Making a buck cleaning Lester's spittle trays on Sequels' 22-year old supermodel abs

[dtb]

Originally posted by ABBAKiss
I bet Justin is THRILLED he got out of that one. How did this woman become famous? She is decidedly not hot. And don't even get me started on "I have absolutely no redeeming qualities" Federline.

B: "So, what makes it different when you have sex with one girl or with a different girl?"

K: "I don't like you. You are annoying. I don't want to be here. You made me come on tour and leach off of you. Hey, did I tell you I just knocked up my girlfriend Shar? Love is, you know, love. I don't need a certificate to tell me that. "

No, Kevin, you don't. But you do need that certificate to get your hands on Britney's millions. Maybe you aren't as dumb as you seem after all?

OMG. Did he actually say that to her face? (or at all?)

What a goober.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
No -- according to the explanation of the paradox, that is exactly wrong. The chances of winning by switching are higher than .5.


And apparently no one on this board has any kinky sex stories to tell today.

I got a duplicate vibrator for my birthday*. I'm not sure what to do with the new one. Aside from the color it's identical to one that's currently in high rotation. I'm not sure whether I should throw it into the toy box with the other one and let it be part of the regular stable of vibrators or if I should keep it in reserve for when the other one wears out.

Suggestions? I haven't used it yet, so I guess I could regift it, but I feel wrong regifting a vibrator.


*My friends know and love me, but no, it wasn't the gold, waterproof, silent vibrator. *sigh*

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Which explanation? (My stats prof gave us the debunk of this word puzzle (that's what it really is) so if you point out which explanation you mean, I'll try to remember which step is the false assumption.)

STP, Bilmore. The "paradox" is not about misuse of language by the liberal medi.... sorry, wrong board.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I got a duplicate vibrator for my birthday*. I'm not sure what to do with the new one. Aside from the color it's identical to one that's currently in high rotation. I'm not sure whether I should throw it into the toy box with the other one and let it be part of the regular stable of vibrators or if I should keep it in reserve for when the other one wears out.

Suggestions? I haven't used it yet, so I guess I could regift it, but I feel wrong regifting a vibrator.


*My friends know and love me, but no, it wasn't the gold, waterproof, silent vibrator. *sigh*

You have two hands, y'know.



And thanks for changing the subject. Though I find myself wondering about the odds of you picking the right vibrator to regift...

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I got a duplicate vibrator for my birthday*. I'm not sure what to do with the new one. Aside from the color it's identical to one that's currently in high rotation. I'm not sure whether I should throw it into the toy box with the other one and let it be part of the regular stable of vibrators or if I should keep it in reserve for when the other one wears out.

Suggestions? I haven't used it yet, so I guess I could regift it, but I feel wrong regifting a vibrator.


*My friends know and love me, but no, it wasn't the gold, waterproof, silent vibrator. *sigh*

Maybe you need to keep one in your car?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Maybe you need to keep one in your car?

That's not necessarily a bad idea. Maybe the new one will go into my luggage, so I don't have to remember to pack sex toys when I travel. I always forget because I'm a last minute packer.

Hmm.

Sidd, due to the unique shape of the vibrator ("Oooh, Jim got you the Egg. It's awesome, you'll love it."), it's sort of a single locale vibrator.

[soup sandwich]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I've read this before and disagree with it. And decided that Marilyn vos Savant is a skanky whore.

As I read the explanation, the odds don't change if there is no interference -- i.e., if you pick one of three doors, and I eliminate a wrong door, the odds of you getting the right door by switching are 50/50.

The statistics change if Monty Hall is telling you to switch. And I think that this is not a matter of probability, but a matter of statistics -- the two are different and the difference is important; probability is math, statistics is history.

The problem immediately gets into an area where statistics becomes useless -- Monty knows where the car is. What if he doesn't like you? Is constipated and cranky that day? Had a booze-and-hooker filled night and makes a mistake?

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

Think of it this way:

I place 52 playing cards face down and ask you to pick which one is the ace of spades. You choose. I then flip over 50 other "non-ace of spade" cards (leaving the one you've chosen and one other card face down) and ask if you'd like to keep your first choice or switch to the one face down card.

