes them feel as if they are being touched. It’s not quite that intense for me, but a shadow of it is there.

    Like


  3. Men are expendable to whom? Maybe you should slow down with this evo-bio fanaticism and remember that evolution is the explanation, not the determinant, of life. A statement like “by nature, men are expendable” only makes sense if there’s some overarching purpose guiding nature. There isn’t – and the the theory of evolution doesn’t posit that there is. That includes the existence of life itself.

    Like


  4. Expendable to us, the human race. That’s why everyone always cries when a woman dies in war but if soldiers die in wars…who cares?

    When I first heard (as a kid) women didn’t have to register for the draft, that’s when I knew I would never be a feminist.

    Like


  5. OMG. Let’s just overanalyze everything. Jesus!

    Might I add ching chang RAPE…. That’s rape in Chinese

    P.S Roissy this aint no “2 girls 1 cup”…… and you know what the fcuk I’m talking about!!!

    Like


  6. Oh, man alive. Can we lighten up for like, 5 minutes? It’s funny because none of us ever move past the age of 13 in our maturity levels. It amazes me, Roissy, the sort of nonsense anything you post can illicit. It’s a gift and I think half of what you say is total BS, but your writing gets a reaction, thats for sure. My Christmas wish is everyone calming down and not some how tying nut shots and dead soldiers together. Happy holidays, dear.

    Like


  7. I want to start a band called “Evo-Bio Fanaticism.” Who’s in?

    Like


  8. I’m with Dr_snacks
    being hit in the vagina hurts. a balance beam once did it to me.

    Like


  9. dr snacks: Men are expendable to whom?

    the god of biomechanics.

    remember that evolution is the explanation, not the determinant, of life.

    evolution explains breathing, too. should we not let breathing be the determinant of life?

    A statement like “by nature, men are expendable” only makes sense if there’s some overarching purpose guiding nature.

    there is no stated purpose needed. the expendability of males is self-evident.

    There isn’t – and the the theory of evolution doesn’t posit that there is.

    one male can impregnate literally millions of females with enough rest and hydration, and thereby perpetuate the species in the event all other males died.
    one female cannot give birth to more than 20 or 30 children in her lifetime and therefore will not be able to perpetuate the species in the event all other females died.
    so.
    in what parallel universe does this not mean that men are expendable?
    or, to put it another way:
    sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive.
    everything… and i do mean EVERYTHING… in life flows from that basic premise.

    shannon: I want to start a band called “Evo-Bio Fanaticism.” Who’s in?

    everyone, shannon. everyone.
    whether you want to be or not.

    lovely rina meter maid: being hit in the vagina hurts. a balance beam once did it to me.

    i bet no one laughed, though.
    probably just the opposite.
    someone came to your aid.

    Like


  10. Because by nature, men are expendable.

    Men are expendable, but necessary.

    One of the differences between decadent societies like the our First World and societies with momentum such as the Moslems is that one group doesn’t have a whole lot of violent young men, and the the other one does.

    Which actually supports the original point. Only men who know they are expendable are willing to throw rocks at an armed enemy.

    Like


  11. Well guys may be expendable but “2 girls 1 cup” proves girls are the grimiest of the species. for real.

    Like


  12. I want to play the drums in Evo-Bio Fanatacism.

    Like


  13. PA–

    I, Gannon, and Roissy welcome you to the club of those who get it right.

    Anyone who’s ever seen a nature video of male animals fighting (sometimes to the death) for mating rights understands. The nitwits on this board who think thirty years of culture can overcome millions of years of evolution have their heads in an anatomically impossible position.

    As you say, men are necessary. Large numbers of them aren’t. Millions of males who aren’t getting any are going to be a BIG problem in the years to come–in the Middle East, due to high sex ratios exacerbated by polygamy, and in China and India due to female infanticide.

    Like


  14. If men are expendable so are women. There is more to life than eggs, sperm, and procreation! Where have you been? There’s the marriage/merging/transformation of male and female energy. Deeply felt orgasm rising all the up your spine! Is that not beyond mere survival of the species? It certainly is not necessary for women to orgasm during sex for procreation. It’s only been in very recent human history that women knew they COULD orgasm.

    “The 2nd chakra is associated with creativity and procreation. It also governs emotional and sensual aspects of our lives.”

    There are like, 5 others or maybe you don’t believe in that. I’d hate to think that you, roissy, are truly so cynical. Cynicism is for old people. Why be an island when you can be a continent?

