PDA

View Full Version : 16 inch biceps


Brian Link
July 31st 04, 08:36 AM
Once again, this will not impress most of you, but I wanted to post
since it's a new milestone for me.

I actually spent some time looking at myself in the mirror tonight. I
don't think I ever remember doing that.

Though my arms are not exploding (chest and quads are my sweet spots)
they seem a bit bigger. So I asked my wife to measure my upper arm
girth, and was shocked that they're now ~16 inches. Even more
surprising, the left arm seems to be catching up to the right one.

Last February I was at 14" and change right arm and 13" left. Late
spring I decided I hated trying to diet down to be cut so I'd lift
hard and eat well. Seems to be paying off.

And no, no jpg's till something happens to that spare tire..

Brian Link, Minnesota Countertenor
----------------------------------
"I think animal testing is a terrible idea;
they get all nervous and give the wrong answers."
- regmech

DoctorElefant
July 31st 04, 06:56 PM
In message-id: >

Brian Link wrote:

>Once again, this will not impress most of you, but I wanted to post
>since it's a new milestone for me.
>
>I actually spent some time looking at myself in the mirror tonight. I
>don't think I ever remember doing that.
>
>Though my arms are not exploding (chest and quads are my sweet spots)
>they seem a bit bigger. So I asked my wife to measure my upper arm
>girth, and was shocked that they're now ~16 inches. Even more
>surprising, the left arm seems to be catching up to the right one.
>
>Last February I was at 14" and change right arm and 13" left. Late
>spring I decided I hated trying to diet down to be cut so I'd lift
>hard and eat well. Seems to be paying off.
>
>And no, no jpg's till something happens to that spare tire..

You added 2 inches to your arms in 6 months? I'm impressed. IIRC, you did a lot
of back exercises which stimulated arm growth. Please share your current
exercise routine with us.


DocE
--------
"The future ain't what it used to be." -Yogi Berra

Jim
August 1st 04, 12:34 AM
"DoctorElefant" > wrote in message
...
> In message-id: >
>
> Brian Link wrote:
>
> >Once again, this will not impress most of you, but I wanted to post
> >since it's a new milestone for me.
> >
> >I actually spent some time looking at myself in the mirror tonight. I
> >don't think I ever remember doing that.
> >
> >Though my arms are not exploding (chest and quads are my sweet spots)
> >they seem a bit bigger. So I asked my wife to measure my upper arm
> >girth, and was shocked that they're now ~16 inches. Even more
> >surprising, the left arm seems to be catching up to the right one.
> >
> >Last February I was at 14" and change right arm and 13" left. Late
> >spring I decided I hated trying to diet down to be cut so I'd lift
> >hard and eat well. Seems to be paying off.
> >
> >And no, no jpg's till something happens to that spare tire..
>
> You added 2 inches to your arms in 6 months? I'm impressed. IIRC, you did
a lot
> of back exercises which stimulated arm growth. Please share your current
> exercise routine with us.
>

He's not sharing..no matter..I just saw the new issue of Flex at the
newstand. It has Jay Cutler's sure fire bicep routine. It worked for him and
it can work for you!

Jim

223rem
August 1st 04, 05:51 AM
Brian Link wrote:
> Once again, this will not impress most of you, but I wanted to post
> since it's a new milestone for me.

That's pretty impressive (if there is not much fat)!

> Though my arms are not exploding (chest and quads are my sweet spots)
> they seem a bit bigger. So I asked my wife to measure my upper arm
> girth, and was shocked that they're now ~16 inches. Even more
> surprising, the left arm seems to be catching up to the right one.

What is your max bench/DL/SQ?

> Last February I was at 14" and change right arm and 13" left.

That's where I am know. I restarted lifting more seriously this summer,
and my max lifts (that is, I can only do 2-3 reps) are 225/315/315.

> And no, no jpg's till something happens to that spare tire..

You can provide 'local' images.

MJL
August 1st 04, 06:12 AM
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 02:36:31 -0500, Brian Link > wrote:

>Once again, this will not impress most of you, but I wanted to post
>since it's a new milestone for me.
>
>I actually spent some time looking at myself in the mirror tonight. I
>don't think I ever remember doing that.
>
>Though my arms are not exploding (chest and quads are my sweet spots)
>they seem a bit bigger. So I asked my wife to measure my upper arm
>girth, and was shocked that they're now ~16 inches. Even more
>surprising, the left arm seems to be catching up to the right one.
>
>Last February I was at 14" and change right arm and 13" left. Late
>spring I decided I hated trying to diet down to be cut so I'd lift
>hard and eat well. Seems to be paying off.
>
>And no, no jpg's till something happens to that spare tire..
>
>Brian Link, Minnesota Countertenor

It is hard for me to believe my arms were ever 17 7/8ths inches
around.


--
Live each day as though it were the first of many more to come.

Mick R.
August 1st 04, 06:14 AM
"elzinator" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 05:12:31 GMT, MJL wrote:
> >On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 02:36:31 -0500, Brian Link > wrote:
> >
> >>Once again, this will not impress most of you, but I wanted to post
> >>since it's a new milestone for me.
> >>
> >>I actually spent some time looking at myself in the mirror tonight. I
> >>don't think I ever remember doing that.
> >>
> >>Though my arms are not exploding (chest and quads are my sweet spots)
> >>they seem a bit bigger. So I asked my wife to measure my upper arm
> >>girth, and was shocked that they're now ~16 inches. Even more
> >>surprising, the left arm seems to be catching up to the right one.
> >>
> >>Last February I was at 14" and change right arm and 13" left. Late
> >>spring I decided I hated trying to diet down to be cut so I'd lift
> >>hard and eat well. Seems to be paying off.
> >>
> >>And no, no jpg's till something happens to that spare tire..
> >>
> >>Brian Link, Minnesota Countertenor
> >
> >It is hard for me to believe my arms were ever 17 7/8ths inches
> >around.
>
> Yeah, us too.
>
Up late or early Elzi?

--
Mick R.

Until you get pretty good at it, deadlifting is 90% half mental. - Wayne S.
Hill
>
> Beelzibub
>
> The human in us owes fealty to humanity. But the wolf in us acknowledges
no master.

223rem
August 1st 04, 06:14 AM
Brian Link wrote:
> Once again, this will not impress most of you, but I wanted to post
> since it's a new milestone for me.
>
> I actually spent some time looking at myself in the mirror tonight. I
> don't think I ever remember doing that.
>
> Though my arms are not exploding (chest and quads are my sweet spots)
> they seem a bit bigger. So I asked my wife to measure my upper arm
> girth, and was shocked that they're now ~16 inches. Even more
> surprising, the left arm seems to be catching up to the right one.


Hey, your upper arms are as big as Tyson's or Evander's!


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/news/2003/02/21/tale_tape/
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/boxing/1999/lewis_holyfield/taleofthetape/

Pretty good, if you are as lean as these guys.

(although Tyson's bicep has been reported to be 17" for other fights)

elzinator
August 1st 04, 06:17 AM
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 04:51:30 GMT, 223rem wrote:
>
>
>Brian Link wrote:
>> Once again, this will not impress most of you, but I wanted to post
>> since it's a new milestone for me.
>
>That's pretty impressive (if there is not much fat)!
>
>> Though my arms are not exploding (chest and quads are my sweet spots)
>> they seem a bit bigger. So I asked my wife to measure my upper arm
>> girth, and was shocked that they're now ~16 inches. Even more
>> surprising, the left arm seems to be catching up to the right one.
>
>What is your max bench/DL/SQ?

Ah, the infamous measure of manhood.....

>> Last February I was at 14" and change right arm and 13" left.
>
>That's where I am know. I restarted lifting more seriously this summer,
>and my max lifts (that is, I can only do 2-3 reps) are 225/315/315.
>
>> And no, no jpg's till something happens to that spare tire..
>
>You can provide 'local' images.

Hehe
entering a train full of women clothed in blue or red blazers, make
up, skirts and festooned with ribbons, etc, (Mary Kay convention in
town), I was overcome with a nauseous haze of estrogen. I wondered to
myself, if this is what women do amongst themselves (I won't even
attempt to relate the snippets of meaningless conversation), what do
men do?

What types of behavior do they exhibit when in large groups of the
same sex? Do they dress for/against each other? It's got to be a
better alternative than this! compare muscularity? Bench press
poundage? Computer exploits? Sports?

I'd rather beat my chest or do a ****ing match than what I endured
today.

Of course, I was also propositioned by a large (aka fat) androgynous
lesbian dyke today, too, so I'll stick with some degree of femininity.


Beelzibub

The human in us owes fealty to humanity. But the wolf in us acknowledges no master.

elzinator
August 1st 04, 06:26 AM
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 05:12:31 GMT, MJL wrote:
>On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 02:36:31 -0500, Brian Link > wrote:
>
>>Once again, this will not impress most of you, but I wanted to post
>>since it's a new milestone for me.
>>
>>I actually spent some time looking at myself in the mirror tonight. I
>>don't think I ever remember doing that.
>>
>>Though my arms are not exploding (chest and quads are my sweet spots)
>>they seem a bit bigger. So I asked my wife to measure my upper arm
>>girth, and was shocked that they're now ~16 inches. Even more
>>surprising, the left arm seems to be catching up to the right one.
>>
>>Last February I was at 14" and change right arm and 13" left. Late
>>spring I decided I hated trying to diet down to be cut so I'd lift
>>hard and eat well. Seems to be paying off.
>>
>>And no, no jpg's till something happens to that spare tire..
>>
>>Brian Link, Minnesota Countertenor
>
>It is hard for me to believe my arms were ever 17 7/8ths inches
>around.

Yeah, us too.


Beelzibub

The human in us owes fealty to humanity. But the wolf in us acknowledges no master.

Mick R.
August 1st 04, 06:28 AM
"elzinator" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 15:14:35 +1000, Mick R. wrote:
> >
> >"elzinator" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 05:12:31 GMT, MJL wrote:
> >> >On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 02:36:31 -0500, Brian Link > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Once again, this will not impress most of you, but I wanted to post
> >> >>since it's a new milestone for me.
> >> >>
> >> >>I actually spent some time looking at myself in the mirror tonight. I
> >> >>don't think I ever remember doing that.
> >> >>
> >> >>Though my arms are not exploding (chest and quads are my sweet spots)
> >> >>they seem a bit bigger. So I asked my wife to measure my upper arm
> >> >>girth, and was shocked that they're now ~16 inches. Even more
> >> >>surprising, the left arm seems to be catching up to the right one.
> >> >>
> >> >>Last February I was at 14" and change right arm and 13" left. Late
> >> >>spring I decided I hated trying to diet down to be cut so I'd lift
> >> >>hard and eat well. Seems to be paying off.
> >> >>
> >> >>And no, no jpg's till something happens to that spare tire..
> >> >>
> >> >>Brian Link, Minnesota Countertenor
> >> >
> >> >It is hard for me to believe my arms were ever 17 7/8ths inches
> >> >around.
> >>
> >> Yeah, us too.
> >>
> >Up late or early Elzi?
>
> Late. Slept in late (7 am) and had a fulfilling, relaxing day (badly
> needed).
>
> Also revved up by watching 'Manchurian Candidate' (my weekly movie
> outing).
>
> You?
>
It's only 3:30 pm here.
We try for relaxing Sundays as a rule, inflict the kids on my Mum for lunch
and run away for a hour or so.
As for movies we've been working our way through The Tenth Kingdom. Not
really a movie I know but whatever.

>
> Beelzibub
>
> The human in us owes fealty to humanity. But the wolf in us acknowledges
no master.

elzinator
August 1st 04, 06:33 AM
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 05:14:59 GMT, 223rem wrote:
>
>
>Brian Link wrote:
>> Once again, this will not impress most of you, but I wanted to post
>> since it's a new milestone for me.
>>
>> I actually spent some time looking at myself in the mirror tonight. I
>> don't think I ever remember doing that.
>>
>> Though my arms are not exploding (chest and quads are my sweet spots)
>> they seem a bit bigger. So I asked my wife to measure my upper arm
>> girth, and was shocked that they're now ~16 inches. Even more
>> surprising, the left arm seems to be catching up to the right one.
>
>
>Hey, your upper arms are as big as Tyson's or Evander's!
>
>
>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/news/2003/02/21/tale_tape/
>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/boxing/1999/lewis_holyfield/taleofthetape/
>
>Pretty good, if you are as lean as these guys.
>
>(although Tyson's bicep has been reported to be 17" for other fights)


this reminds me of thoughts I had last (this?) week:

Men seem to be more obsessed with their upper body: chest, biceps,
traps, than lower body. Why is that?

I would much prefer a man with a powerful, muscular back and thick
lean muscular legs and butt than bulging arms and chest....

I'd much prefer a man who is not afraid to wear shorts and show off
their legs than a man who wears tight tank tops or T-shirts.

Other opinions?

just curious....
(realizing that there are different perspectives)


Beelzibub

The human in us owes fealty to humanity. But the wolf in us acknowledges no master.

elzinator
August 1st 04, 06:35 AM
On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 15:14:35 +1000, Mick R. wrote:
>
>"elzinator" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 05:12:31 GMT, MJL wrote:
>> >On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 02:36:31 -0500, Brian Link > wrote:
>> >
>> >>Once again, this will not impress most of you, but I wanted to post
>> >>since it's a new milestone for me.
>> >>
>> >>I actually spent some time looking at myself in the mirror tonight. I
>> >>don't think I ever remember doing that.
>> >>
>> >>Though my arms are not exploding (chest and quads are my sweet spots)
>> >>they seem a bit bigger. So I asked my wife to measure my upper arm
>> >>girth, and was shocked that they're now ~16 inches. Even more
>> >>surprising, the left arm seems to be catching up to the right one.
>> >>
>> >>Last February I was at 14" and change right arm and 13" left. Late
>> >>spring I decided I hated trying to diet down to be cut so I'd lift
>> >>hard and eat well. Seems to be paying off.
>> >>
>> >>And no, no jpg's till something happens to that spare tire..
>> >>
>> >>Brian Link, Minnesota Countertenor
>> >
>> >It is hard for me to believe my arms were ever 17 7/8ths inches
>> >around.
>>
>> Yeah, us too.
>>
>Up late or early Elzi?

Late. Slept in late (7 am) and had a fulfilling, relaxing day (badly
needed).

Also revved up by watching 'Manchurian Candidate' (my weekly movie
outing).

You?


Beelzibub

The human in us owes fealty to humanity. But the wolf in us acknowledges no master.

223rem
August 1st 04, 06:37 AM
elzinator wrote:

> this reminds me of thoughts I had last (this?) week:
>
> Men seem to be more obsessed with their upper body: chest, biceps,
> traps, than lower body. Why is that?

Because that's what chicks dig (it is a form of sexual selection :)

>
> I would much prefer a man with a powerful, muscular back and thick
> lean muscular legs and butt than bulging arms and chest....


You'd like David 'Tuaman' Tua, one of the most feared punchers in boxing:

http://www.davidtua.net/ViewPicture.cfm?Picture=David_Tua_40.jpg&Caption=mmmmmmmm

elzinator
August 1st 04, 06:59 AM
On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 15:28:04 +1000, Mick R. wrote:
>
>"elzinator" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 15:14:35 +1000, Mick R. wrote:
>> >
>> >"elzinator" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 05:12:31 GMT, MJL wrote:
>> >> >On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 02:36:31 -0500, Brian Link > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>Once again, this will not impress most of you, but I wanted to post
>> >> >>since it's a new milestone for me.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>I actually spent some time looking at myself in the mirror tonight. I
>> >> >>don't think I ever remember doing that.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Though my arms are not exploding (chest and quads are my sweet spots)
>> >> >>they seem a bit bigger. So I asked my wife to measure my upper arm
>> >> >>girth, and was shocked that they're now ~16 inches. Even more
>> >> >>surprising, the left arm seems to be catching up to the right one.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Last February I was at 14" and change right arm and 13" left. Late
>> >> >>spring I decided I hated trying to diet down to be cut so I'd lift
>> >> >>hard and eat well. Seems to be paying off.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>And no, no jpg's till something happens to that spare tire..
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Brian Link, Minnesota Countertenor
>> >> >
>> >> >It is hard for me to believe my arms were ever 17 7/8ths inches
>> >> >around.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, us too.
>> >>
>> >Up late or early Elzi?
>>
>> Late. Slept in late (7 am) and had a fulfilling, relaxing day (badly
>> needed).
>>
>> Also revved up by watching 'Manchurian Candidate' (my weekly movie
>> outing).
>>
>> You?
>>
>It's only 3:30 pm here.
>We try for relaxing Sundays as a rule, inflict the kids on my Mum for lunch
>and run away for a hour or so.
>As for movies we've been working our way through The Tenth Kingdom. Not
>really a movie I know but whatever.

I was loaned the first season of 'La Femme Nakita' DVDs. And I bought
a new CD, which with headphones is currently the reality of my CNS.
(headphones are a direct circuit into my CNS). However, there are many
good movies at the theater this summer, which is usually on my weekend
agenda. And I like Denzil Washington....

.....and enjoying the full moon. I don't have the leisure of howling
from my balcony that I had in Austin, where the three of us, and the
dogs, would howl from the deck.

Oh, to have my own place again......

In lieu of, headphones and pounding on my desk (I am a repressed
drummer in my former life).



Beelzibub

The human in us owes fealty to humanity. But the wolf in us acknowledges no master.

Mick R.
August 1st 04, 07:09 AM
"elzinator" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 15:28:04 +1000, Mick R. wrote:
> >
> >"elzinator" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 15:14:35 +1000, Mick R. wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"elzinator" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 05:12:31 GMT, MJL wrote:
> >> >> >On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 02:36:31 -0500, Brian Link >
wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>Once again, this will not impress most of you, but I wanted to
post
> >> >> >>since it's a new milestone for me.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>I actually spent some time looking at myself in the mirror
tonight. I
> >> >> >>don't think I ever remember doing that.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Though my arms are not exploding (chest and quads are my sweet
spots)
> >> >> >>they seem a bit bigger. So I asked my wife to measure my upper arm
> >> >> >>girth, and was shocked that they're now ~16 inches. Even more
> >> >> >>surprising, the left arm seems to be catching up to the right one.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Last February I was at 14" and change right arm and 13" left. Late
> >> >> >>spring I decided I hated trying to diet down to be cut so I'd lift
> >> >> >>hard and eat well. Seems to be paying off.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>And no, no jpg's till something happens to that spare tire..
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Brian Link, Minnesota Countertenor
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It is hard for me to believe my arms were ever 17 7/8ths inches
> >> >> >around.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yeah, us too.
> >> >>
> >> >Up late or early Elzi?
> >>
> >> Late. Slept in late (7 am) and had a fulfilling, relaxing day (badly
> >> needed).
> >>
> >> Also revved up by watching 'Manchurian Candidate' (my weekly movie
> >> outing).
> >>
> >> You?
> >>
> >It's only 3:30 pm here.
> >We try for relaxing Sundays as a rule, inflict the kids on my Mum for
lunch
> >and run away for a hour or so.
> >As for movies we've been working our way through The Tenth Kingdom. Not
> >really a movie I know but whatever.
>
> I was loaned the first season of 'La Femme Nakita' DVDs. And I bought
> a new CD, which with headphones is currently the reality of my CNS.
> (headphones are a direct circuit into my CNS).

Hmmm, ideas ideas ideas
<evil grin>

However, there are many
> good movies at the theater this summer, which is usually on my weekend
> agenda. And I like Denzil Washington....
>
We're thinking about collecting "Angel" dvd sets. It could have gone either
way but the episode where he gets turned into a muppet clinched it for us.
Hilarious!

> ....and enjoying the full moon. I don't have the leisure of howling
> from my balcony that I had in Austin, where the three of us, and the
> dogs, would howl from the deck.
>
> Oh, to have my own place again......
>
You'd like the full moons here in country Auz. Big clear skies so you get a
good clear view. Howling optional, not unusual.