When you chose your card, you had a 1/52 chance of picking the ace of spades. This does not change now that I've flipped 50 other cards over because that choice was made before I flipped the cards. Conversely, the chances that the ace of spades is one of the other cards is 51/52. Once I flip the other 50 cards, the chances that that single card I have left is the ace of spades is 51/52.

Your chances of having chosen the ace of spades from the deck of 52 have not shrunk from 1/52 to 1/2. Thus, you should switch cards because the chances the other card is the ace of spades is 51/52.

Now do the above example with 26 cards. 10 cards. 5 cards. Although the odds don't improve as drastically by switching, it's always better odds if you do switch. Even when you get down to three cards, you should still switch.

Using the Monty Hall example, your odds of picking the car are initially 1 in 3. The odds are 2/3 that one of the other doors has the car behind it. The odds remain 2/3 even once the goat is revealed. Thus, by switching doors your odds of winning the car increase from 1/3 to 2/3.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
Because I live to keep you happy.



Sorry, Not Bob. It was Ashley Judd for a few minutes, then I lost her.

Thanks. It's the thought that counts.

We saw "De-Lovely" on pay per view a week or so ago. A weak movie, but looking at the De-Lightful, De-Licious, De-Lovely Ms. Judd prance about in flapper attire for an hour or so while listening to good music was well worth the $5.95 or whatever.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I got a duplicate vibrator for my birthday*. I'm not sure what to do with the new one. Aside from the color it's identical to one that's currently in high rotation. I'm not sure whether I should throw it into the toy box with the other one and let it be part of the regular stable of vibrators or if I should keep it in reserve for when the other one wears out.

Suggestions? I haven't used it yet, so I guess I could regift it, but I feel wrong regifting a vibrator.


*My friends know and love me, but no, it wasn't the gold, waterproof, silent vibrator. *sigh*

Keep it in reserve. In case you haven't noticed, the workmanship standards followed by the magical little elves who produce vibrators is not as high as that of the Keebler elves. It seems my high rotation ones need to be replaced every year or two.

The network will add two new comedies and four new dramas next season, including a series in which Jennifer Love Hewitt talks to dead people.

I personally cannot wait. She is a really good actress. I enjoyed her work sobering up Bailey in Party of Five ten years ago. And she was great in the Ethan Zohn relationship.

[ABBAKiss]

Originally posted by dtb
OMG. Did he actually say that to her face? (or at all?)

What a goober.

Not a direct quote, but more or less. They both came off as utterly devoid of redeeming qualities.

[sunnybunny]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
The network will add two new comedies and four new dramas next season, including a series in which Jennifer Love Hewitt talks to dead people.

I personally cannot wait. She is a really good actress. I enjoyed her work sobering up Bailey in Party of Five ten years ago. And she was great in the Ethan Zohn relationship.

What the hell is wrong with you?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by soup sandwich
Once I flip the other 50 cards, the chances that that single card I have left is the ace of spades is 51/52.

No. Assuming you do not know what card is in your hand, the chances that that single card left on the table is the ace of spades is 26/52. (.5)

[pony_trekker]

Like women are more likely to cum from fresh meat.


May 17, 2005
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
By DINITIA SMITH
Evolutionary scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male orgasm, closely tied as it is to reproduction.

But the Darwinian logic behind the female orgasm has remained elusive. Women can have sexual intercourse and even become pregnant - doing their part for the perpetuation of the species - without experiencing orgasm. So what is its evolutionary purpose?

Over the last four decades, scientists have come up with a variety of theories, arguing, for example, that orgasm encourages women to have sex and, therefore, reproduce or that it leads women to favor stronger and healthier men, maximizing their offspring's chances of survival.

But in a new book, Dr. Elisabeth A. Lloyd, a philosopher of science and professor of biology at Indiana University, takes on 20 leading theories and finds them wanting. The female orgasm, she argues in the book, "The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of Evolution," has no evolutionary function at all.