    Like


  15. P.S. Sorry slightly disorganized. I imagine that was way to esoteric for you again. Let’s see sex and pickup, sex and pickup, sex and pickup, sex and pickup…. It’s coming back to me. 🙂

    Like


  16. “It’s only been in very recent human history that women knew they COULD orgasm. ”

    Ahem. Sara, feminist “historians” have talked a great deal of nonsense about the suppression of female sexuality, but the idea that you mention above is only partly true. (Oh, and it depends on what you mean by “very recent”.)

    French customary law in the 17th century (the period I know best) assumed that female orgasm was essential for conception to take place. This had some good effects, in that husbands (at least educated and literate husbands) felt some compunction to try to ensure that their wives enjoyed the sexual act. It also had some terrible effects, in that the law assumed that a rape victim who became pregnant as the result of rape had enjoyed her rape, and had therefore not really been raped.

    Of course, both these assumptions are false: it is possible (according to what I’ve read) for a woman to experience some sexual pleasure in rape, while still experiencing the rape as an act of violence; and the idea that it’s not possible for a woman to fall pregnant without some enjoyment of the sexual act.

    Like


  17. the art of the nut shot. the only thing funnier are midgets. put a midget in a movie and you have instant humor. i guess by this logic, kicking a midget in the nutz is the acme of humor.

    “the french are a funny race, they fight with their feet, and f*** with their face”

    Like


  18. Oh, so the French understood women had orgasms and the British found it disgraceful. Hmmm, why am I not surprised?

    Like


  19. this post is hoting now. It’s high ranked at http://www.adminor.info/ (the daily blog, blog post ranking site)

    Like


  20. sara – I imagine you’re trying to insult my intelligence by saying that…

    You did not succeed.

    Esotercisim aside, I just think that sometimes you get a little too far outside of the box of this blog…if there even is a box.

    I am not sure if it is roissy you are trying to impress or other commenters with your seemingly clever and long (ad nauseum) breakdowns of his posts.

    I’ll let you know when I make up my mind which one it is.

    I love that you don’t have your blog linked by the way…and instead have a broken link.

    Like


  21. 2 Girls 1 Cup is faked, they use chocolate mousse.

    Like


  22. 2G1C is faked?! Awww c’mon, you gotta be shitting me!

    Like


  23. Has to be faked. And even if it wasn’t, theres so much other scat porn out there, so why does 2g1c get so much attention?

    Like


  24. Shannon, When I get that new video game “Rock Band” for Christmas that’s what I’ll call the band Evo-Bio Fanatacism. You can play the drums I just want do a scissor kick on lead guitar.

    Like


  25. 20, slightly disorganized: “sara – I imagine you’re trying to insult my intelligence by saying that…”

    You started it.

    Like


  26. Roissy is right about the expendable nature of males, but Sara is more right in 14 about what to focus on in life. We can transcend nature, if only temporarily and in one private life.

    But Roissy is wrong about this:

    one male can impregnate literally millions of females with enough rest and hydration

    Forty years = about 15,000 days. I’d like to meet the man who could impregnate 100 women a day for forty years…that would make 1.5 million.

    Literally thousands would be closer to the mark.

    Like


  27. 16, alsias clio: What is your point? Mine was that men are not expendable, for one thing because orgasm is transformational and transformation from “lower” (2nd chakra) to “higher” (7th chakra) is a worthwhile experience as far as evolution goes (not just procreation), Never deny the “lower” though, is my point.

    Getting esoteric again, slightly disorganized.

    And my comment regarding “recent” history is referring to the last 130 or so years. With exceptions, of course.

    Like


  28. My point was to correct an error of yours. You said women didn’t know they could “orgasm” until recently. I said that you were mistaken; that this fact of women’s physiology has been known for most of human history.

    Aside from that, I thought I would add some information about the relative seriousness with which men (especially husbands) took their role as lovers in sexually satisfying women at different periods of history.

    And I’m at a loss to understand why you couldn’t see my point. It seems to me that it was quite clear.

    Like


  29. For some reason, most societies tend to view men as more expendable than women. What does it mean to say that men are regarded as expendable relative to women? That they are more often sent to war, to dangerous labor, or sacrificed than women.

    There are several possible evolutionary explanations of these attitudes. It’s necessary for to understand them and see that they are plausible, before they are brushed aside.