> In lieu of, headphones and pounding on my desk (I am a repressed
> drummer in my former life).
>
I sense a theme here. Hitting things comes easily to you?
--
Mick R.

Until you get pretty good at it, deadlifting is 90% half mental. - Wayne S.
Hill

>
>
> Beelzibub
>
> The human in us owes fealty to humanity. But the wolf in us acknowledges
no master.

Brian Link
August 1st 04, 07:48 AM
On 31 Jul 2004 17:56:54 GMT, (DoctorElefant)
wrote:

>In message-id: >
>
>Brian Link wrote:
>
>>Once again, this will not impress most of you, but I wanted to post
>>since it's a new milestone for me.
>>
>>I actually spent some time looking at myself in the mirror tonight. I
>>don't think I ever remember doing that.
>>
>>Though my arms are not exploding (chest and quads are my sweet spots)
>>they seem a bit bigger. So I asked my wife to measure my upper arm
>>girth, and was shocked that they're now ~16 inches. Even more
>>surprising, the left arm seems to be catching up to the right one.
>>
>>Last February I was at 14" and change right arm and 13" left. Late
>>spring I decided I hated trying to diet down to be cut so I'd lift
>>hard and eat well. Seems to be paying off.
>>
>>And no, no jpg's till something happens to that spare tire..
>
>You added 2 inches to your arms in 6 months? I'm impressed. IIRC, you did a lot
>of back exercises which stimulated arm growth. Please share your current
>exercise routine with us.
>
>
>DocE
>--------
>"The future ain't what it used to be." -Yogi Berra

14" and change means 14.3 - 14.6 or so. I was measuring myself so I
don't know how accurate. Re-measured tonight and I'm at about 15.8 or
so. So it's not a full two inches, prolly anywhere from 1 to 1 1/2.

However, what would be a big change for someone in great shape is not
that surprising for someone still pretty much starting out. The
biggest change in my arm routine has been to add more triceps work and
lay off bicep curls every workout, which in turn has given me a little
more gas to do back exercises. Typically I'll do 3x8 reps at about
~80% of lat pulldowns and sitting rows. Every other week I throw in a
session of bicep curls, 2x10 at 80% and one drop set.

For triceps, in addition to bench press and arnold DB presses I
usually manage 3x10 skullcrushers, doing one set with reversed grip
(palms facing me).

This all in a bulking phase of eating. I'm prolly managing about 3k
calories a day, not very carefully tuned for macronutrients, with the
result that although I'm getting enough protein now I've risen back up
to about 15% bodyfat.

Although I've been lifting for a couple of years now, I still make
discoveries of things that work for me, or discover I should pay more
attention to different things (like my recent discovery of the
importance lat/trap and triceps exercises for 'looking bigger'). The
result is that, despite the lifting, I suddenly start paying attention
to a muscle set correctly for the first time, and I get newbie gains.

At least I think this is what's happening. It's amazing how much
information a person can accumulate and still not know what the ****
they're doing. =P

Brian Link, Minnesota Countertenor
----------------------------------
"I think animal testing is a terrible idea;
they get all nervous and give the wrong answers."
- regmech

Mick R.
August 1st 04, 07:51 AM
"elzinator" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 16:09:59 +1000, Mick R. wrote:
> >
> >"elzinator" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> I was loaned the first season of 'La Femme Nakita' DVDs. And I bought
> >> a new CD, which with headphones is currently the reality of my CNS.
> >> (headphones are a direct circuit into my CNS).
> >
> >Hmmm, ideas ideas ideas
> ><evil grin>
>
> Uh oh. :)
>
> > However, there are many
> >> good movies at the theater this summer, which is usually on my weekend
> >> agenda. And I like Denzil Washington....
> >>
> >We're thinking about collecting "Angel" dvd sets. It could have gone
either
> >way but the episode where he gets turned into a muppet clinched it for
us.
> >Hilarious!
>
> I watched an episode of 'Angel'. It didn't do much for me, but that
> was based on n=1.
>
Where possible I like to prove things to n=n+1
.... trouble is I forgot the formula back in '88 dammit.

> '...Nakita', on the other hand, is more relevant to my preferences,
> compared to what I grew up on, such as "The Prisoner" series
> (I still occasionally blurt out "I'm not a numbah!!") And "The
> Avengers". I enjoy the dynamic of the characters in "... Nakita" and
> she's the only blonde (male or female) that I think has any merit. Roy
> is just hot.
>
It was on at a really bad time here for me.

> >> ....and enjoying the full moon. I don't have the leisure of howling
> >> from my balcony that I had in Austin, where the three of us, and the
> >> dogs, would howl from the deck.
> >>
> >> Oh, to have my own place again......
> >>
> >You'd like the full moons here in country Auz. Big clear skies so you
get a
> >good clear view. Howling optional, not unusual.
>
> Texas also has 'big country.' Even in DFW area.
>
> But nothing compares to the full moon as it rose over the mountains at
> the sheep ranch in Oregon, with the fog from the coast sliding over
> the mountain range like a caressing hand. And the coyotes yipping, a
> chorus back and forth in the valley during the full moon. I didn't
> sleep much those nights (worrying about the sheep being slaughtered by
> the coyotes).
>
> I miss that place.
>
> >> In lieu of, headphones and pounding on my desk (I am a repressed
> >> drummer in my former life).
> >>
> >I sense a theme here. Hitting things comes easily to you?
>
> I have excellent control.
> that's why I lift weights. It's a release.
> I'm a very passionate woman.
>
>
> Beelzibub
>
> The human in us owes fealty to humanity. But the wolf in us acknowledges
no master.

elzinator
August 1st 04, 07:54 AM
On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 16:09:59 +1000, Mick R. wrote:
>
>"elzinator" > wrote in message
...

>> I was loaned the first season of 'La Femme Nakita' DVDs. And I bought
>> a new CD, which with headphones is currently the reality of my CNS.
>> (headphones are a direct circuit into my CNS).
>
>Hmmm, ideas ideas ideas
><evil grin>

Uh oh. :)

> However, there are many
>> good movies at the theater this summer, which is usually on my weekend
>> agenda. And I like Denzil Washington....
>>
>We're thinking about collecting "Angel" dvd sets. It could have gone either
>way but the episode where he gets turned into a muppet clinched it for us.
>Hilarious!

I watched an episode of 'Angel'. It didn't do much for me, but that
was based on n=1.

'...Nakita', on the other hand, is more relevant to my preferences,
compared to what I grew up on, such as "The Prisoner" series
(I still occasionally blurt out "I'm not a numbah!!") And "The
Avengers". I enjoy the dynamic of the characters in "... Nakita" and
she's the only blonde (male or female) that I think has any merit. Roy
is just hot.

>> ....and enjoying the full moon. I don't have the leisure of howling
>> from my balcony that I had in Austin, where the three of us, and the
>> dogs, would howl from the deck.
>>
>> Oh, to have my own place again......
>>
>You'd like the full moons here in country Auz. Big clear skies so you get a
>good clear view. Howling optional, not unusual.

Texas also has 'big country.' Even in DFW area.

But nothing compares to the full moon as it rose over the mountains at
the sheep ranch in Oregon, with the fog from the coast sliding over
the mountain range like a caressing hand. And the coyotes yipping, a
chorus back and forth in the valley during the full moon. I didn't
sleep much those nights (worrying about the sheep being slaughtered by
the coyotes).

I miss that place.

>> In lieu of, headphones and pounding on my desk (I am a repressed
>> drummer in my former life).
>>
>I sense a theme here. Hitting things comes easily to you?

I have excellent control.
that's why I lift weights. It's a release.
I'm a very passionate woman.


Beelzibub

The human in us owes fealty to humanity. But the wolf in us acknowledges no master.

Proton Soup
August 1st 04, 08:27 AM
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 05:12:31 GMT, MJL > wrote:

>On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 02:36:31 -0500, Brian Link > wrote:
>
>>Once again, this will not impress most of you, but I wanted to post
>>since it's a new milestone for me.
>>
>>I actually spent some time looking at myself in the mirror tonight. I
>>don't think I ever remember doing that.
>>
>>Though my arms are not exploding (chest and quads are my sweet spots)
>>they seem a bit bigger. So I asked my wife to measure my upper arm
>>girth, and was shocked that they're now ~16 inches. Even more
>>surprising, the left arm seems to be catching up to the right one.
>>
>>Last February I was at 14" and change right arm and 13" left. Late
>>spring I decided I hated trying to diet down to be cut so I'd lift
>>hard and eat well. Seems to be paying off.
>>
>>And no, no jpg's till something happens to that spare tire..
>>
>>Brian Link, Minnesota Countertenor
>
>It is hard for me to believe my arms were ever 17 7/8ths inches
>around.

Congrats on the massive weight loss!

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

Mistress Krista
August 1st 04, 01:07 PM
"elzinator" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hehe
> entering a train full of women clothed in blue or red blazers, make
> up, skirts and festooned with ribbons, etc, (Mary Kay convention in
> town), I was overcome with a nauseous haze of estrogen. I wondered to
> myself, if this is what women do amongst themselves (I won't even
> attempt to relate the snippets of meaningless conversation), what do
> men do?
>
> What types of behavior do they exhibit when in large groups of the
> same sex? Do they dress for/against each other? It's got to be a
> better alternative than this! compare muscularity? Bench press
> poundage? Computer exploits? Sports?
>
> I'd rather beat my chest or do a ****ing match than what I endured
> today.
>
> Of course, I was also propositioned by a large (aka fat) androgynous
> lesbian dyke today, too, so I'll stick with some degree of femininity.
>


It sounds as if hating everyone is still the best approach.


Krista

--
http://www.stumptuous.com/weights.html
http://www.trans-health.com
mistresskrista at stumptuous dot com

Mistress Krista
August 1st 04, 01:09 PM
"elzinator" > wrote in message
...
>
> I was loaned the first season of 'La Femme Nakita' DVDs.


If you can, see the original French version of the film. It's much grittier,
although Peta Wilson is at least a believable female action hero in the TV
series.


Krista

--
http://www.stumptuous.com/weights.html
http://www.trans-health.com
mistresskrista at stumptuous dot com

Mistress Krista
August 1st 04, 01:12 PM
"223rem" > wrote in message
om...
>
>
> elzinator wrote:
>
> > this reminds me of thoughts I had last (this?) week:
> >
> > Men seem to be more obsessed with their upper body: chest, biceps,
> > traps, than lower body. Why is that?
>
> Because that's what chicks dig (it is a form of sexual selection :)


Women like asses. Nothing worse than a guy with that horrible chemical
imbalance, noacetol.


Krista

--
http://www.stumptuous.com/weights.html
http://www.trans-health.com
mistresskrista at stumptuous dot com

David
August 1st 04, 01:15 PM
"Mistress Krista" > wrote in message
. rogers.com...
>
> "elzinator" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Hehe
> > entering a train full of women clothed in blue or red blazers, make
> > up, skirts and festooned with ribbons, etc, (Mary Kay convention in
> > town), I was overcome with a nauseous haze of estrogen. I wondered to
> > myself, if this is what women do amongst themselves (I won't even
> > attempt to relate the snippets of meaningless conversation), what do
> > men do?
> >
> > What types of behavior do they exhibit when in large groups of the
> > same sex? Do they dress for/against each other? It's got to be a
> > better alternative than this! compare muscularity? Bench press
> > poundage? Computer exploits? Sports?
> >
> > I'd rather beat my chest or do a ****ing match than what I endured
> > today.
> >
> > Of course, I was also propositioned by a large (aka fat) androgynous
> > lesbian dyke today, too, so I'll stick with some degree of femininity.
> >
>
>
> It sounds as if hating everyone is still the best approach.
>
it works for me

elzinator
August 1st 04, 02:41 PM
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 12:09:48 GMT, Mistress Krista wrote:
>
>"elzinator" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I was loaned the first season of 'La Femme Nakita' DVDs.
>
>
>If you can, see the original French version of the film. It's much grittier,
>although Peta Wilson is at least a believable female action hero in the TV
>series.

I did, it rocked.
Peta is remarkable in the character. And she's naturally athletic (was
athletic growing up).

Not bad for a blonde.


Beelzibub

The human in us owes fealty to humanity. But the wolf in us acknowledges no master.

elzinator
August 1st 04, 02:42 PM
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 12:07:47 GMT, Mistress Krista wrote:
>
>"elzinator" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Hehe
>> entering a train full of women clothed in blue or red blazers, make
>> up, skirts and festooned with ribbons, etc, (Mary Kay convention in
>> town), I was overcome with a nauseous haze of estrogen. I wondered to
>> myself, if this is what women do amongst themselves (I won't even
>> attempt to relate the snippets of meaningless conversation), what do
>> men do?
>>
>> What types of behavior do they exhibit when in large groups of the
>> same sex? Do they dress for/against each other? It's got to be a
>> better alternative than this! compare muscularity? Bench press
>> poundage? Computer exploits? Sports?
>>
>> I'd rather beat my chest or do a ****ing match than what I endured
>> today.
>>
>> Of course, I was also propositioned by a large (aka fat) androgynous
>> lesbian dyke today, too, so I'll stick with some degree of femininity.
>>
>
>
>It sounds as if hating everyone is still the best approach.

Nah, just caution.


Beelzibub

The human in us owes fealty to humanity. But the wolf in us acknowledges no master.

MJL
August 1st 04, 03:06 PM
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 02:27:45 -0500, Proton Soup >
wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 05:12:31 GMT, MJL > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 02:36:31 -0500, Brian Link > wrote:
>>
>>>Once again, this will not impress most of you, but I wanted to post
>>>since it's a new milestone for me.
>>>
>>>I actually spent some time looking at myself in the mirror tonight. I
>>>don't think I ever remember doing that.
>>>
>>>Though my arms are not exploding (chest and quads are my sweet spots)
>>>they seem a bit bigger. So I asked my wife to measure my upper arm
>>>girth, and was shocked that they're now ~16 inches. Even more
>>>surprising, the left arm seems to be catching up to the right one.
>>>
>>>Last February I was at 14" and change right arm and 13" left. Late
>>>spring I decided I hated trying to diet down to be cut so I'd lift
>>>hard and eat well. Seems to be paying off.
>>>
>>>And no, no jpg's till something happens to that spare tire..
>>>
>>>Brian Link, Minnesota Countertenor
>>
>>It is hard for me to believe my arms were ever 17 7/8ths inches
>>around.
>
>Congrats on the massive weight loss!
>

heh, it was a cinch!


--
Live each day as though it were the first of many more to come.

The Queen of Cans and Jars
August 1st 04, 03:36 PM
Mistress Krista > wrote:

> "223rem" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> >
> > elzinator wrote:
> >
> > > this reminds me of thoughts I had last (this?) week:
> > >
> > > Men seem to be more obsessed with their upper body: chest, biceps,
> > > traps, than lower body. Why is that?
> >
> > Because that's what chicks dig (it is a form of sexual selection :)
>
>
> Women like asses. Nothing worse than a guy with that horrible chemical
> imbalance, noacetol.

there must be something wrong with me, because i just don't care that
much about asses.

elzinator
August 1st 04, 03:53 PM
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 14:36:03 GMT, The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
>Mistress Krista > wrote:
>
>> "223rem" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> >
>> >
>> > elzinator wrote:
>> >
>> > > this reminds me of thoughts I had last (this?) week:
>> > >
>> > > Men seem to be more obsessed with their upper body: chest, biceps,
>> > > traps, than lower body. Why is that?
>> >
>> > Because that's what chicks dig (it is a form of sexual selection :)

I don't agree. Most women that I talk to, that are not inhibited to
talk about it that is, say they like chest and back or back and asses.
Not one mentioned arms.

>> Women like asses. Nothing worse than a guy with that horrible chemical
>> imbalance, noacetol.

>there must be something wrong with me, because i just don't care that
>much about asses.

I go for back and legs, which includes the ass. But that's just my
preference. My colleagues at work now ask me for Calf Rating (I look
at calves alot, mainly because I don't have any, and they are simply
an interesting muscle group).


Beelzibub

The human in us owes fealty to humanity. But the wolf in us acknowledges no master.

Lyle McDonald
August 1st 04, 04:04 PM
elzinator wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 04:51:30 GMT, 223rem wrote:
>
>>
>>Brian Link wrote:
>>
>>>Once again, this will not impress most of you, but I wanted to post
>>>since it's a new milestone for me.
>>
>>That's pretty impressive (if there is not much fat)!
>>
>>
>>>Though my arms are not exploding (chest and quads are my sweet spots)
>>>they seem a bit bigger. So I asked my wife to measure my upper arm
>>>girth, and was shocked that they're now ~16 inches. Even more
>>>surprising, the left arm seems to be catching up to the right one.
>>
>>What is your max bench/DL/SQ?
>
>
> Ah, the infamous measure of manhood.....
>
>
>>>Last February I was at 14" and change right arm and 13" left.
>>
>>That's where I am know. I restarted lifting more seriously this summer,
>>and my max lifts (that is, I can only do 2-3 reps) are 225/315/315.
>>
>>
>>>And no, no jpg's till something happens to that spare tire..
>>
>>You can provide 'local' images.
>
>
> Hehe
> entering a train full of women clothed in blue or red blazers, make
> up, skirts and festooned with ribbons, etc, (Mary Kay convention in
> town), I was overcome with a nauseous haze of estrogen. I wondered to
> myself, if this is what women do amongst themselves (I won't even
> attempt to relate the snippets of meaningless conversation), what do
> men do?
>
> What types of behavior do they exhibit when in large groups of the
> same sex? Do they dress for/against each other? It's got to be a
> better alternative than this! compare muscularity? Bench press
> poundage? Computer exploits? Sports?

Various forms of competition for status. You can usually get men to
compete about anything in one way or another. It's fun.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
August 1st 04, 04:08 PM
elzinator wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 05:14:59 GMT, 223rem wrote:
>
>>
>>Brian Link wrote:
>>
>>>Once again, this will not impress most of you, but I wanted to post
>>>since it's a new milestone for me.
>>>
>>>I actually spent some time looking at myself in the mirror tonight. I
>>>don't think I ever remember doing that.
>>>
>>>Though my arms are not exploding (chest and quads are my sweet spots)
>>>they seem a bit bigger. So I asked my wife to measure my upper arm
>>>girth, and was shocked that they're now ~16 inches. Even more
>>>surprising, the left arm seems to be catching up to the right one.
>>
>>
>>Hey, your upper arms are as big as Tyson's or Evander's!
>>
>>
>>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/news/2003/02/21/tale_tape/
>>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/boxing/1999/lewis_holyfield/taleofthetape/
>>
>>Pretty good, if you are as lean as these guys.
>>
>>(although Tyson's bicep has been reported to be 17" for other fights)
>
>
>
> this reminds me of thoughts I had last (this?) week:
>
> Men seem to be more obsessed with their upper body: chest, biceps,
> traps, than lower body. Why is that?
>
> I would much prefer a man with a powerful, muscular back and thick
> lean muscular legs and butt than bulging arms and chest....
>
> I'd much prefer a man who is not afraid to wear shorts and show off
> their legs than a man who wears tight tank tops or T-shirts.
>
> Other opinions?

Extremely simple answer: sexual selection pressure.

Women sexually selected for men with wide shoulders narrow waist, this
is what gives the typical 'manly' look. It's why men typically have
more androgen receptors up there (and develop more muscle there): it was
sexually selected for. Hence men are obsessed with
developng/emphasizing it.

No different than a woman doing various things to emphasize her sexual
attributes: bust size, waist:hip ratio (think hip hugger pants + thick
belt), etc.