Rather, Dr. Lloyd says the most convincing theory is one put forward in 1979 by Dr. Donald Symons, an anthropologist.

That theory holds that female orgasms are simply artifacts - a byproduct of the parallel development of male and female embryos in the first eight or nine weeks of life.

In that early period, the nerve and tissue pathways are laid down for various reflexes, including the orgasm, Dr. Lloyd said. As development progresses, male hormones saturate the embryo, and sexuality is defined.

In boys, the penis develops, along with the potential to have orgasms and ejaculate, while "females get the nerve pathways for orgasm by initially having the same body plan."

Nipples in men are similarly vestigial, Dr. Lloyd pointed out.

While nipples in woman serve a purpose, male nipples appear to be simply left over from the initial stage of embryonic development.

The female orgasm, she said, "is for fun."

Dr. Lloyd said scientists had insisted on finding an evolutionary function for female orgasm in humans either because they were invested in believing that women's sexuality must exactly parallel that of men or because they were convinced that all traits had to be "adaptations," that is, serve an evolutionary function.

Theories of female orgasm are significant, she added, because "men's expectations about women's normal sexuality, about how women should perform, are built around these notions."

"And men are the ones who reflect back immediately to the woman whether or not she is adequate sexually," Dr. Lloyd continued.

Central to her thesis is the fact that women do not routinely have orgasms during sexual intercourse.

She analyzed 32 studies, conducted over 74 years, of the frequency of female orgasm during intercourse.

When intercourse was "unassisted," that is not accompanied by stimulation of the clitoris, just a quarter of the women studied experienced orgasms often or very often during intercourse, she found.

Five to 10 percent never had orgasms. Yet many of the women became pregnant.

Dr. Lloyd's figures are lower than those of Dr. Alfred A. Kinsey, who in his 1953 book "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female" found that 39 to 47 percent of women reported that they always, or almost always, had orgasm during intercourse.

But Kinsey, Dr. Lloyd said, included orgasms assisted by clitoral stimulation.

Dr. Lloyd said there was no doubt in her mind that the clitoris was an evolutionary adaptation, selected to create excitement, leading to sexual intercourse and then reproduction.

But, "without a link to fertility or reproduction," Dr. Lloyd said, "orgasm cannot be an adaptation."

Not everyone agrees. For example, Dr. John Alcock, a professor of biology at Arizona State University, criticized an earlier version of Dr. Lloyd's thesis, discussed in in a 1987 article by Stephen Jay Gould in the magazine Natural History.

In a phone interview, Dr. Alcock said that he had not read her new book, but that he still maintained the hypothesis that the fact that "orgasm doesn't occur every time a woman has intercourse is not evidence that it's not adaptive."

"I'm flabbergasted by the notion that orgasm has to happen every time to be adaptive," he added.

Dr. Alcock theorized that a woman might use orgasm "as an unconscious way to evaluate the quality of the male," his genetic fitness and, thus, how suitable he would be as a father for her offspring.

"Under those circumstances, you wouldn't expect her to have it every time," Dr. Alcock said.

Among the theories that Dr. Lloyd addresses in her book is one proposed in 1993, by Dr. R. Robin Baker and Dr. Mark A. Bellis, at Manchester University in England. In two papers published in the journal Animal Behaviour, they argued that female orgasm was a way of manipulating the retention of sperm by creating suction in the uterus. When a woman has an orgasm from one minute before the man ejaculates to 45 minutes after, she retains more sperm, they said.

Furthermore, they asserted, when a woman has intercourse with a man other than her regular sexual partner, she is more likely to have an orgasm in that prime time span and thus retain more sperm, presumably making conception more likely. They postulated that women seek other partners in an effort to obtain better genes for their offspring.

Dr. Lloyd said the Baker-Bellis argument was "fatally flawed because their sample size is too small."

"In one table," she said, "73 percent of the data is based on the experience of one person."

In an e-mail message recently, Dr. Baker wrote that his and Dr. Bellis's manuscript had "received intense peer review appraisal" before publication. Statisticians were among the reviewers, he said, and they noted that some sample sizes were small, "but considered that none of these were fatal to our paper."