    One explanation is that since sperm is cheaper than eggs, people are hardwired to see men as more disposable than women.

    Another explanation puts a bigger emphasis on cultural evolution. Cultures who let men die instead of women (e.g. in war) would be more likely to survive and perpetuate themselves, because a remaining small amount of men could still impregnate all the women. Cultures who did it the other way around, or who allowed equal amounts of women and men to die, would not be able to recover so quickly, because wombs are the limiting factor, not sperm. Consequently, cultures that held the attitude of male disposability were more likely to perpetuate themselves than ones that didn’t, so those attitudes were also perpetuated.

    Our culture is descended from cultures that treated men as more disposable than women. This is a bit more of a sophisticated argument than the “male expendability is hardwired” version.

    sara said:

    If men are expendable so are women. There is more to life than eggs, sperm, and procreation! Where have you been? There’s the marriage/merging/transformation of male and female energy. Deeply felt orgasm rising all the up your spine! Is that not beyond mere survival of the species?

    Let’s put it this way:

    My tribe goes to war with your tribe. You consider men to be just as expendable as women, and you send off a force of 50% men and 50% women. I consider men to be more disposable (or women more precious), and I send a force of 100% men. Let’s say that nobody wins, and both our armies lose 50% of their size (and you lose half of the women and half of the men you sent).

    For my tribe, losing those men doesn’t really hurt its ability to produce the next generation. However, since you threw away women, you hurt the reproductive capacity of your tribe. Consequently, my tribe will overtake yours in population (especially if you keep sacrificing women in future skirmishes), and eventually beat your tribe, all else being equal. Love and orgasms will not change this math.

    You are right that in the present, there isn’t much of a need to regard men as more disposable, and many people don’t. Yet many people tend to do so anyway, because that attitude is just so strongly ingrained, due to some combination of biological and cultural reasons.

    Like


  30. 29, Hugh: Don’t have much time, but life is more than survival & survival rates. The whole attitude is a bit reptilian and too scientific. Yet being too poetic is certainly just as neurotic. A marriage of male/female, east/west, science/poetry, human/animal is what will enable us to not only survive but prosper and be HAPPY to be alive. How about happiness and joy being an end unto itself?

    Tantra claims it can transform any man and woman into soul mates. Though it may be some effort to learn tantra, it also takes some effort to sift through billions of people to find the elusive and mythical “one”. We have war because aggression MUST be either expressed OR transformed.

    We are individuals in my opinion. Not tribes, countries, cities, gays, disabled, wealthy, poor, etc… Those are convenient labels/boundaries we use; like language, in order to communicate and have any type of civilization.

    Everyone is important. Every single individual. Every sperm and egg.

    Like


  31. sara, I think you are describing how people should view humanity, and I agree with you. But I am talking about how they do view humanity, which is somewhat different.

    The fact is that certain attitudes, which seem antiquated or reptilian to us now, were nevertheless important to the survival and reproduction of some groups of humans over others historically, and that those attitudes still shape our culture today.

    The kind of humanism and individualism you are espousing is a relatively recent invention; not everyone holds or behaves in a way that is consistent with it (even people who might think they do). Just as this kind humanism is not enough to destroy the deep roots of racism and sexism towards women in human culture, it is not enough to erase deeply ingrained attitudes such as “women and children first” (which is a type of sexism towards men).

    Like


  32. This is required reading for…well, anybody. Despite the fact that it was an Oprah pick. Ladies, if you want to know what makes men tick (and your boyfriend/husband sure won’t tell you…wouldn’t be MANLY) you need to read this. Essentially free except the shipping.
    http://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Are-Way-They/dp/042511094X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198371133&sr=8-1

    Like


  33. #29, re: male expendability

    You speak of all-male fighting forces vs mixed ones, and say that the tribe that uses only men to make war is more likely to prevail even if it doesn’t actually win the war.

    It had better win some time because if it continues to lose its fighting-age men to unresolved conflicts, it will be substantially weakened and more likely to lose the next one. And if it does lose, the women and children left behind become war-booty for the conquering tribe. The losing tribe’s genes won’t endure, in other words.

    You also leave out the possibility that one of the important reasons why any tribe might go to war is precisely in order to secure more women of breeding age (woman=natural resource).

    Finally, it’s a little odd that on a site notable for its old-fashioned view of women and men, nobody has mentioned that perhaps the main reason why it is men who are expected to fight in wars is merely that they fight better than women do.