Lyle

Ben D
August 1st 04, 04:35 PM
elzinator wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 04:51:30 GMT, 223rem wrote:
>
>>
>>Brian Link wrote:
>>
>>>Once again, this will not impress most of you, but I wanted to post
>>>since it's a new milestone for me.
>>
>>That's pretty impressive (if there is not much fat)!
>>
>>
>>>Though my arms are not exploding (chest and quads are my sweet spots)
>>>they seem a bit bigger. So I asked my wife to measure my upper arm
>>>girth, and was shocked that they're now ~16 inches. Even more
>>>surprising, the left arm seems to be catching up to the right one.
>>
>>What is your max bench/DL/SQ?
>
>
> Ah, the infamous measure of manhood.....
>
>
>>>Last February I was at 14" and change right arm and 13" left.
>>
>>That's where I am know. I restarted lifting more seriously this summer,
>>and my max lifts (that is, I can only do 2-3 reps) are 225/315/315.
>>
>>
>>>And no, no jpg's till something happens to that spare tire..
>>
>>You can provide 'local' images.
>
>
> Hehe
> entering a train full of women clothed in blue or red blazers, make
> up, skirts and festooned with ribbons, etc, (Mary Kay convention in
> town), I was overcome with a nauseous haze of estrogen. I wondered to
> myself, if this is what women do amongst themselves (I won't even
> attempt to relate the snippets of meaningless conversation), what do
> men do?
>
> What types of behavior do they exhibit when in large groups of the
> same sex? Do they dress for/against each other? It's got to be a
> better alternative than this! compare muscularity? Bench press
> poundage? Computer exploits? Sports?
>

I was just having this discussion with my girlfriend not too long ago.
We talk about sex. Or flatulence. Or drinking. Sometimes we brag about
the stuff you mentioned above, but more often we brag about sex and
flatulence and drinking. Or we talk about the times we've been really
drunk or the time we got in fights. It's a game I like to call 1-up. A
guy talks about his new car. Another guy talks about the stuff he put on
*his* car. Then they start comparing. The can be done with cars but it
is more often done with sex, flatulence or drinking.

At least this is how we did it in the service.

> I'd rather beat my chest or do a ****ing match than what I endured
> today.
>
> Of course, I was also propositioned by a large (aka fat) androgynous
> lesbian dyke today, too, so I'll stick with some degree of femininity.
>

jpegs please.

>
> Beelzibub
>
> The human in us owes fealty to humanity. But the wolf in us acknowledges no master.

Proton Soup
August 1st 04, 04:35 PM
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 10:04:03 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> wrote:

>elzinator wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 04:51:30 GMT, 223rem wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Brian Link wrote:
>>>
>>>>Once again, this will not impress most of you, but I wanted to post
>>>>since it's a new milestone for me.
>>>
>>>That's pretty impressive (if there is not much fat)!
>>>
>>>
>>>>Though my arms are not exploding (chest and quads are my sweet spots)
>>>>they seem a bit bigger. So I asked my wife to measure my upper arm
>>>>girth, and was shocked that they're now ~16 inches. Even more
>>>>surprising, the left arm seems to be catching up to the right one.
>>>
>>>What is your max bench/DL/SQ?
>>
>>
>> Ah, the infamous measure of manhood.....
>>
>>
>>>>Last February I was at 14" and change right arm and 13" left.
>>>
>>>That's where I am know. I restarted lifting more seriously this summer,
>>>and my max lifts (that is, I can only do 2-3 reps) are 225/315/315.
>>>
>>>
>>>>And no, no jpg's till something happens to that spare tire..
>>>
>>>You can provide 'local' images.
>>
>>
>> Hehe
>> entering a train full of women clothed in blue or red blazers, make
>> up, skirts and festooned with ribbons, etc, (Mary Kay convention in
>> town), I was overcome with a nauseous haze of estrogen. I wondered to
>> myself, if this is what women do amongst themselves (I won't even
>> attempt to relate the snippets of meaningless conversation), what do
>> men do?
>>
>> What types of behavior do they exhibit when in large groups of the
>> same sex? Do they dress for/against each other? It's got to be a
>> better alternative than this! compare muscularity? Bench press
>> poundage? Computer exploits? Sports?
>
>Various forms of competition for status. You can usually get men to
>compete about anything in one way or another. It's fun.

No, it's just as annoying as a train full of Mary Kay saleswomen, to
me.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

Ben D
August 1st 04, 04:41 PM
elzinator wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 12:09:48 GMT, Mistress Krista wrote:
>
>>"elzinator" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>I was loaned the first season of 'La Femme Nakita' DVDs.
>>
>>
>>If you can, see the original French version of the film. It's much grittier,
>>although Peta Wilson is at least a believable female action hero in the TV
>>series.
>
>
> I did, it rocked.
> Peta is remarkable in the character. And she's naturally athletic (was
> athletic growing up).
>
> Not bad for a blonde.
>

Both the movie and the series were excellent. Even if the movie was
directed by an American in a Frenchman's body. I would not recommend,
however, the "Point of No Return", the John Blanchard remake starring
Bridget Fonda. Unless you happen to like getting punched in the face, in
which case by all means go out and rent it.

Ben

>
> Beelzibub
>
> The human in us owes fealty to humanity. But the wolf in us acknowledges no master.

Lyle McDonald
August 1st 04, 04:43 PM
Ben D wrote:
=
> I was just having this discussion with my girlfriend not too long ago.
> We talk about sex. Or flatulence. Or drinking. Sometimes we brag about
> the stuff you mentioned above, but more often we brag about sex and
> flatulence and drinking. Or we talk about the times we've been really
> drunk or the time we got in fights. It's a game I like to call 1-up. A
> guy talks about his new car. Another guy talks about the stuff he put on
> *his* car. Then they start comparing. The can be done with cars but it
> is more often done with sex, flatulence or drinking.
>
> At least this is how we did it in the service.

Men can be induced to play this game about just about anything

Worst injury
Scars
Hottest chick you ever ****ed
Ugliest chick you ever ****ed
How drunk you've ever been
Nastiest thing eaten
Sickness
cars
computers
guns
anything

Just go find a group of men and apropos of nothing go "Hey guys, check
this out, I just did/bought/ate XXX" where XXX is whatever you want them
to play the game on. In no time at all they'll all be trying to one up
the other with a bigger and better story/example.

"Oh that's nothing, I've got a XXX"
"Pff, you're lame, this one time at band camp...."

It's all about top dog alpha male status and dominance.

It's really all about dick size.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
August 1st 04, 04:50 PM
Proton Soup wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 10:04:03 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> > wrote:

>>Various forms of competition for status. You can usually get men to
>>compete about anything in one way or another. It's fun.
>
>
> No, it's just as annoying as a train full of Mary Kay saleswomen, to
> me.

Let me rephrase: it's fun to me to rile up a bunch of guys by getting
them to do it. The difference being that I'm fully aware of the game
I'm getting them to play, they aren't.

"It's ok to play with people's minds, just don't lose the little
pieces." - Anon

Lyle

Ben D
August 1st 04, 04:53 PM
Lyle McDonald wrote:

> Ben D wrote:
> =
>
>> I was just having this discussion with my girlfriend not too long ago.
>> We talk about sex. Or flatulence. Or drinking. Sometimes we brag about
>> the stuff you mentioned above, but more often we brag about sex and
>> flatulence and drinking. Or we talk about the times we've been really
>> drunk or the time we got in fights. It's a game I like to call 1-up. A
>> guy talks about his new car. Another guy talks about the stuff he put
>> on *his* car. Then they start comparing. The can be done with cars but
>> it is more often done with sex, flatulence or drinking.
>>
>> At least this is how we did it in the service.
>
>
> Men can be induced to play this game about just about anything
>
> Worst injury
> Scars
> Hottest chick you ever ****ed
> Ugliest chick you ever ****ed
> How drunk you've ever been
> Nastiest thing eaten
> Sickness
> cars
> computers
> guns
> anything
>

True. Though we rarely do it with out manicures. At least in my experience.

> Just go find a group of men and apropos of nothing go "Hey guys, check
> this out, I just did/bought/ate XXX" where XXX is whatever you want them
> to play the game on. In no time at all they'll all be trying to one up
> the other with a bigger and better story/example.
>
> "Oh that's nothing, I've got a XXX"
> "Pff, you're lame, this one time at band camp...."
>
> It's all about top dog alpha male status and dominance.
>

And if they're not doing that, they are farting and everyone else is
commenting on how much it stinks.

> It's really all about dick size.
>

That doesn't matter though. Right?
> Lyle
>

elzinator
August 1st 04, 04:53 PM
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 10:08:36 -0500, Lyle McDonald wrote:
>elzinator wrote:

>> this reminds me of thoughts I had last (this?) week:
>>
>> Men seem to be more obsessed with their upper body: chest, biceps,
>> traps, than lower body. Why is that?
>>
>> I would much prefer a man with a powerful, muscular back and thick
>> lean muscular legs and butt than bulging arms and chest....
>>
>> I'd much prefer a man who is not afraid to wear shorts and show off
>> their legs than a man who wears tight tank tops or T-shirts.
>>
>> Other opinions?
>
>Extremely simple answer: sexual selection pressure.
>
>Women sexually selected for men with wide shoulders narrow waist, this
>is what gives the typical 'manly' look. It's why men typically have
>more androgen receptors up there (and develop more muscle there): it was
>sexually selected for. Hence men are obsessed with
>developng/emphasizing it.

I'm not sure I buy that androgen receptor density in the upper body
(traps, mostly) was selected for by sexual pressure. That may be
totally coincidental (artifact). There are other differences between
upper and lower body muscle biology independent of androgen receptors.
(one author presented a hypothesis on that issue, but I don't recall
what it was; has something to do with frequency of use and weight: we
use our lower body more than our upper body on a daily basis. Which
reminds me of another hypothesis, but not relevant to this
discussion).

I do agree that men in general are obsessed with developing their
upper body because it responds more readily. Another comment offered
by a male acquaintance was that the upper body is more readily visible
and noticeable: it's in the first line of vision, and clothing for the
upper body is less restricted (tight and short shirt sleeves versus
loose pants that hide the outline of the lower body). I think it's a
combination of all these factors.

>No different than a woman doing various things to emphasize her sexual
>attributes: bust size, waist:hip ratio (think hip hugger pants + thick
>belt), etc.

And fat hanging over the waistline.....
Sorry, but I had to add that as it seems more common everywhere these
days than naught. Most of the women wearing these low hiphuggers
really shouldn't. Saw one the other day (blonde white chick in early
20's) where most of her fat butt cheeks were hanging out over the top
of her pants belt. Do they really think that is attractive?
(I can't figure this out)

I do agree with the point you made.

Interestingly, a comment made by a PhD colleague (to signify that the
individual has an educated perspective) was that she first looks at a
man's abdomen, which indicates long-term life expectancy and general
attitudes about health and life. A big gut signifies poor diet and
physical fitness, lack of self-discipline, poor general outlook, as
well as increased risk of CVD and higher probability of shorter life
expectancy.


Beelzibub

The human in us owes fealty to humanity. But the wolf in us acknowledges no master.

Dally
August 1st 04, 04:55 PM
Lyle McDonald wrote:

> Men can be induced to play this game about just about anything
>
> Worst injury
> Scars
> Hottest chick you ever ****ed
> Ugliest chick you ever ****ed
> How drunk you've ever been
> Nastiest thing eaten
> Sickness
> cars
> computers
> guns
> anything
>
> Just go find a group of men and apropos of nothing go "Hey guys, check
> this out, I just did/bought/ate XXX" where XXX is whatever you want them
> to play the game on. In no time at all they'll all be trying to one up
> the other with a bigger and better story/example.

True, but it's not just men. Go into a senior center and say, "I've
just been to the doctor and he says I need my gall bladder out!" Wait
for it. You'll hear more gruesome stories of intra-abdominal probing
than you can stomach. (No pun intended.)

Dally

Lyle McDonald
August 1st 04, 04:57 PM
elzinator wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 10:08:36 -0500, Lyle McDonald wrote:
>
>>elzinator wrote:
>
>
>>>this reminds me of thoughts I had last (this?) week:
>>>
>>>Men seem to be more obsessed with their upper body: chest, biceps,
>>>traps, than lower body. Why is that?
>>>
>>>I would much prefer a man with a powerful, muscular back and thick
>>>lean muscular legs and butt than bulging arms and chest....
>>>
>>>I'd much prefer a man who is not afraid to wear shorts and show off
>>>their legs than a man who wears tight tank tops or T-shirts.
>>>
>>>Other opinions?
>>
>>Extremely simple answer: sexual selection pressure.
>>
>>Women sexually selected for men with wide shoulders narrow waist, this
>>is what gives the typical 'manly' look. It's why men typically have
>>more androgen receptors up there (and develop more muscle there): it was
>>sexually selected for. Hence men are obsessed with
>>developng/emphasizing it.
>
>
> I'm not sure I buy that androgen receptor density in the upper body
> (traps, mostly) was selected for by sexual pressure. That may be
> totally coincidental (artifact).

What other pressure would have selected it?

> I do agree that men in general are obsessed with developing their
> upper body because it responds more readily.

AND because that's what the average female responds to.

Consider that the shoulders broaden at puberty, just as females develop
secondary sexual characteristics (breasts, hips) that act to attract.

Broad manly shoulders are a common sign of attraction for the typical
female women. It is one mark of an adult male.


Another comment offered
> by a male acquaintance was that the upper body is more readily visible
> and noticeable: it's in the first line of vision, and clothing for the
> upper body is less restricted (tight and short shirt sleeves versus
> loose pants that hide the outline of the lower body). I think it's a
> combination of all these factors.
>

Nonsense, as I can just as readily wear shorts, as can any man. I can
also wear baggy shirts to cover up a small upper body. So the above is
a bunch of nonsense.

As well, if that were the case, the forearms would be preferentially
trained as that is all anybody will be visible in a typical outfit.

It is clearly not the case.

>
> Sorry, but I had to add that as it seems more common everywhere these
> days than naught. Most of the women wearing these low hiphuggers
> really shouldn't. Saw one the other day (blonde white chick in early
> 20's) where most of her fat butt cheeks were hanging out over the top
> of her pants belt. Do they really think that is attractive?
> (I can't figure this out)

People are delusional and generally blind to stuff like this, we've
talked about this before.

Everyone on American Idol thinks they are a great singer and every one
of these chicks thinks she is hot/


> Interestingly, a comment made by a PhD colleague (to signify that the
> individual has an educated perspective) was that she first looks at a
> man's abdomen, which indicates long-term life expectancy and general
> attitudes about health and life. A big gut signifies poor diet and
> physical fitness, lack of self-discipline, poor general outlook, as
> well as increased risk of CVD and higher probability of shorter life
> expectancy.

Studies repeatedly show that men across cultures respond to a certain
waist to hip ratio (0.7 as I recall), some absurd majority of Playboy
centerfolds have that ratio and it happens to be the one that
corresponds to maximal fertility and health. Both WHR below and above
that are associated with less fertility.

this is pure sexual selection. All of it.

Lyle

Dally
August 1st 04, 04:58 PM
Proton Soup wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 10:04:03 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> > wrote:

>>Various forms of competition for status. You can usually get men to
>>compete about anything in one way or another. It's fun.
>
>
> No, it's just as annoying as a train full of Mary Kay saleswomen, to
> me.

I think this would be true for any situation in which you're confronted
with mass believers when you're a doubter. Believers make us all nervous.

Dally

Lyle McDonald
August 1st 04, 05:11 PM
Ben D wrote:

> Lyle McDonald wrote:
>
>> Ben D wrote:
>> =
>>
>>> I was just having this discussion with my girlfriend not too long
>>> ago. We talk about sex. Or flatulence. Or drinking. Sometimes we brag
>>> about the stuff you mentioned above, but more often we brag about sex
>>> and flatulence and drinking. Or we talk about the times we've been
>>> really drunk or the time we got in fights. It's a game I like to call
>>> 1-up. A guy talks about his new car. Another guy talks about the
>>> stuff he put on *his* car. Then they start comparing. The can be done
>>> with cars but it is more often done with sex, flatulence or drinking.
>>>
>>> At least this is how we did it in the service.
>>
>>
>>
>> Men can be induced to play this game about just about anything
>>
>> Worst injury
>> Scars
>> Hottest chick you ever ****ed
>> Ugliest chick you ever ****ed
>> How drunk you've ever been
>> Nastiest thing eaten
>> Sickness
>> cars
>> computers
>> guns
>> anything
>>
>
> True. Though we rarely do it with out manicures. At least in my experience.

Hrm, I bet you could get a group of metrosexuals (1) to do it about just
that very thing. And their hair products and everything else. Or gay
men who are still, at their core, men.

Lyle
1. metrosexual = gay and just doesn't realize it yet

MJL
August 1st 04, 05:14 PM
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 10:57:02 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> wrote:

>elzinator wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 10:08:36 -0500, Lyle McDonald wrote:
>>
>>>elzinator wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>this reminds me of thoughts I had last (this?) week:
>>>>
>>>>Men seem to be more obsessed with their upper body: chest, biceps,
>>>>traps, than lower body. Why is that?
>>>>
>>>>I would much prefer a man with a powerful, muscular back and thick
>>>>lean muscular legs and butt than bulging arms and chest....
>>>>
>>>>I'd much prefer a man who is not afraid to wear shorts and show off
>>>>their legs than a man who wears tight tank tops or T-shirts.
>>>>
>>>>Other opinions?
>>>
>>>Extremely simple answer: sexual selection pressure.
>>>
>>>Women sexually selected for men with wide shoulders narrow waist, this
>>>is what gives the typical 'manly' look. It's why men typically have
>>>more androgen receptors up there (and develop more muscle there): it was
>>>sexually selected for. Hence men are obsessed with
>>>developng/emphasizing it.
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure I buy that androgen receptor density in the upper body
>> (traps, mostly) was selected for by sexual pressure. That may be
>> totally coincidental (artifact).
>
>What other pressure would have selected it?

Well, as an axiomatic statement ALL traits are selected based on
sexual selection.

I'm not sure how useful that knowledge is.


--
Live each day as though it were the first of many more to come.

Dally
August 1st 04, 05:15 PM
elzinator wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 10:08:36 -0500, Lyle McDonald wrote:
>
>>elzinator wrote:
>
>
>>>this reminds me of thoughts I had last (this?) week:
>>>
>>>Men seem to be more obsessed with their upper body: chest, biceps,
>>>traps, than lower body. Why is that?

I saw a guy in the gym yesterday who had flairing pecs, rock hard I'm
sure, that stood out farther than my breasts. He also had noticeable
triceps and okay biceps, but absolutely no rear delts, lats or quads
visible. He had low body fat so I could see his calves, but they
weren't particularly developed. But he looked like he was going to fall
over from those pecs. In fact, he reminded me of those chickens they
breed specifically so they'll have lots of breast meat.

He was doing incline bench presses with a spotter. Of course.

My answer for this mystery is the bathroom mirror. People work on what
they value. If they value appearances then they'll work on their
appearance as they see it.

>>No different than a woman doing various things to emphasize her sexual
>>attributes: bust size, waist:hip ratio (think hip hugger pants + thick
>>belt), etc.
>
>
> And fat hanging over the waistline.....
> Sorry, but I had to add that as it seems more common everywhere these
> days than naught. Most of the women wearing these low hiphuggers
> really shouldn't. Saw one the other day (blonde white chick in early
> 20's) where most of her fat butt cheeks were hanging out over the top
> of her pants belt. Do they really think that is attractive?
> (I can't figure this out)

I think it's a "fat pride" backlash. People can't manage to hate
themselves for being blubbery so they decide to flaunt it. I went to a
contra dance once where more than one dancer wore below-the-blubber
skirts with bra-tops so that the entire rolling mess was hanging out.
This was in a mating situation. I was truly stunned. I think people
have just disengaged from considering a reasonable body fat percentage
as attractive in real life since it seems so unattainable to them.


> Interestingly, a comment made by a PhD colleague (to signify that the
> individual has an educated perspective) was that she first looks at a
> man's abdomen, which indicates long-term life expectancy and general
> attitudes about health and life. A big gut signifies poor diet and
> physical fitness, lack of self-discipline, poor general outlook, as
> well as increased risk of CVD and higher probability of shorter life
> expectancy.