Dr. Lloyd said that studies called into question the logic of such theories. Research by Dr. Ludwig Wildt and his colleagues at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg in Germany in 1998, for example, found that in a healthy woman the uterus undergoes peristaltic contractions throughout the day in the absence of sexual intercourse or orgasm. This casts doubt, Dr. Lloyd argues, on the idea that the contractions of orgasm somehow affect sperm retention.

Another hypothesis, proposed in 1995 by Dr. Randy Thornhill, a professor of biology at the University of New Mexico and two colleagues, held that women were more likely to have orgasms during intercourse with men with symmetrical physical features. On the basis of earlier studies of physical attraction, Dr. Thornhill argued that symmetry might be an indicator of genetic fitness.

Dr. Lloyd, however, said those conclusions were not viable because "they only cover a minority of women, 45 percent, who say they sometimes do, and sometimes don't, have orgasm during intercourse."

"It excludes women on either end of the spectrum," she said. "The 25 percent who say they almost always have orgasm in intercourse and the 30 percent who say they rarely or never do. And that last 30 percent includes the 10 percent who say they never have orgasm under any circumstances."

In a phone interview, Dr. Thornhill said that he had not read Dr. Lloyd's book but the fact that not all women have orgasms during intercourse supports his theory.

"There will be patterns in orgasm with preferred and not preferred men," he said.

Dr. Lloyd also criticized work by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, an emeritus professor of anthropology at the University of California, Davis, who studies primate behavior and female reproductive strategies.

Scientists have documented that orgasm occurs in some female primates; for other mammals, whether orgasm occurs remains an open question.

In the 1981 book "The Woman That Never Evolved" and in her other work, Dr. Hrdy argues that orgasm evolved in nonhuman primates as a way for the female to protect her offspring from the depredation of males.

She points out that langur monkeys have a high infant mortality rate, with 30 percent of deaths a result of babies' being killed by males who are not the fathers. Male langurs, she says, will not kill the babies of females they have mated with.

In macaques and chimpanzees, she said, females are conditioned by the pleasurable sensations of clitoral stimulation to keep copulating with multiple partners until they have an orgasm. Thus, males do not know which infants are theirs and which are not and do not attack them.

Dr. Hrdy also argues against the idea that female orgasm is an artifact of the early parallel development of male and female embryos.

"I'm convinced," she said, "that the selection of the clitoris is quite separate from that of the penis in males."

In critiquing Dr. Hrdy's view, Dr. Lloyd disputes the idea that longer periods of sexual intercourse lead to a higher incidence of orgasm, something that if it is true, may provide an evolutionary rationale for female orgasm.

But Dr. Hrdy said her work did not speak one way or another to the issue of female orgasm in humans. "My hypothesis is silent," she said.

One possibility, Dr. Hrdy said, is that orgasm in women may have been an adaptive trait in our prehuman ancestors.

"But we separated from our common primate ancestors about seven million years ago," she said.

"Perhaps the reason orgasm is so erratic is that it's phasing out," Dr. Hrdy said. "Our descendants on the starships may well wonder what all the fuss was about."

Western culture is suffused with images of women's sexuality, of women in the throes of orgasm during intercourse and seeming to reach heights of pleasure that are rare, if not impossible, for most women in everyday life.

"Accounts of our evolutionary past tell us how the various parts of our body should function," Dr. Lloyd said.

If women, she said, are told that it is "natural" to have orgasms every time they have intercourse and that orgasms will help make them pregnant, then they feel inadequate or inferior or abnormal when they do not achieve it.

"Getting the evolutionary story straight has potentially very large social and personal consequences for all women," Dr. Lloyd said. "And indirectly for men, as well."

[soup sandwich]

Originally posted by bilmore
No. Assuming you do not know what card is in your hand, the chances that that single card left on the table is the ace of spades is 26/52. (.5)

True, but I do know what card is in my hand (how else could I have flipped 50 non-ace of spade cards over) as well as what card is in your hand, just as Monty knows where the car is.