    Like


  34. perhaps the main reason why it is men who are expected to fight in wars is merely that they fight better than women do.

    You’re right. It’s such an obvious fact, but tell that to the idiots who are pushing for coed militaries.

    Unit cohesion is the other, and perhaps equally important reason why men are expected to fight (without women). Based on my experience in the military, in al-male as well as coed units, discipline is seriously compromised when women are present. Protectiveness over females is one factor. Competition for their attention and jealousy among men is the other.

    Like


  35. perhaps the main reason why it is men who are expected to fight in wars is merely that they fight better than women do

    You’re right. It’s such an obvious fact, but tell that to the idiots who are pushing for coed militaries.

    It probably wouldn’t matter so much today, what with modern weaponry, but in pre-firearms days, when most combat was hand-to-hand, women would have been at quite a disadvantage fighting against men.

    Like


  36. alias c-

    There’s an article in the NY Times today about the revolution in attitudes in South Korea to having girls rather than boys.

    My own preference is for a societal sex ratio in the 87-92 range (expressed as men per 100 women). This way even the biggest dweebs (such as myself) have a chance, without having too many women to demand political and economic power and remake the world according to their “feelings” and use government to make sure than no one is ever unhappy.

    Like


  37. 33, alias clio: “…men who are expected to fight in wars is merely that they fight better than women do.”

    If women are there, sex is going to be hard if not impossible to restrict. They have to be deprived in order to make them more aggressive. Consider this–an excerpt from an army wife about the availability of pornography in the military:

    “The military’s attitude towards pornography is to set a standard against porn, yet still allow its existence. ‘Soft core’ porn magazines like Playboy are available in military exchanges and mini-marts in housing facilities with ease. Internet-access at military recreation centers pose limits to curb pornography usage among military personnel, yet are usually poorly enforced. Pornographic resources like videos, magazines etc are utilized on military vessels, barracks and so on, even if in the quiet, hidden areas.”

    Consider also, the actresses who’ve “entertained” the troops; Sophia Loren, Marilyn Monroe….

    Without sex, their aroused sexual energy turns into anger and then rage making it possible to destroy the enemy. Have you noticed that whenever an army conquers a country, the first victims are the women of that country; they are raped immediately.

    Like


  38. 31, Hugh, “Just as this kind humanism is not enough to destroy the deep roots of racism and sexism towards women in human culture, it is not enough to erase deeply ingrained attitudes such as “women and children first” (which is a type of sexism towards men).”

    Why not?

    If it erases racism and sexism in one couple at a time, who cares about “humanity”? What is “humanity” except human individuals? So if individuals don’t transform, who is this humanity you speak of but you and I?

    Like


  39. 37, setsamibi: “without having too many women to demand political and economic power and remake the world according to their “feelings”.

    Feelings = emotion = energy in motion = the world as we know it.

    Like


  40. 32, thank you Yakking Guy. Is it anything like “In Sync with the Opposite Sex”?

    Like


  41. clio, all your points are correct, though perhaps they are missing my point. I only picked the composition of fighting forces as one example. We could also look at who’s lives are sacrificed to do the most dangerous jobs in a society (men’s), and who’s lives are spared in the event of an evacuation (women’s). See the incidient of the Titanic, and the Srebrenica Massacre.

    Like


  42. 20, slightly disorganized

    “I love that you don’t have your blog linked by the way…and instead have a broken link.”

    I have some idea what a linked blog is, but am not entirely sure that if I did know, if I would want one.

    “sometimes you get a little too far outside of the box of this blog…if there even is a box.”

    True. I do that on purpose because I don’t like the boxes I find here sometimes.

    “I am not sure if it is roissy you are trying to impress or other commenters with your seemingly clever and long (ad nauseum) breakdowns of his posts.”

    Both

    Like


  43. ^ P.S. I’m a bit of a smart ass or dumb ass if you prefer. Am like most people. Really smart in some ways, dumb as a post in others.

    Like


  44. 16, Clio. Reread your post and see your point now. Still I think what you read about the 17th century French was not exactly the “norm” as far as attitudes about the necessity of female orgasm or how many women were having them. I would guess the percentage was very low and it has been rising steadily of course. Things have changed quite a bit, because now if we’re not having MULTIPLE orgasms there must be something wrong with us.

    To me, the important thing is to realize that just because women don’t need men for financial support or physical protection as much as we did, does not make them in any way expendable. Our focus needs to change with the times.