I never realized it before, but yes, that's where I look first, too. I
also look at legs: quads if I can see them, calves more often. I
certainly enjoy a nice ass on someone, but it's not like I look at the
ones where they've got obese bellies up front.

I think the short answer is that we look to see if their body reflects
that they have the same values as us.

Dally

Dally
August 1st 04, 05:17 PM
Lyle McDonald wrote:

> Hrm, I bet you could get a group of metrosexuals (1) to do it about just
> that very thing. And their hair products and everything else. Or gay
> men who are still, at their core, men.
>
> Lyle
> 1. metrosexual = gay and just doesn't realize it yet

Hey, Will, I think he's talking to you. :-)

Dally

John M. Williams
August 1st 04, 05:18 PM
"Mistress Krista" > wrote:
>
>"elzinator" > wrote:
>>
>> I was loaned the first season of 'La Femme Nakita' DVDs.
>
>
>If you can, see the original French version of the film.

Anne Parillaud roolz.

But it also helps if you marry a great director.

August Pamplona
August 1st 04, 05:20 PM
In ,
Ben D > typed:
> elzinator wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 12:09:48 GMT, Mistress Krista wrote:
>>
>>> "elzinator" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> I was loaned the first season of 'La Femme Nakita' DVDs.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you can, see the original French version of the film. It's much
>>> grittier, although Peta Wilson is at least a believable female
>>> action hero in the TV series.
>>
>>
>> I did, it rocked.
>> Peta is remarkable in the character. And she's naturally athletic
>> (was
>> athletic growing up).
>>
>> Not bad for a blonde.
>>
>
> Both the movie and the series were excellent. Even if the movie was
> directed by an American in a Frenchman's body. I would not recommend,
> however, the "Point of No Return", the John Blanchard remake starring
> Bridget Fonda. Unless you happen to like getting punched in the face,
> in which case by all means go out and rent it.

The "cleaner" guy was interesting. You've got to give him that.

>
> Ben
>
>>
>> Beelzibub

August Pamplona
--
The waterfall in Java is not wet.
- omegazero2003 on m.f.w.

a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut
The address in this message's 'From' field, in accordance with
individual.net's TOS, is real. However, almost all messages
reaching this address are deleted without human intervention.
In other words, if you e-mail me there, I will not receive your message.

To make sure that e-mail messages actually reach me,
make sure that my e-mail address is not hot.

Lyle McDonald
August 1st 04, 05:21 PM
MJL wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 10:57:02 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> > wrote:
>
>
>>elzinator wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 10:08:36 -0500, Lyle McDonald wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>elzinator wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>this reminds me of thoughts I had last (this?) week:
>>>>>
>>>>>Men seem to be more obsessed with their upper body: chest, biceps,
>>>>>traps, than lower body. Why is that?
>>>>>
>>>>>I would much prefer a man with a powerful, muscular back and thick
>>>>>lean muscular legs and butt than bulging arms and chest....
>>>>>
>>>>>I'd much prefer a man who is not afraid to wear shorts and show off
>>>>>their legs than a man who wears tight tank tops or T-shirts.
>>>>>
>>>>>Other opinions?
>>>>
>>>>Extremely simple answer: sexual selection pressure.
>>>>
>>>>Women sexually selected for men with wide shoulders narrow waist, this
>>>>is what gives the typical 'manly' look. It's why men typically have
>>>>more androgen receptors up there (and develop more muscle there): it was
>>>>sexually selected for. Hence men are obsessed with
>>>>developng/emphasizing it.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm not sure I buy that androgen receptor density in the upper body
>>>(traps, mostly) was selected for by sexual pressure. That may be
>>>totally coincidental (artifact).
>>
>>What other pressure would have selected it?
>
>
> Well, as an axiomatic statement ALL traits are selected based on
> sexual selection.

But that ignores the distinction that is made between sexual selection
and other types of selection in this case.

traits described as being selected for sexual selection have no other
purpose. the peacock's tail for example, if anything it has negative
survival advantages (it's calorically expensive, draws attention from
predators, etc), but it has profound sexual selection pressure.
Peacock's grow it for no other purpose than to attract peahens.

In that man is more likely to have used his big brains than brute force,
muscles for survival, broad shoulders/muscles are most likely to have
been selected as a purely sexual factor. That is, they had no other
purpose beyond sexual attraction.

Lyle

Proton Soup
August 1st 04, 05:22 PM
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 10:50:31 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> wrote:

>Proton Soup wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 10:04:03 -0500, Lyle McDonald
>> > wrote:
>
>>>Various forms of competition for status. You can usually get men to
>>>compete about anything in one way or another. It's fun.
>>
>>
>> No, it's just as annoying as a train full of Mary Kay saleswomen, to
>> me.
>
>Let me rephrase: it's fun to me to rile up a bunch of guys by getting
>them to do it. The difference being that I'm fully aware of the game
>I'm getting them to play, they aren't.
>
>"It's ok to play with people's minds, just don't lose the little
>pieces." - Anon

Oh, well that's different.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

August Pamplona
August 1st 04, 05:25 PM
In ,
Lyle McDonald > typed:
> elzinator wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 10:08:36 -0500, Lyle McDonald wrote:
>>
>>> elzinator wrote:

[snip]

>
> As well, if that were the case, the forearms would be preferentially
> trained as that is all anybody will be visible in a typical outfit.

Make that forearms, neck and cranial musculature. D00D, my masseters
are HYOOUUGE.

>
> It is clearly not the case.
>

[snip]

>
> this is pure sexual selection. All of it.
>
> Lyle

August Pamplona
--
The waterfall in Java is not wet.
- omegazero2003 on m.f.w.

a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut
The address in this message's 'From' field, in accordance with
individual.net's TOS, is real. However, almost all messages
reaching this address are deleted without human intervention.
In other words, if you e-mail me there, I will not receive your message.

To make sure that e-mail messages actually reach me,
make sure that my e-mail address is not hot.

Lyle McDonald
August 1st 04, 05:27 PM
August Pamplona wrote:
> In ,
> Lyle McDonald > typed:
>
>>elzinator wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 10:08:36 -0500, Lyle McDonald wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>elzinator wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>As well, if that were the case, the forearms would be preferentially
>>trained as that is all anybody will be visible in a typical outfit.
>
>
> Make that forearms, neck and cranial musculature. D00D, my masseters
> are HYOOUUGE.

I used to make jokes (I'm sure someone can google them) about just
training the accessory muscles (just get all of the HFL books), to make
people think you were big when you weren't. Just train the calves,
traps and forearms, the muscles thaht people see when you're clothed.
Everything else could be scrawny but in a typical t-shirt+shorts outfit,
those muscle groups would be visible.

Also google on my MASSticator training device.

Lyle

elzinator
August 1st 04, 05:33 PM
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 10:41:03 -0500, Ben D wrote:
> I would not recommend,
>however, the "Point of No Return", the John Blanchard remake starring
>Bridget Fonda. Unless you happen to like getting punched in the face, in
>which case by all means go out and rent it.

I haven't seen it and don't intend to. Every review I've heard said is
sucks.


Beelzibub

The human in us owes fealty to humanity. But the wolf in us acknowledges no master.

elzinator
August 1st 04, 06:02 PM
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 10:57:02 -0500, Lyle McDonald wrote:
>elzinator wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 10:08:36 -0500, Lyle McDonald wrote:
>>
>>>elzinator wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>this reminds me of thoughts I had last (this?) week:
>>>>
>>>>Men seem to be more obsessed with their upper body: chest, biceps,
>>>>traps, than lower body. Why is that?
>>>>
>>>>I would much prefer a man with a powerful, muscular back and thick
>>>>lean muscular legs and butt than bulging arms and chest....
>>>>
>>>>I'd much prefer a man who is not afraid to wear shorts and show off
>>>>their legs than a man who wears tight tank tops or T-shirts.
>>>>
>>>>Other opinions?
>>>
>>>Extremely simple answer: sexual selection pressure.
>>>
>>>Women sexually selected for men with wide shoulders narrow waist, this
>>>is what gives the typical 'manly' look. It's why men typically have
>>>more androgen receptors up there (and develop more muscle there): it was
>>>sexually selected for. Hence men are obsessed with
>>>developng/emphasizing it.
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure I buy that androgen receptor density in the upper body
>> (traps, mostly) was selected for by sexual pressure. That may be
>> totally coincidental (artifact).
>
>What other pressure would have selected it?

Good question, of which I don't have an answer to yet. I'll have to
think about it.

>> I do agree that men in general are obsessed with developing their
>> upper body because it responds more readily.
>
>AND because that's what the average female responds to.
>
>Consider that the shoulders broaden at puberty, just as females develop
>secondary sexual characteristics (breasts, hips) that act to attract.

the other issue is also skeletal. Male bones grow over a longer period
of time than women's.

>Broad manly shoulders are a common sign of attraction for the typical
>female women. It is one mark of an adult male.

Agreed.


>Another comment offered
>> by a male acquaintance was that the upper body is more readily visible
>> and noticeable: it's in the first line of vision, and clothing for the
>> upper body is less restricted (tight and short shirt sleeves versus
>> loose pants that hide the outline of the lower body). I think it's a
>> combination of all these factors.
>>
>
>Nonsense, as I can just as readily wear shorts, as can any man. I can
>also wear baggy shirts to cover up a small upper body. So the above is
>a bunch of nonsense.

No it's not. Nor are you a good example of the average male, just as I
am not of the average female. Shorts are not acceptable attire in most
public situations. (in fact, faculty and staff at UT have been told
"No shorts". I wear them anyway.). We see them worn more here in the
South because of the heat, but also in very casual situations. Pants
are worn by men as the most acceptable clothing for the lower body in
most public situations. It's socially dictated. However, the attire
for the upper body is not as restrictive.

>As well, if that were the case, the forearms would be preferentially
>trained as that is all anybody will be visible in a typical outfit.

And lots of guys do preferentially train their forearms. I noticed
this years ago, and see it alot here.

>> Sorry, but I had to add that as it seems more common everywhere these
>> days than naught. Most of the women wearing these low hiphuggers
>> really shouldn't. Saw one the other day (blonde white chick in early
>> 20's) where most of her fat butt cheeks were hanging out over the top
>> of her pants belt. Do they really think that is attractive?
>> (I can't figure this out)
>
>People are delusional and generally blind to stuff like this, we've
>talked about this before.

I know. It never ceases to astound me at how self-delusional people
are.

>> Interestingly, a comment made by a PhD colleague (to signify that the
>> individual has an educated perspective) was that she first looks at a
>> man's abdomen, which indicates long-term life expectancy and general
>> attitudes about health and life. A big gut signifies poor diet and
>> physical fitness, lack of self-discipline, poor general outlook, as
>> well as increased risk of CVD and higher probability of shorter life
>> expectancy.
>
>Studies repeatedly show that men across cultures respond to a certain
>waist to hip ratio (0.7 as I recall), some absurd majority of Playboy
>centerfolds have that ratio and it happens to be the one that
>corresponds to maximal fertility and health. Both WHR below and above
>that are associated with less fertility.
>
>this is pure sexual selection. All of it.

While I don't argue that most of our traits are a product of
generations of sexual selection, I also think that some traits are not
solely selected on the basis of sexual preference. Not trying to be
contentious, but attempting instead to analyze what is purely selected
for and what is artifactual; dissecting correlation from causation.

However, I may be deluding myself that dissecting these traits can be
done. :) Still, it is interesting to think about it (had a similar
discussion with gender differences in regards to brain
development/function with a systems specialist, which was really
helpful).


Beelzibub

The human in us owes fealty to humanity. But the wolf in us acknowledges no master.

Proton Soup
August 1st 04, 06:04 PM
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 10:57:02 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> wrote:

>> Interestingly, a comment made by a PhD colleague (to signify that the
>> individual has an educated perspective) was that she first looks at a
>> man's abdomen, which indicates long-term life expectancy and general
>> attitudes about health and life. A big gut signifies poor diet and
>> physical fitness, lack of self-discipline, poor general outlook, as
>> well as increased risk of CVD and higher probability of shorter life
>> expectancy.
>
>Studies repeatedly show that men across cultures respond to a certain
>waist to hip ratio (0.7 as I recall), some absurd majority of Playboy
>centerfolds have that ratio and it happens to be the one that
>corresponds to maximal fertility and health. Both WHR below and above
>that are associated with less fertility.
>
>this is pure sexual selection. All of it.

Even nipples on men?

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

elzinator
August 1st 04, 06:13 PM
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 12:15:18 -0400, Dally wrote:
>elzinator wrote:

>>>>Men seem to be more obsessed with their upper body: chest, biceps,
>>>>traps, than lower body. Why is that?
>
>I saw a guy in the gym yesterday who had flairing pecs, rock hard I'm
>sure, that stood out farther than my breasts. He also had noticeable
>triceps and okay biceps, but absolutely no rear delts, lats or quads
>visible. He had low body fat so I could see his calves, but they
>weren't particularly developed. But he looked like he was going to fall
>over from those pecs. In fact, he reminded me of those chickens they
>breed specifically so they'll have lots of breast meat.
>
>He was doing incline bench presses with a spotter. Of course.
>
>My answer for this mystery is the bathroom mirror. People work on what
>they value. If they value appearances then they'll work on their
>appearance as they see it.

Of course. Which is one reason why many work on chest and arms with
less emphasis on back: out of sight, out of mind.

When asked for goals of one of my former clients, he very frankly said
he wanted "beach breasts."
(As well as increased strength and endurance for scuba diving.)


>> Interestingly, a comment made by a PhD colleague (to signify that the
>> individual has an educated perspective) was that she first looks at a
>> man's abdomen, which indicates long-term life expectancy and general
>> attitudes about health and life. A big gut signifies poor diet and
>> physical fitness, lack of self-discipline, poor general outlook, as
>> well as increased risk of CVD and higher probability of shorter life
>> expectancy.
>
>I never realized it before, but yes, that's where I look first, too. I
>also look at legs: quads if I can see them, calves more often. I
>certainly enjoy a nice ass on someone, but it's not like I look at the
>ones where they've got obese bellies up front.
>
>I think the short answer is that we look to see if their body reflects
>that they have the same values as us.

Very perceptive.

However, don't date bodybuilders. Even my physician chastised me for
getting involved in a relationship with a bodybuilder. ;)






Beelzibub

The human in us owes fealty to humanity. But the wolf in us acknowledges no master.

Proton Soup
August 1st 04, 06:56 PM
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 11:21:02 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> wrote:

>MJL wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 10:57:02 -0500, Lyle McDonald
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>elzinator wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 10:08:36 -0500, Lyle McDonald wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>elzinator wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>this reminds me of thoughts I had last (this?) week:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Men seem to be more obsessed with their upper body: chest, biceps,
>>>>>>traps, than lower body. Why is that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I would much prefer a man with a powerful, muscular back and thick
>>>>>>lean muscular legs and butt than bulging arms and chest....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'd much prefer a man who is not afraid to wear shorts and show off
>>>>>>their legs than a man who wears tight tank tops or T-shirts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Other opinions?
>>>>>
>>>>>Extremely simple answer: sexual selection pressure.
>>>>>
>>>>>Women sexually selected for men with wide shoulders narrow waist, this
>>>>>is what gives the typical 'manly' look. It's why men typically have
>>>>>more androgen receptors up there (and develop more muscle there): it was
>>>>>sexually selected for. Hence men are obsessed with
>>>>>developng/emphasizing it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'm not sure I buy that androgen receptor density in the upper body
>>>>(traps, mostly) was selected for by sexual pressure. That may be
>>>>totally coincidental (artifact).
>>>
>>>What other pressure would have selected it?
>>
>>
>> Well, as an axiomatic statement ALL traits are selected based on
>> sexual selection.
>
>But that ignores the distinction that is made between sexual selection
>and other types of selection in this case.
>
>traits described as being selected for sexual selection have no other
>purpose. the peacock's tail for example, if anything it has negative
>survival advantages (it's calorically expensive, draws attention from
>predators, etc), but it has profound sexual selection pressure.
>Peacock's grow it for no other purpose than to attract peahens.

They make the bird look much larger than it really is, which might
confuse a predator. Also notice the eyespots on the tail feathers.
Many fishes have eyespots on their tails, btw.

>In that man is more likely to have used his big brains than brute force,
>muscles for survival, broad shoulders/muscles are most likely to have
>been selected as a purely sexual factor. That is, they had no other
>purpose beyond sexual attraction.

Although pound for pound, humans can be much weaker than animals,
visual size certainly does play a role in evading predation. I think
bipedalism also adds to the effect.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

MJL
August 1st 04, 07:35 PM
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 11:27:28 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> wrote:

>August Pamplona wrote:
>> In ,
>> Lyle McDonald > typed:
>>
>>>elzinator wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 10:08:36 -0500, Lyle McDonald wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>elzinator wrote:
>>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>>>As well, if that were the case, the forearms would be preferentially
>>>trained as that is all anybody will be visible in a typical outfit.
>>
>>
>> Make that forearms, neck and cranial musculature. D00D, my masseters
>> are HYOOUUGE.
>
>I used to make jokes (I'm sure someone can google them) about just
>training the accessory muscles (just get all of the HFL books), to make
>people think you were big when you weren't. Just train the calves,
>traps and forearms, the muscles thaht people see when you're clothed.
>Everything else could be scrawny but in a typical t-shirt+shorts outfit,
> those muscle groups would be visible.

I'd be very interested to see how much secondary growth is stimulated
by such a program in an untrained novice.


--
Live each day as though it were the first of many more to come.

Lyle McDonald
August 1st 04, 07:57 PM
Proton Soup wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 10:57:02 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>Interestingly, a comment made by a PhD colleague (to signify that the
>>>individual has an educated perspective) was that she first looks at a
>>>man's abdomen, which indicates long-term life expectancy and general
>>>attitudes about health and life. A big gut signifies poor diet and
>>>physical fitness, lack of self-discipline, poor general outlook, as
>>>well as increased risk of CVD and higher probability of shorter life
>>>expectancy.
>>
>>Studies repeatedly show that men across cultures respond to a certain
>>waist to hip ratio (0.7 as I recall), some absurd majority of Playboy
>>centerfolds have that ratio and it happens to be the one that
>>corresponds to maximal fertility and health. Both WHR below and above
>>that are associated with less fertility.
>>
>>this is pure sexual selection. All of it.
>
>
> Even nipples on men?
>

Where did I mention nipples on men?

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
August 1st 04, 07:57 PM
Proton Soup wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 11:21:02 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> > wrote:

>>In that man is more likely to have used his big brains than brute force,
>>muscles for survival, broad shoulders/muscles are most likely to have
>>been selected as a purely sexual factor. That is, they had no other
>>purpose beyond sexual attraction.
>
>
> Although pound for pound, humans can be much weaker than animals,
> visual size certainly does play a role in evading predation. I think
> bipedalism also adds to the effect.

Man has no specific predators.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
August 1st 04, 07:58 PM
MJL wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 11:27:28 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> > wrote:
>
>
>>August Pamplona wrote:
>>
>>>In ,
>>>Lyle McDonald > typed:
>>>
>>>
>>>>elzinator wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 10:08:36 -0500, Lyle McDonald wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>elzinator wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>As well, if that were the case, the forearms would be preferentially
>>>>trained as that is all anybody will be visible in a typical outfit.
>>>
>>>
>>> Make that forearms, neck and cranial musculature. D00D, my masseters
>>>are HYOOUUGE.
>>
>>I used to make jokes (I'm sure someone can google them) about just
>>training the accessory muscles (just get all of the HFL books), to make
>>people think you were big when you weren't. Just train the calves,
>>traps and forearms, the muscles thaht people see when you're clothed.
>>Everything else could be scrawny but in a typical t-shirt+shorts outfit,
>> those muscle groups would be visible.
>
>
> I'd be very interested to see how much secondary growth is stimulated
> by such a program in an untrained novice.