    Like


  45. [problems with coed military] probably wouldn’t matter so much today, what with modern weaponry,

    That’s a cliche that got a lot of push after Gulf War I: wars are now like video games, so no reason not to let girls play too. By modern weaponry I guess you mean cruise missles.

    Infantry and support elements are a part of the military too. Look at the war in Iraq. Not exactly a high-tech engagement. Everyday military discipline can include 2-hour catnaps for an entire week; no bathing for two weeks; carrying 60 pounds of gear on your back and a heavy kevlar helmet; not bitchng (aloud anyway) when a squad leader tells you to inspect and wash four vehicles when you thought you were about to have a day off.

    This wears on a person, and even in peacetime training evnironments, women fall behind in these situations and men pick up the slack for them. Say, a five-ton truck tire nees to be changed. There is no friggin way even two women can handle the weight of that tire plus push a large pry bar to push it up with for mounting. Seen it every time: two men will step in and do this for them, even when there is somethign else they need to be doing.

    Another small anecdote: we were once on a forty-day field training excercise. No showers for 40 days. Except every two noghts, a bus woudl come to the edge of the woods, and pick up all females for aq ride to the barracks so they can take showers. This wrecked discipline and made the whole training excercise seem like a joke. The gys wer pissed — not at the women, but at the “pointlessness” of being where they are.

    Without sex, their aroused sexual energy turns into anger and then rage making it possible to destroy the enemy.

    A miniscule percentage of a military man’s life consists of “destroying the enemy.” In peacetime, that number is zero. Without sex — and the prospect of having any with women not being around — men find a few minutes’ “quiet time” and all is well.

    But when you throw in a couple of women in the equation, the men go nuts, as real sex is suddenlty possible. They eye one another with suspicion. “Game” replaced camaraderie, as each guy tries to outpeacock the other.

    Like


  46. “Oh, so the French understood women had orgasms and the British found it disgraceful. Hmmm, why am I not surprised?”

    The British didn’t consider female orgasms ‘disgraceful’, more like medically necessary for female mental health.

    Both British and French doctors masturbated women to orgasm, it was routine 19th century gynecology:

    http://www.straightdope.com/columns/071207.html

    Like


  47. roissy, can’t u post something a little more stimulating? pretty please. something to the effect that the end of the universe is nearand we should all simply submit to our hedonistic desires…

    Like


  48. There’s an article in the NY Times today about the revolution in attitudes in South Korea to having girls rather than boys.

    From the parents’ perspective, especially in East Asia, having a daughter darn near guarantees that you’ll have grandchildren, while having a son is not so much of a sure bet anymore.

    Like


  49. 45, PA: “A miniscule percentage of a military man’s life consists of “destroying the enemy.” In peacetime, that number is zero. Without sex — and the prospect of having any with women not being around — men find a few minutes’ “quiet time” and all is well.”

    Pardon me, but like many posters here, it seems to me that you want to dance around the subject rather than facing the cold hard truth.

    What happens during peacetime is not the point of having an army in the first place.

    ““Game” replaced camaraderie, as each guy tries to outpeacock the other.”

    I mean, come on.

    Like


  50. Sara – are you the poster who went on about Tantra and cosmic energies (or something) ? If that was you, that I am afraid that there is little I can say to you — even when based on my own experience — about the military, that will convince you of anything.

    There is even less I can say in response to “I mean, come on.”

    Like


  51. 50, PA: “are you the poster who went on about Tantra and cosmic energies (or something) ?”

    Oui!!!

    Like


  52. ^ P.S. Although I don’t remember saying specifically “cosmic energies”. “Cosmic” is not a word I normally use, or “energies”. More likely; energy.

    “There is even less I can say in response to “I mean, come on.”

    So, you’re giving me the silent treatment? That’s passive aggressive and whenever I see “PA”-sorry-it’s the first thing that comes to my mind; being an armchair psychologist.

    I, on the other hand veer more toward the “aggressive”, as you can probably tell.

    Like


  53. 46, Rain And:

    “Both British and French doctors masturbated women to orgasm, it was routine 19th century gynecology”

    German doctors as well. See “Road to Wellville” for a great laugh on that subject.

    I think what you’re saying helps prove my point that orgasm in women has not been common up until very recently in human history. Hence the presence of medical doctors bringing women to orgasm in the 19th century.