I'd be interested, just for once, to understand your gibberish.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
August 1st 04, 08:08 PM
elzinator wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 10:57:02 -0500, Lyle McDonald wrote:
>
>>elzinator wrote:

>>>I'm not sure I buy that androgen receptor density in the upper body
>>>(traps, mostly) was selected for by sexual pressure. That may be
>>>totally coincidental (artifact).
>>
>>What other pressure would have selected it?
>
>
> Good question, of which I don't have an answer to yet. I'll have to
> think about it.

Unless more muscular development had survival value, the only other
pressure is sexual selection.


>>Consider that the shoulders broaden at puberty, just as females develop
>>secondary sexual characteristics (breasts, hips) that act to attract.
>
>
> the other issue is also skeletal. Male bones grow over a longer period
> of time than women's.

this is irrelevant to what I wrote.

That a man's long bones grow longer would make it seem that all bones
would develop more but that's not the case. Men show preferential
development in specific places and so do women (and both occur at
puberty which is when both men and women become sexually
active/attracted to one another), both of which are correlated with
sexual attraction, because they were originally sexually selected for.


>>Another comment offered
>>
>>>by a male acquaintance was that the upper body is more readily visible
>>>and noticeable: it's in the first line of vision, and clothing for the
>>>upper body is less restricted (tight and short shirt sleeves versus
>>>loose pants that hide the outline of the lower body). I think it's a
>>>combination of all these factors.
>>>
>>
>>Nonsense, as I can just as readily wear shorts, as can any man. I can
>>also wear baggy shirts to cover up a small upper body. So the above is
>>a bunch of nonsense.
>
>
> No it's not.

Yes, it is.
Your acquaintance is arguing that men develop the upper body because
it's easy to hide the legs and show off the upper body.

this is clearly nonsense as you can just as easily do the reverse.
Social customes (which generally develop out of biological preferences
in the first place) are irrelevant to this fact.

yet, on average, men do not.

=
>>As well, if that were the case, the forearms would be preferentially
>>trained as that is all anybody will be visible in a typical outfit.
>
>
> And lots of guys do preferentially train their forearms. I noticed
> this years ago, and see it alot here.

And whom are you watching?
the powerlifters and serious athletes for whom grip work is crucial.

How many average male gym trainees do you see training forearms?
Because I've been in gyms way longer than you have and have not noticed
all that many. A few yes, the majority, no.


> While I don't argue that most of our traits are a product of
> generations of sexual selection, I also think that some traits are not
> solely selected on the basis of sexual preference.

This is a non-sequitur as I"m not saying that all traits are sexually
selected. Just the physical traits that we happen to be discussing in
this thread.

It reminds me of a conversation I had with a guy a while black (he was
black since that does matter). Talking about some of the stereotypes.

for example, you'll hear folks ask the following two questions
"Why do black men like women with big butts?"
"Why do black women usually have big butts?"

The answer to the questions is contained within the two questions.
Black women have big butts because black men prefer women with big
butts. A perfect example of physical sexual selection.

So is the answer for why men want to develop their shoulders/arms (and
why those areas tend to develop). Sexual selection plain and simple.
Women sexually selected men who had those characteristics, hence men
want to develop those characteristics to sexually attract females.
Again, completely analogous to the physical traits taht females try to
emphasize.

> Not trying to be
> contentious, but attempting instead to analyze what is purely selected
> for and what is artifactual; dissecting correlation from causation.

You need to read "Survival of the Prettiest" by Elcotte (Alcotte?).

Lyle

Dally
August 1st 04, 11:54 PM
elzinator wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 12:15:18 -0400, Dally wrote:

>>I think the short answer is that we look to see if their body reflects
>>that they have the same values as us.
>
> Very perceptive.
>
> However, don't date bodybuilders. Even my physician chastised me for
> getting involved in a relationship with a bodybuilder. ;)

Sadly, I don't. I got my husband to do Body for Life with me the first
time I did it. He started working out with weights for pretty much the
first time in his life. He had fantastic newbie gains - added muscle,
got to a decent body fat... he looked great. Then he announced that "it
was too much work to look this good" and stopped. Big sigh. I wish
he'd consult my opinion on these things once in a while.

Dally, who is working on the 3. repeat 4. forever steps

MJL
August 2nd 04, 12:31 AM
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 13:58:10 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> wrote:

>MJL wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 11:27:28 -0500, Lyle McDonald
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>August Pamplona wrote:
>>>
>>>>In ,
>>>>Lyle McDonald > typed:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>elzinator wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 10:08:36 -0500, Lyle McDonald wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>elzinator wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>As well, if that were the case, the forearms would be preferentially
>>>>>trained as that is all anybody will be visible in a typical outfit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Make that forearms, neck and cranial musculature. D00D, my masseters
>>>>are HYOOUUGE.
>>>
>>>I used to make jokes (I'm sure someone can google them) about just
>>>training the accessory muscles (just get all of the HFL books), to make
>>>people think you were big when you weren't. Just train the calves,
>>>traps and forearms, the muscles thaht people see when you're clothed.
>>>Everything else could be scrawny but in a typical t-shirt+shorts outfit,
>>> those muscle groups would be visible.
>>
>>
>> I'd be very interested to see how much secondary growth is stimulated
>> by such a program in an untrained novice.
>
>I'd be interested, just for once, to understand your gibberish.
>
>Lyle

A failing of mine is that I write with the assumption that everyone is
a good a reader as I am.


--
Live each day as though it were the first of many more to come.

MJL
August 2nd 04, 12:35 AM
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 14:08:03 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> wrote:

>elzinator wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 10:57:02 -0500, Lyle McDonald wrote:
>>
>>>elzinator wrote:
>
>>>>I'm not sure I buy that androgen receptor density in the upper body
>>>>(traps, mostly) was selected for by sexual pressure. That may be
>>>>totally coincidental (artifact).
>>>
>>>What other pressure would have selected it?
>>
>>
>> Good question, of which I don't have an answer to yet. I'll have to
>> think about it.
>
>Unless more muscular development had survival value, the only other
>pressure is sexual selection.

What if it just makes a guy feel all warm and fuzzical.


--
Live each day as though it were the first of many more to come.

MJL
August 2nd 04, 12:39 AM
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 18:54:06 -0400, Dally > wrote:

>elzinator wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 12:15:18 -0400, Dally wrote:
>
>>>I think the short answer is that we look to see if their body reflects
>>>that they have the same values as us.
>>
>> Very perceptive.
>>
>> However, don't date bodybuilders. Even my physician chastised me for
>> getting involved in a relationship with a bodybuilder. ;)
>
>Sadly, I don't. I got my husband to do Body for Life with me the first
>time I did it. He started working out with weights for pretty much the
>first time in his life. He had fantastic newbie gains - added muscle,
>got to a decent body fat... he looked great. Then he announced that "it
>was too much work to look this good" and stopped. Big sigh. I wish
>he'd consult my opinion on these things once in a while.
>
>Dally, who is working on the 3. repeat 4. forever steps

It is a lot of work. I'm not sure what happens to some people that
makes the hard work and the pain, fun. I can say that I really enjoy
going to the gym and can't imagine my life without it and it isn't
because I want to look good.

Ain't no way you will get someone who is not having fun to do it
regularly.


--
Live each day as though it were the first of many more to come.

Joe Laughlin
August 2nd 04, 01:18 AM
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 13:57:18 -0500, Lyle McDonald wrote:

> Proton Soup wrote:

>>>
>>>this is pure sexual selection. All of it.
>>
>>
>> Even nipples on men?
>>
>
> Where did I mention nipples on men?
>
> Lyle

Probably in the "All of it" statement.

Lyle McDonald
August 2nd 04, 01:44 AM
Joe Laughlin wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 13:57:18 -0500, Lyle McDonald wrote:
>
>
>>Proton Soup wrote:
>
>
>>>>this is pure sexual selection. All of it.
>>>
>>>
>>>Even nipples on men?
>>>
>>
>>Where did I mention nipples on men?
>>
>>Lyle
>
>
> Probably in the "All of it" statement.

All of it was referring to what was being discussed in this thread.

Lyle

The Queen of Cans and Jars
August 2nd 04, 03:02 AM
elzinator > wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 14:36:03 GMT, The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
> >Mistress Krista > wrote:
> >
> >> "223rem" > wrote in message
> >> om...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > elzinator wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > this reminds me of thoughts I had last (this?) week:
> >> > >
> >> > > Men seem to be more obsessed with their upper body: chest, biceps,
> >> > > traps, than lower body. Why is that?
> >> >
> >> > Because that's what chicks dig (it is a form of sexual selection :)
>
> I don't agree. Most women that I talk to, that are not inhibited to
> talk about it that is, say they like chest and back or back and asses.
> Not one mentioned arms.
>
> >> Women like asses. Nothing worse than a guy with that horrible chemical
> >> imbalance, noacetol.
>
> >there must be something wrong with me, because i just don't care that
> >much about asses.
>
> I go for back and legs, which includes the ass. But that's just my
> preference. My colleagues at work now ask me for Calf Rating (I look
> at calves alot, mainly because I don't have any, and they are simply
> an interesting muscle group).

i look at the brain first. it doesn't matter what the rest of the
package looks like if the brain doesn't qualify.

elzinator
August 2nd 04, 03:40 AM
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 02:02:12 GMT, The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
>elzinator > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 14:36:03 GMT, The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
>> >Mistress Krista > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "223rem" > wrote in message
>> >> om...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > elzinator wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > this reminds me of thoughts I had last (this?) week:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Men seem to be more obsessed with their upper body: chest, biceps,
>> >> > > traps, than lower body. Why is that?
>> >> >
>> >> > Because that's what chicks dig (it is a form of sexual selection :)
>>
>> I don't agree. Most women that I talk to, that are not inhibited to
>> talk about it that is, say they like chest and back or back and asses.
>> Not one mentioned arms.
>>
>> >> Women like asses. Nothing worse than a guy with that horrible chemical
>> >> imbalance, noacetol.
>>
>> >there must be something wrong with me, because i just don't care that
>> >much about asses.
>>
>> I go for back and legs, which includes the ass. But that's just my
>> preference. My colleagues at work now ask me for Calf Rating (I look
>> at calves alot, mainly because I don't have any, and they are simply
>> an interesting muscle group).
>
>i look at the brain first. it doesn't matter what the rest of the
>package looks like if the brain doesn't qualify.

The only brains I've seen were removed from the heads.

Beelzibub

The human in us owes fealty to humanity. But the wolf in us acknowledges no master.

August Pamplona
August 2nd 04, 04:09 AM
In ,
elzinator > typed:
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 02:02:12 GMT, The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
>> elzinator > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 14:36:03 GMT, The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
>>>> Mistress Krista > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "223rem" > wrote in message
>>>>> om...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> elzinator wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> this reminds me of thoughts I had last (this?) week:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Men seem to be more obsessed with their upper body: chest,
>>>>>>> biceps, traps, than lower body. Why is that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because that's what chicks dig (it is a form of sexual selection
>>>>>> :)
>>>
>>> I don't agree. Most women that I talk to, that are not inhibited to
>>> talk about it that is, say they like chest and back or back and
>>> asses. Not one mentioned arms.
>>>
>>>>> Women like asses. Nothing worse than a guy with that horrible
>>>>> chemical imbalance, noacetol.
>>>
>>>> there must be something wrong with me, because i just don't care
>>>> that much about asses.
>>>
>>> I go for back and legs, which includes the ass. But that's just my
>>> preference. My colleagues at work now ask me for Calf Rating (I look
>>> at calves alot, mainly because I don't have any, and they are simply
>>> an interesting muscle group).
>>
>> i look at the brain first. it doesn't matter what the rest of the
>> package looks like if the brain doesn't qualify.
>
> The only brains I've seen were removed from the heads.
>
> Beelzibub

Were they hot?

August Pamplona
--
The waterfall in Java is not wet.
- omegazero2003 on m.f.w.

a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut
The address in this message's 'From' field, in accordance with
individual.net's TOS, is real. However, almost all messages
reaching this address are deleted without human intervention.
In other words, if you e-mail me there, I will not receive your message.

To make sure that e-mail messages actually reach me,
make sure that my e-mail address is not hot.

Proton Soup
August 2nd 04, 04:10 AM
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 19:44:33 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> wrote:

>Joe Laughlin wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 13:57:18 -0500, Lyle McDonald wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Proton Soup wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>this is pure sexual selection. All of it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Even nipples on men?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Where did I mention nipples on men?
>>>
>>>Lyle
>>
>>
>> Probably in the "All of it" statement.
>
>All of it was referring to what was being discussed in this thread.

Yeah but still, the question remains, "Why did natural selection put
nipples on men?

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

August Pamplona
August 2nd 04, 04:24 AM
In ,
Proton Soup > typed:
> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 19:44:33 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> > wrote:
>
>> Joe Laughlin wrote:
>>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 13:57:18 -0500, Lyle McDonald wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Proton Soup wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> this is pure sexual selection. All of it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Even nipples on men?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Where did I mention nipples on men?
>>>>
>>>> Lyle
>>>
>>>
>>> Probably in the "All of it" statement.
>>
>> All of it was referring to what was being discussed in this thread.
>
> Yeah but still, the question remains, "Why did natural selection put
> nipples on men?

Natural selection did not put nipples on men. Natural selection put
nipples on mammals.

>
> -----------
> Proton Soup

August Pamplona
--
The waterfall in Java is not wet.
- omegazero2003 on m.f.w.

a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut
The address in this message's 'From' field, in accordance with
individual.net's TOS, is real. However, almost all messages
reaching this address are deleted without human intervention.
In other words, if you e-mail me there, I will not receive your message.

To make sure that e-mail messages actually reach me,
make sure that my e-mail address is not hot.

elzinator
August 2nd 04, 04:28 AM
On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 22:09:59 -0500, August Pamplona wrote:
>In ,
>elzinator > typed:
>> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 02:02:12 GMT, The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:

>>> i look at the brain first. it doesn't matter what the rest of the
>>> package looks like if the brain doesn't qualify.
>>
>> The only brains I've seen were removed from the heads.
>>
>> Beelzibub
>
> Were they hot?

No. They were stinky (formaldehyde) and cold. I keep the Brain Room
(the password is "Brraaaiiinnnzzzz") at 60-65 degrees F.

My student and I put a sign on a random brain in the room: "Abby"
When discovered, Reid burst out laughing, but Dr. White didn't 'get
it.'
(movie reference.......)

White hadn't seen the movie.

My student is a cartoon artist; as well as in pre-med, so there are
cartoons all over the lab (referred to as "The Ghetto").
It's cool :)

Beelzibub

The human in us owes fealty to humanity. But the wolf in us acknowledges no master.

elzinator
August 2nd 04, 04:29 AM
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 22:10:35 -0500, Proton Soup wrote:
>On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 19:44:33 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> wrote:
>
>>Joe Laughlin wrote:
>>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 13:57:18 -0500, Lyle McDonald wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Proton Soup wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>this is pure sexual selection. All of it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Even nipples on men?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Where did I mention nipples on men?
>>>>
>>>>Lyle
>>>
>>>
>>> Probably in the "All of it" statement.
>>
>>All of it was referring to what was being discussed in this thread.
>
>Yeah but still, the question remains, "Why did natural selection put
>nipples on men?

Nipples on men are an artifact.


Beelzibub

The human in us owes fealty to humanity. But the wolf in us acknowledges no master.

August Pamplona
August 2nd 04, 04:36 AM
In ,
elzinator > typed:
> On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 22:09:59 -0500, August Pamplona wrote:
>> In ,
>> elzinator > typed:
>>> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 02:02:12 GMT, The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
>
>>>> i look at the brain first. it doesn't matter what the rest of the
>>>> package looks like if the brain doesn't qualify.
>>>
>>> The only brains I've seen were removed from the heads.
>>>
>>> Beelzibub
>>
>> Were they hot?
>
> No. They were stinky (formaldehyde) and cold. I keep the Brain Room
> (the password is "Brraaaiiinnnzzzz") at 60-65 degrees F.
>
> My student and I put a sign on a random brain in the room: "Abby"
> When discovered, Reid burst out laughing, but Dr. White didn't 'get
> it.'
> (movie reference.......)
>
> White hadn't seen the movie.

Great movie. As long as you guys don't happen to have a corpse that
happens to look like Peter Boyle lying around, there should be no cause
for alarm.

>
> My student is a cartoon artist; as well as in pre-med, so there are
> cartoons all over the lab (referred to as "The Ghetto").
> It's cool :)
>
> Beelzibub

August Pamplona
--
The waterfall in Java is not wet.
- omegazero2003 on m.f.w.

a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut
The address in this message's 'From' field, in accordance with
individual.net's TOS, is real. However, almost all messages
reaching this address are deleted without human intervention.
In other words, if you e-mail me there, I will not receive your message.

To make sure that e-mail messages actually reach me,
make sure that my e-mail address is not hot.

Proton Soup
August 2nd 04, 04:52 AM
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 22:29:25 -0500, elzinator
> wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 22:10:35 -0500, Proton Soup wrote:
>>On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 19:44:33 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> wrote:
>>
>>>Joe Laughlin wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 13:57:18 -0500, Lyle McDonald wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Proton Soup wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>this is pure sexual selection. All of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Even nipples on men?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Where did I mention nipples on men?
>>>>>
>>>>>Lyle
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Probably in the "All of it" statement.
>>>
>>>All of it was referring to what was being discussed in this thread.
>>
>>Yeah but still, the question remains, "Why did natural selection put
>>nipples on men?
>
>Nipples on men are an artifact.

Oh, so they're sort of like ears? :)

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

DRS
August 2nd 04, 12:27 PM
"Proton Soup" > wrote in message


[...]

> Yeah but still, the question remains, "Why did natural selection put
> nipples on men?

It put them on women. Male nipples are homologous.

--

"I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as
equals."
Winston Churchill

Ben Gussey
August 2nd 04, 12:38 PM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> Proton Soup wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 11:21:02 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> > > wrote:
>
> >>In that man is more likely to have used his big brains than brute force,
> >>muscles for survival, broad shoulders/muscles are most likely to have
> >>been selected as a purely sexual factor. That is, they had no other
> >>purpose beyond sexual attraction.
> >
> >
> > Although pound for pound, humans can be much weaker than animals,
> > visual size certainly does play a role in evading predation. I think
> > bipedalism also adds to the effect.
>
> Man has no specific predators.
>
> Lyle

Except man itself.

Regards,
Ben.

Ben Gussey
August 2nd 04, 12:45 PM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
<snipped>
> It reminds me of a conversation I had with a guy a while black (he was
> black since that does matter). Talking about some of the stereotypes.
>
> for example, you'll hear folks ask the following two questions
> "Why do black men like women with big butts?"
> "Why do black women usually have big butts?"
>
> The answer to the questions is contained within the two questions.
> Black women have big butts because black men prefer women with big
> butts. A perfect example of physical sexual selection.
>
> So is the answer for why men want to develop their shoulders/arms (and
> why those areas tend to develop). Sexual selection plain and simple.
> Women sexually selected men who had those characteristics, hence men
> want to develop those characteristics to sexually attract females.
> Again, completely analogous to the physical traits taht females try to
> emphasize.

>
> Lyle

Why can't you conversely say that black men like big butts because black
women have big butts?

Regards,
Ben.

Lyle McDonald
August 2nd 04, 02:54 PM
Proton Soup wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 19:44:33 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Joe Laughlin wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 13:57:18 -0500, Lyle McDonald wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Proton Soup wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>this is pure sexual selection. All of it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Even nipples on men?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Where did I mention nipples on men?
>>>>
>>>>Lyle
>>>
>>>
>>>Probably in the "All of it" statement.
>>
>>All of it was referring to what was being discussed in this thread.
>
>
> Yeah but still, the question remains, "Why did natural selection put
> nipples on men?

I think it's more accurate to say that it never took them off.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
August 2nd 04, 02:55 PM
Ben Gussey wrote:

> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Proton Soup wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 11:21:02 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> wrote:
>>
>>>>In that man is more likely to have used his big brains than brute force,
>>>>muscles for survival, broad shoulders/muscles are most likely to have
>>>>been selected as a purely sexual factor. That is, they had no other
>>>>purpose beyond sexual attraction.
>>>
>>>
>>>Although pound for pound, humans can be much weaker than animals,
>>>visual size certainly does play a role in evading predation. I think
>>>bipedalism also adds to the effect.
>>
>>Man has no specific predators.
>>
>>Lyle
>
>
> Except man itself.

Well said.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
August 2nd 04, 02:56 PM
Ben Gussey wrote:

> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> ...
> <snipped>
>
>>It reminds me of a conversation I had with a guy a while black (he was
>>black since that does matter). Talking about some of the stereotypes.
>>
>>for example, you'll hear folks ask the following two questions
>>"Why do black men like women with big butts?"
>>"Why do black women usually have big butts?"
>>
>>The answer to the questions is contained within the two questions.
>>Black women have big butts because black men prefer women with big
>>butts. A perfect example of physical sexual selection.
>>
>>So is the answer for why men want to develop their shoulders/arms (and
>>why those areas tend to develop). Sexual selection plain and simple.
>>Women sexually selected men who had those characteristics, hence men
>>want to develop those characteristics to sexually attract females.
>>Again, completely analogous to the physical traits taht females try to
>>emphasize.
>
>
>>Lyle
>
>
> Why can't you conversely say that black men like big butts because black
> women have big butts?

that too. It's a circular system like most of sexual selection.

Men like it because women have it and women have it because men like it.

And vice versa.

This is what leads to your basic evolutionary warfare types of systems
in this case: gender XXX likes trait ZZZ in gender YYY and will sexuall
select individuals in gender YYY with trait ZZZ which means that further
offspring will have more of trait ZZZ Which will further be selected for
by gender XXX.

Lyle

Lee Michaels
August 2nd 04, 03:00 PM
"Lyle McDonald" wrote

> Ben Gussey wrote:
>
> > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Proton Soup wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 11:21:02 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>>>In that man is more likely to have used his big brains than brute
force,
> >>>>muscles for survival, broad shoulders/muscles are most likely to have
> >>>>been selected as a purely sexual factor. That is, they had no other
> >>>>purpose beyond sexual attraction.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Although pound for pound, humans can be much weaker than animals,
> >>>visual size certainly does play a role in evading predation. I think
> >>>bipedalism also adds to the effect.
> >>
> >>Man has no specific predators.
> >>
> >>Lyle
> >
> >
> > Except man itself.
>
> Well said.
>
I was expecting somebody to jump in here with lawyer jokes.

Hugh Beyer
August 2nd 04, 03:10 PM
Lyle McDonald > wrote in news:10gqfadl0a6qc39
@corp.supernews.com:

> Proton Soup wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 11:21:02 -0500, Lyle McDonald
>> > wrote:
>
>>>In that man is more likely to have used his big brains than brute force,
>>>muscles for survival, broad shoulders/muscles are most likely to have
>>>been selected as a purely sexual factor. That is, they had no other
>>>purpose beyond sexual attraction.
>>
>>
>> Although pound for pound, humans can be much weaker than animals,
>> visual size certainly does play a role in evading predation. I think
>> bipedalism also adds to the effect.
>
> Man has no specific predators.
>
> Lyle
>

Not necessarily true during the critical period of man's development--when
the species was differentiating from other apes.

Hugh


--
No puppies were harmed in the creation of this post.

Lyle McDonald
August 2nd 04, 03:17 PM
Hugh Beyer wrote:
> Lyle McDonald > wrote in news:10gqfadl0a6qc39
> @corp.supernews.com:
>
>
>>Proton Soup wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 11:21:02 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> wrote:
>>
>>>>In that man is more likely to have used his big brains than brute force,
>>>>muscles for survival, broad shoulders/muscles are most likely to have
>>>>been selected as a purely sexual factor. That is, they had no other
>>>>purpose beyond sexual attraction.
>>>
>>>
>>>Although pound for pound, humans can be much weaker than animals,
>>>visual size certainly does play a role in evading predation. I think
>>>bipedalism also adds to the effect.
>>
>>Man has no specific predators.
>>
>>Lyle
>>
>
>
> Not necessarily true during the critical period of man's development--when
> the species was differentiating from other apes.

Suppose it depends on where you draw that line in the sand between
not-man and man.

As well, I'd say most of our physical/mental development (what I was
referring to above) came well AFTER that split.

When we had no specific predators.

Lyle

Joe Laughlin
August 2nd 04, 04:50 PM
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 21:27:58 +1000, DRS wrote:

> "Proton Soup" > wrote in message
>
>
> [...]
>
>> Yeah but still, the question remains, "Why did natural selection put
>> nipples on men?
>
> It put them on women. Male nipples are homologous.

Hey, quit calling my nipples gay.

Hugh Beyer
August 2nd 04, 05:14 PM
Lyle McDonald > wrote in
:

> Hugh Beyer wrote:
>> Lyle McDonald > wrote in
>> news:10gqfadl0a6qc39 @corp.supernews.com:
>>
>>
>>>Proton Soup wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 11:21:02 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>In that man is more likely to have used his big brains than brute
>>>>>force, muscles for survival, broad shoulders/muscles are most likely
>>>>>to have been selected as a purely sexual factor. That is, they had
>>>>>no other purpose beyond sexual attraction.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Although pound for pound, humans can be much weaker than animals,
>>>>visual size certainly does play a role in evading predation. I think
>>>>bipedalism also adds to the effect.
>>>
>>>Man has no specific predators.
>>>
>>>Lylef
>>>
>>
>>
>> Not necessarily true during the critical period of man's
>> development--when the species was differentiating from other apes.
>
> Suppose it depends on where you draw that line in the sand between
> not-man and man.
>
> As well, I'd say most of our physical/mental development (what I was
> referring to above) came well AFTER that split.
>
> When we had no specific predators.
>

Chatwin has interesting theories about humanoids being the primary cat
food for a particular species of big cat in "The Songlines".

I'm dubious about the basic claim that big brains were the only survival
factor that mattered anyway--your big brain may cause you to figure out
the cat's hunting strategies but it's the arms that are going to throw the
spear or pull you to safety when things go pear-shaped (the legs aren't
going to get you out of there fast enough, on the flat).

Hugh


--
No puppies were harmed in the creation of this post.

Lyle McDonald
August 2nd 04, 05:22 PM
Hugh Beyer wrote:
> Lyle McDonald > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Hugh Beyer wrote:
>>
>>>Lyle McDonald > wrote in
>>>news:10gqfadl0a6qc39 @corp.supernews.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Proton Soup wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 11:21:02 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>In that man is more likely to have used his big brains than brute
>>>>>>force, muscles for survival, broad shoulders/muscles are most likely
>>>>>>to have been selected as a purely sexual factor. That is, they had
>>>>>>no other purpose beyond sexual attraction.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Although pound for pound, humans can be much weaker than animals,
>>>>>visual size certainly does play a role in evading predation. I think
>>>>>bipedalism also adds to the effect.
>>>>
>>>>Man has no specific predators.
>>>>
>>>>Lylef
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Not necessarily true during the critical period of man's
>>>development--when the species was differentiating from other apes.
>>
>>Suppose it depends on where you draw that line in the sand between
>>not-man and man.
>>
>>As well, I'd say most of our physical/mental development (what I was
>>referring to above) came well AFTER that split.
>>
>>When we had no specific predators.
>>
>
>
> Chatwin has interesting theories about humanoids being the primary cat
> food for a particular species of big cat in "The Songlines".
>
> I'm dubious about the basic claim that big brains were the only survival
> factor that mattered anyway

I'm glad that I didn't say any such thing then. You might note my
choice of words above.

But the image of ancient man bringing down a big kill with his bare
hands, a pointy stick and muscles is a romantacized one.

--your big brain may cause you to figure out
> the cat's hunting strategies but it's the arms that are going to throw the
> spear or pull you to safety when things go pear-shaped (the legs aren't
> going to get you out of there fast enough, on the flat).

Of course some physical prowess was necessary. Otherwise Stephen
Hawking would be teh greatest hunter on the ****ing planet.

But, as should be pretty clear (comparaing our physical abilities to
those of animals), it sure wasn't the primary determinant of our survival.

Lyle

August Pamplona
August 2nd 04, 07:55 PM
In ,
Lyle McDonald > typed:
> Proton Soup wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 10:04:03 -0500, Lyle McDonald
>> > wrote:
>
>>> Various forms of competition for status. You can usually get men to
>>> compete about anything in one way or another. It's fun.
>>
>>
>> No, it's just as annoying as a train full of Mary Kay saleswomen, to
>> me.
>
> Let me rephrase: it's fun to me to rile up a bunch of guys by getting
> them to do it. The difference being that I'm fully aware of the game
> I'm getting them to play, they aren't.

I'd like to see that. Is it loud?

>
> "It's ok to play with people's minds, just don't lose the little
> pieces." - Anon
>
> Lyle

August Pamplona
--
The waterfall in Java is not wet.
- omegazero2003 on m.f.w.

a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut
The address in this message's 'From' field, in accordance with
individual.net's TOS, is real. However, almost all messages
reaching this address are deleted without human intervention.
In other words, if you e-mail me there, I will not receive your message.

To make sure that e-mail messages actually reach me,
make sure that my e-mail address is not hot.

Lyle McDonald
August 2nd 04, 09:15 PM
August Pamplona wrote:

> In ,
> Lyle McDonald > typed:
>
>>Proton Soup wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 10:04:03 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> wrote:
>>
>>>>Various forms of competition for status. You can usually get men to
>>>>compete about anything in one way or another. It's fun.
>>>
>>>
>>>No, it's just as annoying as a train full of Mary Kay saleswomen, to
>>>me.
>>
>>Let me rephrase: it's fun to me to rile up a bunch of guys by getting
>>them to do it. The difference being that I'm fully aware of the game
>>I'm getting them to play, they aren't.
>
>
> I'd like to see that. Is it loud?

I don't think it would matter, your social anxiety-o-meter would fire at
the first interaction.

Lyle

elzinator
August 3rd 04, 12:28 AM
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 22:52:18 -0500, Proton Soup wrote:
>On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 22:29:25 -0500, elzinator
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 22:10:35 -0500, Proton Soup wrote:

>>>Yeah but still, the question remains, "Why did natural selection put
>>>nipples on men?
>>
>>Nipples on men are an artifact.
>
>Oh, so they're sort of like ears? :)

<sigh>
You asked for it:

After an egg is fertilized, the X chromosome, which contains most of
the 'beef' (the genetic information), and the Y chromosome, which
contains 'beans' (very little genetic information), go through a dance
of whose genes get expressed and whose don't. ( I say 'dance' because
gene imprinting actually happens in waves, it's not a matter of a
switch being thrown).

As the cells increase in number, the default gender is female. As the
organism starts to take form and cells start to differentiate into
specific tissues, the gender of the embryo is female. Becoming more
specialized, tissues start to develop into organs.

In the last dance of gene expression, a gene on the Y chromosome wakes
up and says "Hey, wait for me, you assholes!!". Whap! all of a sudden,
by his dictate, a series of changes in gene expression tell the
forming embryo to start production of signals that tell cells in some
tissues to stop growing or start growing and producing other signals.
One of these new signals is a hormone you may be familiar with:
testosterone.

So, despite that this forming embryo has started developing into what
would have become a female, suddenly several tissues begin to change
shape and grow.

Other tissues stop growing. One of these tissues is mammary glands in
the breasts. Although it's too late to tell the nipple-forming
machinery to stop forming nipples. So the growing fetus has these
nipple hills that stay hills, unless the adult form gets too fat and
the breast fat starts pumping out so much estrogen (that has been
aromatized from androgens) that the adult male begins to grow tits.

The female, however, continues on with the hardwired default hormone
instructions and starts growing nascent mammary tissue that lays in
wait for the time when the other tissue down South starts pumping out
androgens that immediately are converted to estrogens which pour
through the blood to all the other territory. Then the volcanic
eruptions take place along with the formation of cushiony energy-rich
body fat that surrounds these milk-factories.

Meanwhile, as an adult, George has just found out with his new
girlfriend Jazzy that his nipples have feelings, too, and whoah! they
feel really good when stimulated by her tongue!!!


Beelzibub

The human in us owes fealty to humanity. But the wolf in us acknowledges no master.

August Pamplona
August 3rd 04, 12:57 AM
In ,
Lyle McDonald > typed:
> August Pamplona wrote:
>
>> In ,
>> Lyle McDonald > typed:
>>
>>> Proton Soup wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 10:04:03 -0500, Lyle McDonald
>>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Various forms of competition for status. You can usually get men
>>>>> to compete about anything in one way or another. It's fun.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, it's just as annoying as a train full of Mary Kay saleswomen,
>>>> to me.
>>>
>>> Let me rephrase: it's fun to me to rile up a bunch of guys by
>>> getting them to do it. The difference being that I'm fully aware
>>> of the game I'm getting them to play, they aren't.
>>
>>
>> I'd like to see that. Is it loud?
>
> I don't think it would matter, your social anxiety-o-meter would fire
> at the first interaction.
>
> Lyle

Yes, you're of course correct. I guess I don't think of it this way;
but when I find myself in a social situation, that does tend to be what
happens (so it tends to be a banging my head against the wall scenario
rather than a desensitivization scenario*).

Maybe you could tape it or something.

August Pamplona
* OTOH, I was a lot better at the Tom Hagenmiller Push-Pull this year
than last year (more relaxed).
--
The waterfall in Java is not wet.
- omegazero2003 on m.f.w.

a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut
The address in this message's 'From' field, in accordance with
individual.net's TOS, is real. However, almost all messages
reaching this address are deleted without human intervention.
In other words, if you e-mail me there, I will not receive your message.

To make sure that e-mail messages actually reach me,
make sure that my e-mail address is not hot.

Proton Soup
August 3rd 04, 01:03 AM
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 18:28:08 -0500, elzinator
> wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 22:52:18 -0500, Proton Soup wrote:
>>On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 22:29:25 -0500, elzinator
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 22:10:35 -0500, Proton Soup wrote:
>
>>>>Yeah but still, the question remains, "Why did natural selection put
>>>>nipples on men?
>>>
>>>Nipples on men are an artifact.
>>
>>Oh, so they're sort of like ears? :)
>
><sigh>
>You asked for it:
>
>After an egg is fertilized, the X chromosome, which contains most of
>the 'beef' (the genetic information), and the Y chromosome, which
>contains 'beans' (very little genetic information), go through a dance
>of whose genes get expressed and whose don't. ( I say 'dance' because
>gene imprinting actually happens in waves, it's not a matter of a
>switch being thrown).
>
>As the cells increase in number, the default gender is female. As the
>organism starts to take form and cells start to differentiate into
>specific tissues, the gender of the embryo is female. Becoming more
>specialized, tissues start to develop into organs.
>
>In the last dance of gene expression, a gene on the Y chromosome wakes
>up and says "Hey, wait for me, you assholes!!". Whap! all of a sudden,
>by his dictate, a series of changes in gene expression tell the
>forming embryo to start production of signals that tell cells in some
>tissues to stop growing or start growing and producing other signals.
>One of these new signals is a hormone you may be familiar with:
>testosterone.
>
>So, despite that this forming embryo has started developing into what
>would have become a female, suddenly several tissues begin to change
>shape and grow.
>
>Other tissues stop growing. One of these tissues is mammary glands in
>the breasts. Although it's too late to tell the nipple-forming
>machinery to stop forming nipples. So the growing fetus has these
>nipple hills that stay hills, unless the adult form gets too fat and
>the breast fat starts pumping out so much estrogen (that has been
>aromatized from androgens) that the adult male begins to grow tits.
>
>The female, however, continues on with the hardwired default hormone
>instructions and starts growing nascent mammary tissue that lays in
>wait for the time when the other tissue down South starts pumping out
>androgens that immediately are converted to estrogens which pour
>through the blood to all the other territory. Then the volcanic
>eruptions take place along with the formation of cushiony energy-rich
>body fat that surrounds these milk-factories.

Whoa! Thanks for the lesson, I actually read it all and it even makes
sense to me. :)

I guess I failed at trying to make a joke, that is, that typical women
often complain that their mates aren't hearing anything they say.
::sigh::

>Meanwhile, as an adult, George has just found out with his new
>girlfriend Jazzy that his nipples have feelings, too, and whoah! they
>feel really good when stimulated by her tongue!!!

LOL! I had a woman once that took great interest in mine, but never
seemed to quite catch on that it didn't do a thing for me, even when
told directly. Not that it was a big deal, if that's somewhere she
wants to spend some time, it's all OK by me. But occasionally, I have
noticed in really cold weather that they will stiffen up a bit.
Sexually though, I find them worthless. I have more sensitivity on my
forearms.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

Proton Soup
August 3rd 04, 01:10 AM
On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 18:57:26 -0500, "August Pamplona"
> wrote:

>In ,
>Lyle McDonald > typed:
>> August Pamplona wrote:
>>
>>> In ,
>>> Lyle McDonald > typed:
>>>
>>>> Proton Soup wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 10:04:03 -0500, Lyle McDonald
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Various forms of competition for status. You can usually get men
>>>>>> to compete about anything in one way or another. It's fun.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it's just as annoying as a train full of Mary Kay saleswomen,
>>>>> to me.
>>>>
>>>> Let me rephrase: it's fun to me to rile up a bunch of guys by
>>>> getting them to do it. The difference being that I'm fully aware
>>>> of the game I'm getting them to play, they aren't.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd like to see that. Is it loud?
>>
>> I don't think it would matter, your social anxiety-o-meter would fire
>> at the first interaction.
>>
>> Lyle
>
> Yes, you're of course correct. I guess I don't think of it this way;
>but when I find myself in a social situation, that does tend to be what
>happens (so it tends to be a banging my head against the wall scenario
>rather than a desensitivization scenario*).

Maybe a MENSA munch would be a good place to start.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

Lyle McDonald
August 3rd 04, 01:12 AM
elzinator wrote:
<snip>

> The female, however, continues on with the hardwired default hormone
> instructions and starts growing nascent mammary tissue that lays in
> wait for the time when the other tissue down South starts pumping out
> androgens that immediately are converted to estrogens which pour
> through the blood to all the other territory. Then the volcanic
> eruptions take place along with the formation of cushiony energy-rich
> body fat that surrounds these milk-factories.

Translation: all of us are born as women.

Just slightly less than half of us get better.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
August 3rd 04, 01:15 AM
Lyle McDonald wrote:

> elzinator wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> The female, however, continues on with the hardwired default hormone
>> instructions and starts growing nascent mammary tissue that lays in
>> wait for the time when the other tissue down South starts pumping out
>> androgens that immediately are converted to estrogens which pour
>> through the blood to all the other territory. Then the volcanic
>> eruptions take place along with the formation of cushiony energy-rich
>> body fat that surrounds these milk-factories.
>
>
> Translation: all of us are born as women.
>
> Just slightly less than half of us get better.

Change 'born' to 'conceived' above.

Lyle

elzinator
August 3rd 04, 02:08 AM
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 19:03:55 -0500, Proton Soup wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 18:28:08 -0500, elzinator

>Whoa! Thanks for the lesson, I actually read it all and it even makes
>sense to me. :)

Glad to be of service. Now if I could just write like this and get
published.....
(not exactly peer-review material)

>I guess I failed at trying to make a joke, that is, that typical women
>often complain that their mates aren't hearing anything they say.
> ::sigh::

I may have missed something in a previous post.

>>Meanwhile, as an adult, George has just found out with his new
>>girlfriend Jazzy that his nipples have feelings, too, and whoah! they
>>feel really good when stimulated by her tongue!!!
>
>LOL! I had a woman once that took great interest in mine, but never
>seemed to quite catch on that it didn't do a thing for me, even when
>told directly. Not that it was a big deal, if that's somewhere she
>wants to spend some time, it's all OK by me. But occasionally, I have
>noticed in really cold weather that they will stiffen up a bit.
>Sexually though, I find them worthless. I have more sensitivity on my
>forearms.