    Like


  54. That’s passive aggressive and whenever I see “PA”-sorry-it’s the first thing that comes to my mind

    I was hoping everyone reads “PA” as the great state of Pennsylvania 😦

    Like


  55. 54 PA, awww that’s cute. Really. 🙂

    Like


  56. I remember meeting a young woman (maybe 10 years ago) who was convinced that prior to 1970 women didn’t have orgasms. Really-truly she did. I bantered with her and tested her a bit to make sure she wasn’t kidding, and she wasn’t. I did find out a couple of things about her that helped explain her naivete and know-it-all obnoxiounesness though: educated at an Ivy League school, working in the media.

    Like


  57. I think what you’re saying helps prove my point that orgasm in women has not been common up until very recently in human history.

    Define ‘ common’. Most of the world still looks a lot like the patriarchal history you probably have in mind.

    I suppose you imagine the clitoris hasn’t got much historical attention, which may or may not be true. History is pretty big and diverse when it comes to sexual attitudes (the Kama Sutra has instructions for cunnilingus).

    Even so, about 30% of females appear to orgasm reliably from vaginal sex alone (perhaps 75%-90% occasionally). So any way you add it up, history must be packed with female cum.

    Like


  58. The orgasm stats are taken from the published research, by the way. I wasn’t trying to generalize off my personal veegee hijinx or anything.

    Like


  59. About female orgasms: regardless of whether women knew about them 100 years ago, I believe that modern women still don’t understand their bodies as well as they could. I’m 100 % serious about this: You know how in the afternoon or early evening you get that afternoon crash and you want to eat everything in sight? You may just be horny, try an orgasm. But nobody ever says it.

    Like


  60. clitoris hasn’t got much historical attention

    It’s gotten a lot of historical attention in parts of Africa and the Moslem world.

    Like


  61. Gannon’s word of wisdom are badly needed once again. Most women orgasm, probably around 75-80%. Since orgasm is based on biology, I see no reason why women haven’torgasmed throughout all history. Having said that, it appeats that they are 20-25% of women who have serious problem to orgasm or don’t orgasm at all. These women are called frigid.

    Like


  62. As long as you’re doing your part Gannon.

    Like


  63. For a great description of the female orgasm and advice for women who have trouble having them; read “Total Loving” by “J”. The same “J” who wrote “The Sensuous Woman” back in the 1970’s. Many women love sex, are uninhibited, and enthusiastic, yet don’t have orgasms or rather–as she points out–don’t FEEL them because there isn’t enough blood flow to the vaginal wall. She recommends keigel exercises and I’m here to say they work. I had a lot of scar tissue from a hysterectomy and my orgasms went from a 10 on the richter scale to a 1! I was so depressed till I found her book.

    It seems once again we’ve gone off on a scientific bent here, which is fine of course, but once again I wonder what the real point is. Is it who’s right about women and orgasms and how long we’ve experienced them throughout human history? So that when we determine who is right, that person has the most credibility as far as their blog status is concerned? Or is it to determine where a person is coming from? Is it to end the war between the sexes? Bash feminists and players? Determine if men are expendable?

    57 RainAnd: “Define ‘ common’. Most of the world still looks a lot like the patriarchal history you probably have in mind. I suppose you imagine the clitoris hasn’t got much historical attention, which may or may not be true.”

    Do you think I may be a feminist? Bite your tongue.

    Like


  64. I wasn’t concerned with what you are, or the over all merit of any ideology, per se. Just trying to gauge the accuracy of your specific assertion.

    Like


  65. “Men are nature’s insurance policy”

    Like


  66. in what parallel universe does this not mean that men are expendable?
    In the universe where it’s not assumed that perpetuation of the species is everyone’s (or anyone’s) goal. i.e., this one. In fact, I’d be surprised if any organism bred with the purpose of the “perpetuation of the species”.

    Like


  67. sara 14 “It certainly is not necessary for women to orgasm during sex for procreation. It’s only been in very recent human history that women knew they COULD orgasm.”

    That may have been forgotten in certain times and places in history, but it’s never been unknown to some men and women, especially in places high and fairly low, and it’s also been common knowledge in some times and places going way back.

    Among a very great many other things how do you explain the ancient and continuing practive of the cliterectomy of the great majority of women in many parts of East Africa. (Yeah I agree it’s a f*cked up set of circumstances and beliefs that would lead those societies to that “solution”, but it sure demonstrates a whole lot of cultural awareness of female orgasm itself

    Like