I am so sorry for you. You have no idea what you are missing ;)


Beelzibub

The human in us owes fealty to humanity. But the wolf in us acknowledges no master.

elzinator
August 3rd 04, 02:10 AM
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 19:15:10 -0500, Lyle McDonald wrote:
>Lyle McDonald wrote:
>
>> elzinator wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>> The female, however, continues on with the hardwired default hormone
>>> instructions and starts growing nascent mammary tissue that lays in
>>> wait for the time when the other tissue down South starts pumping out
>>> androgens that immediately are converted to estrogens which pour
>>> through the blood to all the other territory. Then the volcanic
>>> eruptions take place along with the formation of cushiony energy-rich
>>> body fat that surrounds these milk-factories.
>>
>>
>> Translation: all of us are born as women.
>>
>> Just slightly less than half of us get better.
>
>Change 'born' to 'conceived' above.

Is that why some men have more shoes and clothes and cosmetics than
others?


Beelzibub

The human in us owes fealty to humanity. But the wolf in us acknowledges no master.

DRS
August 3rd 04, 02:58 AM
"elzinator" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 19:15:10 -0500, Lyle McDonald wrote:
>> Lyle McDonald wrote:
>>
>>> elzinator wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> The female, however, continues on with the hardwired default
>>>> hormone instructions and starts growing nascent mammary tissue
>>>> that lays in wait for the time when the other tissue down South
>>>> starts pumping out androgens that immediately are converted to
>>>> estrogens which pour through the blood to all the other territory.
>>>> Then the volcanic eruptions take place along with the formation of
>>>> cushiony energy-rich body fat that surrounds these milk-factories.
>>>
>>> Translation: all of us are born as women.
>>>
>>> Just slightly less than half of us get better.
>>
>> Change 'born' to 'conceived' above.
>
> Is that why some men have more shoes and clothes and cosmetics than
> others?

You can never have too many accessories.

--

"I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as
equals."
Winston Churchill

Brian Link
August 3rd 04, 06:30 AM
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 00:33:02 -0500, elzinator
> wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 05:14:59 GMT, 223rem wrote:
>>
>>
>>Brian Link wrote:
>>> Once again, this will not impress most of you, but I wanted to post
>>> since it's a new milestone for me.
>>>
>>> I actually spent some time looking at myself in the mirror tonight. I
>>> don't think I ever remember doing that.
>>>
>>> Though my arms are not exploding (chest and quads are my sweet spots)
>>> they seem a bit bigger. So I asked my wife to measure my upper arm
>>> girth, and was shocked that they're now ~16 inches. Even more
>>> surprising, the left arm seems to be catching up to the right one.
>>
>>
>>Hey, your upper arms are as big as Tyson's or Evander's!
>>
>>
>>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/news/2003/02/21/tale_tape/
>>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/boxing/1999/lewis_holyfield/taleofthetape/
>>
>>Pretty good, if you are as lean as these guys.
>>
>>(although Tyson's bicep has been reported to be 17" for other fights)
>
>
>this reminds me of thoughts I had last (this?) week:
>
>Men seem to be more obsessed with their upper body: chest, biceps,
>traps, than lower body. Why is that?
>
>I would much prefer a man with a powerful, muscular back and thick
>lean muscular legs and butt than bulging arms and chest....
>
>I'd much prefer a man who is not afraid to wear shorts and show off
>their legs than a man who wears tight tank tops or T-shirts.
>
>Other opinions?
>
>just curious....
>(realizing that there are different perspectives)
>
>
>Beelzibub
>
>The human in us owes fealty to humanity. But the wolf in us acknowledges no master.

Firstly, I'm 6'2, so I'm a bit taller than Mr. Eareater.

Secondly, I'm currently carrying about 15% body fat, worlds away.

And as for upper body, all of the things mentioned. I'm far more often
wearing short sleeves than speedos. Matter of fact, I don't ever wear
speedos. And if you saw me, you'd be grateful.

But I don't emphasize upper body - I'm just as dedicated to my squats,
deads and calf raises. I haven't measured my quads lately, but judging
by pants-fit they are considerably larger than when I started lifting
(there are some size 36 jeans I have that are big in the waist now but
a bit snug around the upper legs). I don't want to be one of those
chicken-leg rappers..

I think I recall hearing on Desmond Morris' documentary about sex that
butt preference stems from "thrusting" capability. Eh.

But thanks to the folks on mfw I've stopped fixating on biceps and
gone for more triceps work, and doing back work rather than endless
chest work. This definitely produces the intended "wedge" effect much
more easily.

Finally topped 200 pounds again for the first time in years. Time to
start putting on the brakes again and see how much lean mass I can
keep on the way back down to ~190.

Brian Link, Minnesota Countertenor
----------------------------------
"I think animal testing is a terrible idea;
they get all nervous and give the wrong answers."
- regmech

Lucas Buck
August 3rd 04, 07:51 AM
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 18:54:06 -0400, Dally > wrote:

>elzinator wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 12:15:18 -0400, Dally wrote:
>
>>>I think the short answer is that we look to see if their body reflects
>>>that they have the same values as us.
>>
>> Very perceptive.
>>
>> However, don't date bodybuilders. Even my physician chastised me for
>> getting involved in a relationship with a bodybuilder. ;)
>
>Sadly, I don't. I got my husband to do Body for Life with me the first
>time I did it. He started working out with weights for pretty much the
>first time in his life. He had fantastic newbie gains - added muscle,
>got to a decent body fat... he looked great. Then he announced that "it
>was too much work to look this good" and stopped.

Translation: his girlfriend dumped him.

Lucas Buck
August 3rd 04, 07:53 AM
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 02:02:12 GMT, (The Queen of Cans and Jars) wrote:

>elzinator > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 14:36:03 GMT, The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
>> >Mistress Krista > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "223rem" > wrote in message
>> >> om...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > elzinator wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > this reminds me of thoughts I had last (this?) week:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Men seem to be more obsessed with their upper body: chest, biceps,
>> >> > > traps, than lower body. Why is that?
>> >> >
>> >> > Because that's what chicks dig (it is a form of sexual selection :)
>>
>> I don't agree. Most women that I talk to, that are not inhibited to
>> talk about it that is, say they like chest and back or back and asses.
>> Not one mentioned arms.
>>
>> >> Women like asses. Nothing worse than a guy with that horrible chemical
>> >> imbalance, noacetol.
>>
>> >there must be something wrong with me, because i just don't care that
>> >much about asses.
>>
>> I go for back and legs, which includes the ass. But that's just my
>> preference. My colleagues at work now ask me for Calf Rating (I look
>> at calves alot, mainly because I don't have any, and they are simply
>> an interesting muscle group).
>
>i look at the brain first. it doesn't matter what the rest of the
>package looks like if the brain doesn't qualify.

Unfortunately, she cracks open the skull to see it.

Lyle McDonald
August 3rd 04, 02:19 PM
elzinator wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 19:15:10 -0500, Lyle McDonald wrote:
>
>>Lyle McDonald wrote:
>>
>>
>>>elzinator wrote:
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>The female, however, continues on with the hardwired default hormone
>>>>instructions and starts growing nascent mammary tissue that lays in
>>>>wait for the time when the other tissue down South starts pumping out
>>>>androgens that immediately are converted to estrogens which pour
>>>>through the blood to all the other territory. Then the volcanic
>>>>eruptions take place along with the formation of cushiony energy-rich
>>>>body fat that surrounds these milk-factories.
>>>
>>>
>>>Translation: all of us are born as women.
>>>
>>>Just slightly less than half of us get better.
>>
>>Change 'born' to 'conceived' above.
>
>
> Is that why some men have more shoes and clothes and cosmetics than
> others?

Those people are called Metrosexuals which is a Latin word that means
"Gay but just doesn't realize it."

Lyle

Hugh Beyer
August 3rd 04, 02:34 PM
Lyle McDonald > wrote in
:

> Hugh Beyer wrote:
>> Lyle McDonald > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>>Hugh Beyer wrote:
>>>
>>>>Lyle McDonald > wrote in
>>>>news:10gqfadl0a6qc39 @corp.supernews.com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Proton Soup wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 11:21:02 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>In that man is more likely to have used his big brains than brute
>>>>>>>force, muscles for survival, broad shoulders/muscles are most
>>>>>>>likely to have been selected as a purely sexual factor. That is,
>>>>>>>they had no other purpose beyond sexual attraction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Although pound for pound, humans can be much weaker than animals,
>>>>>>visual size certainly does play a role in evading predation. I
>>>>>>think bipedalism also adds to the effect.
>>>>>
>>>>>Man has no specific predators.
>>>>>
>>>>>Lylef
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not necessarily true during the critical period of man's
>>>>development--when the species was differentiating from other apes.
>>>
>>>Suppose it depends on where you draw that line in the sand between
>>>not-man and man.
>>>
>>>As well, I'd say most of our physical/mental development (what I was
>>>referring to above) came well AFTER that split.
>>>
>>>When we had no specific predators.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Chatwin has interesting theories about humanoids being the primary cat
>> food for a particular species of big cat in "The Songlines".
>>
>> I'm dubious about the basic claim that big brains were the only
>> survival factor that mattered anyway
>
> I'm glad that I didn't say any such thing then. You might note my
> choice of words above.

Am I arguing with myself again? Happens. Sometimes it's the only way I can
get a game.

But for broad shoulders to have been selected for as a "purely sexual
factor," their contribution to survival would have to be negligible. I
don't buy that, or that man had no specific preditors during our
evolution. Hell, man's being preyed on by big cats in CA these days
according to another thread, why should it have been less true 20,000
years ago?

>
> But the image of ancient man bringing down a big kill with his bare
> hands, a pointy stick and muscles is a romantacized one.

Romance is underrated these days. E.g, the rite of passage for Masai boys
has always been to go out and kill a lion alone, armed with muscles and a
pointy stick. (Well, a spear, anyway.) Plains Indians brought down big
buffalo with bare hands and pointy sticks. (Arrows, in this case.)

You need the brain to make the pointy stick, but you need the muscles to
deliver it.

>
> --your big brain may cause you to figure out
>> the cat's hunting strategies but it's the arms that are going to throw
>> the spear or pull you to safety when things go pear-shaped (the legs
>> aren't going to get you out of there fast enough, on the flat).
>
> Of course some physical prowess was necessary. Otherwise Stephen
> Hawking would be teh greatest hunter on the ****ing planet.
>
> But, as should be pretty clear (comparaing our physical abilities to
> those of animals), it sure wasn't the primary determinant of our
> survival.

Not the "primary determinant" I agree with. But important enough to be
selected for.

Hugh


--
No puppies were harmed in the creation of this post.

Lyle McDonald
August 3rd 04, 02:42 PM
Hugh Beyer wrote:
> Lyle McDonald > wrote in
> :

>>I'm glad that I didn't say any such thing then. You might note my
>>choice of words above.
>
>
> Am I arguing with myself again? Happens. Sometimes it's the only way I can
> get a game.
>
> But for broad shoulders to have been selected for as a "purely sexual
> factor," their contribution to survival would have to be negligible. I
> don't buy that, or that man had no specific preditors during our
> evolution.

Buy whatever the hell you want. There's a lot of stuff on man's
evolution and the role of hunting, big brains, and all of that stuff out
there.

Hell, man's being preyed on by big cats in CA these days
> according to another thread, why should it have been less true 20,000
> years ago?

Occasinoal wild animal attacks is not synonymous with a specific predator.

Take savannah baboons for example. They have no specific predators
(meaning animals that specifically stalk them), they are occasinally
killed when they have run ins with other animals. Those animals do not
specifically predate the baboons.

>
>>But the image of ancient man bringing down a big kill with his bare
>>hands, a pointy stick and muscles is a romantacized one.
>
>
> Romance is underrated these days. E.g, the rite of passage for Masai boys
> has always been to go out and kill a lion alone, armed with muscles and a
> pointy stick. (Well, a spear, anyway.) Plains Indians brought down big
> buffalo with bare hands and pointy sticks. (Arrows, in this case.)
>
> You need the brain to make the pointy stick, but you need the muscles to
> deliver it.

Point being that msucles/strength still aren't the primary way man goes
about hunting under most circumstances. Is some necessary? Of course.
But we made up for a relative lack in musculature with a bigger brain.
Trapping animals, driving them over a cliff (this was done) and getting
the remains, working in groups was the more common method of hunting.

this still doesn't explain the preferential development of
shoulders/traps. Wouldn't lower body strength be important for hunting
as well?

Lyle

Helgi Briem
August 3rd 04, 02:52 PM
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 11:21:02 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> wrote:

>But that ignores the distinction that is made between sexual selection
>and other types of selection in this case.
>
>traits described as being selected for sexual selection have no other
>purpose. the peacock's tail for example, if anything it has negative
>survival advantages (it's calorically expensive, draws attention from
>predators, etc), but it has profound sexual selection pressure.
>Peacock's grow it for no other purpose than to attract peahens.

Actually, as a former evolutionary geneticist specialising
in sexual selection, I would like to add a little caveat to this.

Peacock's tails are probably not a good example of "normal"
sexual selection. They are probably an example of a very
special and unusual form of sexual selection known as
"runaway selection", sometimes "Fisher's runaway".

Most sexually selected characteristics (and I agree with
you that male shoulders are probably one such) do not
go runaway. You require a special situation where there
is very strong sexual selection and a very high genetic
correlation between the trait and the preference.

Otherwise, I agree with you.

--
Helgi Briem hbriem AT simnet DOT is

Never worry about anything that you see on the news.
To get on the news it must be sufficiently rare
that your chances of being involved are negligible!

David Cohen
August 3rd 04, 03:25 PM
"Helgi Briem" > wrote
> Lyle McDonald > wrote:
> >But that ignores the distinction that is made between sexual selection
> >and other types of selection in this case.
> >
> >traits described as being selected for sexual selection have no other
> >purpose. the peacock's tail for example, if anything it has negative
> >survival advantages (it's calorically expensive, draws attention from
> >predators, etc), but it has profound sexual selection pressure.
> >Peacock's grow it for no other purpose than to attract peahens.
>
> Actually, as a former evolutionary geneticist specialising
> in sexual selection, I would like to add a little caveat to this.

Like the well-known expression goes, "There is no such thing as a FORMER
evolutionary geneticist specialising in sexual selection."

David

The Queen of Cans and Jars
August 3rd 04, 03:30 PM
Lucas Buck > wrote:

> (The Queen of Cans and Jars) wrote:
>
> >elzinator > wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 14:36:03 GMT, The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
> >> >Mistress Krista > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "223rem" > wrote in message
> >> >> om...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > elzinator wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > this reminds me of thoughts I had last (this?) week:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Men seem to be more obsessed with their upper body: chest, biceps,
> >> >> > > traps, than lower body. Why is that?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Because that's what chicks dig (it is a form of sexual selection :)
> >>
> >> I don't agree. Most women that I talk to, that are not inhibited to
> >> talk about it that is, say they like chest and back or back and asses.
> >> Not one mentioned arms.
> >>
> >> >> Women like asses. Nothing worse than a guy with that horrible chemical
> >> >> imbalance, noacetol.
> >>
> >> >there must be something wrong with me, because i just don't care that
> >> >much about asses.
> >>
> >> I go for back and legs, which includes the ass. But that's just my
> >> preference. My colleagues at work now ask me for Calf Rating (I look
> >> at calves alot, mainly because I don't have any, and they are simply
> >> an interesting muscle group).
> >
> >i look at the brain first. it doesn't matter what the rest of the
> >package looks like if the brain doesn't qualify.
>
> Unfortunately, she cracks open the skull to see it.

hey, a girl's gotta do what a girl's gotta do.

or something.

Lyle McDonald
August 3rd 04, 03:31 PM
David Cohen wrote:
> "Helgi Briem" > wrote
>
>> Lyle McDonald > wrote:
>>
>>>But that ignores the distinction that is made between sexual selection
>>>and other types of selection in this case.
>>>
>>>traits described as being selected for sexual selection have no other
>>>purpose. the peacock's tail for example, if anything it has negative
>>>survival advantages (it's calorically expensive, draws attention from
>>>predators, etc), but it has profound sexual selection pressure.
>>>Peacock's grow it for no other purpose than to attract peahens.
>>
>>Actually, as a former evolutionary geneticist specialising
>>in sexual selection, I would like to add a little caveat to this.
>
>
> Like the well-known expression goes, "There is no such thing as a FORMER
> evolutionary geneticist specialising in sexual selection."

My granddad used to say that literally ALL the time.

Except that it was in Arabic.

Lyle

>

Proton Soup
August 3rd 04, 03:34 PM
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 14:30:31 GMT, (The Queen of
Cans and Jars) wrote:

>Lucas Buck > wrote:
>
>> (The Queen of Cans and Jars) wrote:
>>
>> >elzinator > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 14:36:03 GMT, The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
>> >> >Mistress Krista > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "223rem" > wrote in message
>> >> >> om...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > elzinator wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > this reminds me of thoughts I had last (this?) week:
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Men seem to be more obsessed with their upper body: chest, biceps,
>> >> >> > > traps, than lower body. Why is that?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Because that's what chicks dig (it is a form of sexual selection :)
>> >>
>> >> I don't agree. Most women that I talk to, that are not inhibited to
>> >> talk about it that is, say they like chest and back or back and asses.
>> >> Not one mentioned arms.
>> >>
>> >> >> Women like asses. Nothing worse than a guy with that horrible chemical
>> >> >> imbalance, noacetol.
>> >>
>> >> >there must be something wrong with me, because i just don't care that
>> >> >much about asses.
>> >>
>> >> I go for back and legs, which includes the ass. But that's just my
>> >> preference. My colleagues at work now ask me for Calf Rating (I look
>> >> at calves alot, mainly because I don't have any, and they are simply
>> >> an interesting muscle group).
>> >
>> >i look at the brain first. it doesn't matter what the rest of the
>> >package looks like if the brain doesn't qualify.
>>
>> Unfortunately, she cracks open the skull to see it.
>
>hey, a girl's gotta do what a girl's gotta do.
>
>or something.

Whatever happened to "I'll show you mine if you will show me yours" ?

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

Helgi Briem
August 3rd 04, 04:08 PM
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 14:25:37 GMT, "David Cohen"
> wrote:

>> Actually, as a former evolutionary geneticist specialising
>> in sexual selection, I would like to add a little caveat to this.
>
>Like the well-known expression goes, "There is no such thing as a FORMER
>evolutionary geneticist specialising in sexual selection."

Yes. Once a population genetics geek, always a population
genetics geek. It stays with you.

Makes for great party conversation, though.

--
Helgi Briem hbriem AT simnet DOT is

Never worry about anything that you see on the news.
To get on the news it must be sufficiently rare
that your chances of being involved are negligible!

Hugh Beyer
August 3rd 04, 05:08 PM
Lyle McDonald > wrote in
:

> Hugh Beyer wrote:
>> Lyle McDonald > wrote in
>> :
>
>>>I'm glad that I didn't say any such thing then. You might note my
>>>choice of words above.
>>
>>
>> Am I arguing with myself again? Happens. Sometimes it's the only way I
>> can get a game.
>>
>> But for broad shoulders to have been selected for as a "purely sexual
>> factor," their contribution to survival would have to be negligible. I
>> don't buy that, or that man had no specific preditors during our
>> evolution.
>
> Buy whatever the hell you want. There's a lot of stuff on man's
> evolution and the role of hunting, big brains, and all of that stuff out
> there.

Authoritative stuff is pretty thin. Chatwin references finding caches of
chewed-on humanoid bones and skulls with holes the right size to be made
by large-cat incisors, which is pretty good as such evidence goes.

> Hell, man's being preyed on by big cats in CA these days
>> according to another thread, why should it have been less true 20,000
>> years ago?
>
> Occasinoal wild animal attacks is not synonymous with a specific
> predator.
>
> Take savannah baboons for example. They have no specific predators
> (meaning animals that specifically stalk them), they are occasinally
> killed when they have run ins with other animals. Those animals do not
> specifically predate the baboons.
>
>>
>>>But the image of ancient man bringing down a big kill with his bare
>>>hands, a pointy stick and muscles is a romantacized one.
>>
>>
>> Romance is underrated these days. E.g, the rite of passage for Masai
>> boys has always been to go out and kill a lion alone, armed with
>> muscles and a pointy stick. (Well, a spear, anyway.) Plains Indians
>> brought down big buffalo with bare hands and pointy sticks. (Arrows, in
>> this case.)
>>
>> You need the brain to make the pointy stick, but you need the muscles
>> to deliver it.
>
> Point being that msucles/strength still aren't the primary way man goes
> about hunting under most circumstances. Is some necessary? Of course.
> But we made up for a relative lack in musculature with a bigger brain.
> Trapping animals, driving them over a cliff (this was done) and getting
> the remains, working in groups was the more common method of hunting.
>
> this still doesn't explain the preferential development of
> shoulders/traps. Wouldn't lower body strength be important for hunting
> as well?

We aren't arguing "primary", we're arguing "important enough to have been
selected for."

But as you point out, the real question is "important enough to be
selected for over larger legs and in the male only," which is a good bit
more difficult to explain.

Hugh




--
No puppies were harmed in the creation of this post.

Will Brink
August 3rd 04, 07:48 PM
In article >,
elzinator > wrote:

> However, I may be deluding myself that dissecting these traits can be
> done. :) Still, it is interesting to think about it (had a similar
> discussion with gender differences in regards to brain
> development/function with a systems specialist, which was really
> helpful).

speaking of brain development, but Slightly OT, two recent things of
interest I read regarding the origins of man. It appears we, and most
other creatures, very possible started in what is now called Asia and
went to Africa, vs the other way around, and more interesting, it
appears the theory that we progressed as a species due to our big brains
may not be true. It appears that the environmental pressure that forced
our evolution was the receeding of forests and an increase in grass
lands 6-8 million years ago, and the ape that adapted by walking upright
had the advantage, but didn't actually have a brain much larger than the
other apes the time. This has sparked a new controversy in terms of what
evolutionary adaptation came to be man, which was always assumed it was
the big brain, which appears to have come after our ancestor learned to
walk upright and survive in grass lands vs forests thus differentiating
us from other apes.


>
>
> Beelzibub
>
> The human in us owes fealty to humanity. But the wolf in us acknowledges no
> master.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
August 3rd 04, 08:46 PM
In article >,
"Ben Gussey" > wrote:

> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> ...
> <snipped>
> > It reminds me of a conversation I had with a guy a while black (he was
> > black since that does matter). Talking about some of the stereotypes.
> >
> > for example, you'll hear folks ask the following two questions
> > "Why do black men like women with big butts?"
> > "Why do black women usually have big butts?"
> >
> > The answer to the questions is contained within the two questions.
> > Black women have big butts because black men prefer women with big
> > butts. A perfect example of physical sexual selection.
> >
> > So is the answer for why men want to develop their shoulders/arms (and
> > why those areas tend to develop). Sexual selection plain and simple.
> > Women sexually selected men who had those characteristics, hence men
> > want to develop those characteristics to sexually attract females.
> > Again, completely analogous to the physical traits taht females try to
> > emphasize.
>
> >
> > Lyle
>
> Why can't you conversely say that black men like big butts because black
> women have big butts?

Then I must be a black man trapped in a white man's body, 'cause I love
big (as long as they are firm!) butts.

http://www.brinkzone.com/brinkzonecap.htm

Baby got back!

>
> Regards,
> Ben.
>
>

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
August 3rd 04, 08:50 PM
In article >,
Hugh Beyer > wrote:

> Lyle McDonald > wrote in
> :
>
> > Hugh Beyer wrote:
> >> Lyle McDonald > wrote in
> >> news:10gqfadl0a6qc39 @corp.supernews.com:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Proton Soup wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 11:21:02 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>In that man is more likely to have used his big brains than brute
> >>>>>force, muscles for survival, broad shoulders/muscles are most likely
> >>>>>to have been selected as a purely sexual factor. That is, they had
> >>>>>no other purpose beyond sexual attraction.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Although pound for pound, humans can be much weaker than animals,
> >>>>visual size certainly does play a role in evading predation. I think
> >>>>bipedalism also adds to the effect.
> >>>
> >>>Man has no specific predators.
> >>>
> >>>Lylef
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Not necessarily true during the critical period of man's
> >> development--when the species was differentiating from other apes.
> >
> > Suppose it depends on where you draw that line in the sand between
> > not-man and man.
> >
> > As well, I'd say most of our physical/mental development (what I was
> > referring to above) came well AFTER that split.
> >
> > When we had no specific predators.
> >
>
> Chatwin has interesting theories about humanoids being the primary cat
> food for a particular species of big cat in "The Songlines".
>
> I'm dubious about the basic claim that big brains were the only survival
> factor that mattered anyway

If you see my other comments, a recent finding says big brains may not
have been the major factor, at least early on.

>--your big brain may cause you to figure out
> the cat's hunting strategies but it's the arms that are going to throw the
> spear or pull you to safety when things go pear-shaped (the legs aren't
> going to get you out of there fast enough, on the flat).
>
> Hugh

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

The Queen of Cans and Jars
August 3rd 04, 10:20 PM
Proton Soup > wrote:

> On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 14:30:31 GMT, (The Queen of
> Cans and Jars) wrote:
>
> >Lucas Buck > wrote:
> >
> >> (The Queen of Cans and Jars) wrote:
> >>
> >> >elzinator > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 14:36:03 GMT, The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
> >> >> >Mistress Krista > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "223rem" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> om...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > elzinator wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > this reminds me of thoughts I had last (this?) week:
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > Men seem to be more obsessed with their upper body: chest,
> >> >> >> > > biceps, traps, than lower body. Why is that?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Because that's what chicks dig (it is a form of sexual
> >> >> >> > selection :)
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't agree. Most women that I talk to, that are not inhibited to
> >> >> talk about it that is, say they like chest and back or back and asses.
> >> >> Not one mentioned arms.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Women like asses. Nothing worse than a guy with that horrible
> >> >> >> chemical imbalance, noacetol.
> >> >>
> >> >> >there must be something wrong with me, because i just don't care
> >> >> >that much about asses.
> >> >>
> >> >> I go for back and legs, which includes the ass. But that's just my
> >> >> preference. My colleagues at work now ask me for Calf Rating (I look
> >> >> at calves alot, mainly because I don't have any, and they are simply
> >> >> an interesting muscle group).
> >> >
> >> >i look at the brain first. it doesn't matter what the rest of the
> >> >package looks like if the brain doesn't qualify.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, she cracks open the skull to see it.
> >
> >hey, a girl's gotta do what a girl's gotta do.
> >
> >or something.
>
> Whatever happened to "I'll show you mine if you will show me yours" ?

alas, i've nothing to show. i had an mri a few years ago and there
weren't anything up there.

Proton Soup
August 3rd 04, 10:48 PM
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 21:20:01 GMT, (The Queen of
Cans and Jars) wrote:

>Proton Soup > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 14:30:31 GMT, (The Queen of
>> Cans and Jars) wrote:
>>
>> >Lucas Buck > wrote:
>> >
>> >> (The Queen of Cans and Jars) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >elzinator > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 14:36:03 GMT, The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
>> >> >> >Mistress Krista > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> "223rem" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> om...
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > elzinator wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > > this reminds me of thoughts I had last (this?) week:
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > > Men seem to be more obsessed with their upper body: chest,
>> >> >> >> > > biceps, traps, than lower body. Why is that?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Because that's what chicks dig (it is a form of sexual
>> >> >> >> > selection :)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I don't agree. Most women that I talk to, that are not inhibited to
>> >> >> talk about it that is, say they like chest and back or back and asses.
>> >> >> Not one mentioned arms.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Women like asses. Nothing worse than a guy with that horrible
>> >> >> >> chemical imbalance, noacetol.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >there must be something wrong with me, because i just don't care
>> >> >> >that much about asses.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I go for back and legs, which includes the ass. But that's just my
>> >> >> preference. My colleagues at work now ask me for Calf Rating (I look
>> >> >> at calves alot, mainly because I don't have any, and they are simply
>> >> >> an interesting muscle group).
>> >> >
>> >> >i look at the brain first. it doesn't matter what the rest of the
>> >> >package looks like if the brain doesn't qualify.
>> >>
>> >> Unfortunately, she cracks open the skull to see it.
>> >
>> >hey, a girl's gotta do what a girl's gotta do.
>> >
>> >or something.
>>
>> Whatever happened to "I'll show you mine if you will show me yours" ?
>
>alas, i've nothing to show. i had an mri a few years ago and there
>weren't anything up there.

Well could I at least gawk at your hole?

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

Proton Soup
August 3rd 04, 10:51 PM
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 15:46:34 -0400, Will Brink
> wrote:

>In article >,
> "Ben Gussey" > wrote:
>
>> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> <snipped>
>> > It reminds me of a conversation I had with a guy a while black (he was
>> > black since that does matter). Talking about some of the stereotypes.
>> >
>> > for example, you'll hear folks ask the following two questions
>> > "Why do black men like women with big butts?"
>> > "Why do black women usually have big butts?"
>> >
>> > The answer to the questions is contained within the two questions.
>> > Black women have big butts because black men prefer women with big
>> > butts. A perfect example of physical sexual selection.
>> >
>> > So is the answer for why men want to develop their shoulders/arms (and
>> > why those areas tend to develop). Sexual selection plain and simple.
>> > Women sexually selected men who had those characteristics, hence men
>> > want to develop those characteristics to sexually attract females.
>> > Again, completely analogous to the physical traits taht females try to
>> > emphasize.
>>
>> >
>> > Lyle
>>
>> Why can't you conversely say that black men like big butts because black
>> women have big butts?
>
>Then I must be a black man trapped in a white man's body, 'cause I love
>big (as long as they are firm!) butts.
>
>http://www.brinkzone.com/brinkzonecap.htm
>
>Baby got back!

Friend of yours? I couldn't help butt notice the laundry basket in
the background, so I'm guessing that ain't no pro photoshoot.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

Will Brink
August 3rd 04, 11:37 PM
In article >,
Proton Soup > wrote:

> On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 15:46:34 -0400, Will Brink
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > "Ben Gussey" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> <snipped>
> >> > It reminds me of a conversation I had with a guy a while black (he was
> >> > black since that does matter). Talking about some of the stereotypes.
> >> >
> >> > for example, you'll hear folks ask the following two questions
> >> > "Why do black men like women with big butts?"
> >> > "Why do black women usually have big butts?"
> >> >
> >> > The answer to the questions is contained within the two questions.
> >> > Black women have big butts because black men prefer women with big
> >> > butts. A perfect example of physical sexual selection.
> >> >
> >> > So is the answer for why men want to develop their shoulders/arms (and
> >> > why those areas tend to develop). Sexual selection plain and simple.
> >> > Women sexually selected men who had those characteristics, hence men
> >> > want to develop those characteristics to sexually attract females.
> >> > Again, completely analogous to the physical traits taht females try to
> >> > emphasize.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Lyle
> >>
> >> Why can't you conversely say that black men like big butts because black
> >> women have big butts?
> >
> >Then I must be a black man trapped in a white man's body, 'cause I love
> >big (as long as they are firm!) butts.
> >
> >http://www.brinkzone.com/brinkzonecap.htm
> >
> >Baby got back!
>
> Friend of yours?

Guilty.

> I couldn't help butt notice the laundry basket in
> the background, so I'm guessing that ain't no pro photoshoot.

Guess I should have removed my laundry basket before taking the pic...

>
> -----------
> Proton Soup
>
> "Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

The Queen of Cans and Jars
August 4th 04, 03:20 AM
Proton Soup > wrote:

> On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 21:20:01 GMT, (The Queen of
> Cans and Jars) wrote:
>
> >Proton Soup > wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 14:30:31 GMT, (The Queen of
> >> Cans and Jars) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Lucas Buck > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> (The Queen of Cans and Jars) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >elzinator > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 14:36:03 GMT, The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
> >> >> >> >Mistress Krista > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> "223rem" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> om...
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > elzinator wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > > this reminds me of thoughts I had last (this?) week:
> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> > > Men seem to be more obsessed with their upper body: chest,
> >> >> >> >> > > biceps, traps, than lower body. Why is that?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Because that's what chicks dig (it is a form of sexual
> >> >> >> >> > selection :)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I don't agree. Most women that I talk to, that are not inhibited
> >> >> >> to talk about it that is, say they like chest and back or back
> >> >> >> and asses. Not one mentioned arms.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Women like asses. Nothing worse than a guy with that horrible
> >> >> >> >> chemical imbalance, noacetol.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >there must be something wrong with me, because i just don't care
> >> >> >> >that much about asses.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I go for back and legs, which includes the ass. But that's just my
> >> >> >> preference. My colleagues at work now ask me for Calf Rating (I look
> >> >> >> at calves alot, mainly because I don't have any, and they are simply
> >> >> >> an interesting muscle group).
> >> >> >
> >> >> >i look at the brain first. it doesn't matter what the rest of the
> >> >> >package looks like if the brain doesn't qualify.
> >> >>
> >> >> Unfortunately, she cracks open the skull to see it.
> >> >
> >> >hey, a girl's gotta do what a girl's gotta do.
> >> >
> >> >or something.
> >>
> >> Whatever happened to "I'll show you mine if you will show me yours" ?
> >
> >alas, i've nothing to show. i had an mri a few years ago and there
> >weren't anything up there.
>
> Well could I at least gawk at your hole?

i thought you'd never ask.

Lucas Buck
August 4th 04, 08:38 AM
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 18:28:08 -0500, elzinator > wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 22:52:18 -0500, Proton Soup wrote:
>>On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 22:29:25 -0500, elzinator
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 22:10:35 -0500, Proton Soup wrote:
>
>>>>Yeah but still, the question remains, "Why did natural selection put
>>>>nipples on men?
>>>
>>>Nipples on men are an artifact.
>>
>>Oh, so they're sort of like ears? :)
>
><sigh>
>You asked for it:
>
>After an egg is fertilized, the X chromosome, which contains most of
>the 'beef' (the genetic information), and the Y chromosome, which
>contains 'beans' (very little genetic information),

Are you making babies, or burritos?


>As the cells increase in number, the default gender is female. As the
>organism starts to take form and cells start to differentiate into
>specific tissues, the gender of the embryo is female. Becoming more
>specialized, tissues start to develop into organs.
>
>In the last dance of gene expression, a gene on the Y chromosome wakes
>up and says "Hey, wait for me, you assholes!!". Whap! all of a sudden,
>by his dictate, a series of changes in gene expression tell the
>forming embryo to start production of signals that tell cells in some
>tissues to stop growing or start growing and producing other signals.
>One of these new signals is a hormone you may be familiar with:
>testosterone.
>
>So, despite that this forming embryo has started developing into what
>would have become a female, suddenly several tissues begin to change
>shape and grow.
>
>Other tissues stop growing. One of these tissues is mammary glands in
>the breasts. Although it's too late to tell the nipple-forming
>machinery to stop forming nipples. So the growing fetus has these
>nipple hills that stay hills, unless the adult form gets too fat and
>the breast fat starts pumping out so much estrogen (that has been
>aromatized from androgens) that the adult male begins to grow tits.
>
>The female, however, continues on with the hardwired default hormone
>instructions and starts growing nascent mammary tissue that lays in
>wait for the time when the other tissue down South starts pumping out
>androgens that immediately are converted to estrogens which pour
>through the blood to all the other territory. Then the volcanic
>eruptions take place along with the formation of cushiony energy-rich
>body fat that surrounds these milk-factories.

"I think I just came."
($1 to Lyle)

Lucas Buck
August 4th 04, 08:39 AM
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 19:15:10 -0500, Lyle McDonald > wrote:

>Lyle McDonald wrote:
>
>> elzinator wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>> The female, however, continues on with the hardwired default hormone
>>> instructions and starts growing nascent mammary tissue that lays in
>>> wait for the time when the other tissue down South starts pumping out
>>> androgens that immediately are converted to estrogens which pour
>>> through the blood to all the other territory. Then the volcanic
>>> eruptions take place along with the formation of cushiony energy-rich
>>> body fat that surrounds these milk-factories.
>>
>>
>> Translation: all of us are born as women.
>>
>> Just slightly less than half of us get better.
>
>Change 'born' to 'conceived' above.
>
>Lyle

and "less" to "more". (more babies are male than female)

Lucas Buck
August 7th 04, 09:16 AM
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 01:54:48 -0500, elzinator > wrote:

>On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 16:09:59 +1000, Mick R. wrote:
>>
>>"elzinator" > wrote in message
...
>
>>> I was loaned the first season of 'La Femme Nakita' DVDs. And I bought
>>> a new CD, which with headphones is currently the reality of my CNS.
>>> (headphones are a direct circuit into my CNS).
>>
>>Hmmm, ideas ideas ideas
>><evil grin>
>
>Uh oh. :)
>
>> However, there are many
>>> good movies at the theater this summer, which is usually on my weekend
>>> agenda. And I like Denzil Washington....
>>>
>>We're thinking about collecting "Angel" dvd sets. It could have gone either
>>way but the episode where he gets turned into a muppet clinched it for us.
>>Hilarious!
>
>I watched an episode of 'Angel'. It didn't do much for me, but that
>was based on n=1.
>
>'...Nakita', on the other hand, is more relevant to my preferences,
>compared to what I grew up on, such as "The Prisoner" series
>(I still occasionally blurt out "I'm not a numbah!!") And "The
>Avengers". I enjoy the dynamic of the characters in "... Nakita" and
>she's the only blonde (male or female) that I think has any merit.

Samantha Carter roolz over Nikita like a Colossus.

>But nothing compares to the full moon as it rose over the mountains at
>the sheep ranch in Oregon, with the fog from the coast sliding over
>the mountain range like a caressing hand.

The moon rises in the West there, huh?

Art S
August 7th 04, 03:55 PM
"Lucas Buck" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 01:54:48 -0500, elzinator > wrote:
> >But nothing compares to the full moon as it rose over the mountains at
> >the sheep ranch in Oregon, with the fog from the coast sliding over
> >the mountain range like a caressing hand.
>
> The moon rises in the West there, huh?
>

Yep.

You need to be looking East but, by golly, you can still see the moon
rise when you are in the West.

You can even see the sun rise.

Art

Lucas Buck
August 8th 04, 11:58 AM
On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 14:55:19 GMT, "Art S" > wrote:

>
>"Lucas Buck" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 01:54:48 -0500, elzinator > wrote:
>> >But nothing compares to the full moon as it rose over the mountains at
>> >the sheep ranch in Oregon, with the fog from the coast sliding over
>> >the mountain range like a caressing hand.
>>
>> The moon rises in the West there, huh?
>
>Yep.
>
>You need to be looking East but, by golly, you can still see the moon
>rise when you are in the West.
>
>You can even see the sun rise.
>
>Art

No, no. The fog comes in from the WEST there. If the fog is coming in over the same mountains
as the moon rises over, there is a problem.

David Cohen
August 8th 04, 09:56 PM
"Lucas Buck" > wrote
> , "Art S" > wrote:
> >"Lucas Buck" > wrote
> >> elzinator > wrote:
> >> >But nothing compares to the full moon as it rose over the mountains at
> >> >the sheep ranch in Oregon, with the fog from the coast sliding over
> >> >the mountain range like a caressing hand.
> >>
> >> The moon rises in the West there, huh?
> >
> >Yep.
> >
> >You need to be looking East but, by golly, you can still see the moon
> >rise when you are in the West.
> >
> >You can even see the sun rise.
> >
>
> No, no. The fog comes in from the WEST there.

no, no, no, you ignorant slut! the fog comes in on little cat's feet!

david