| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
17 May 2005 04:10:09 AM |
| Object: |
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm |
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/science/17orga.html?pagewanted=all
By DINITIA SMITH
Scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male orgasm, but
what is the evolutionary purpose of the female version?
.
|
|
| User: "GoDrex" |
|
| Title: Re: A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm |
17 May 2005 07:00:38 PM |
|
|
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116321009.150203.275040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/science/17orga.html?pagewanted=all
By DINITIA SMITH
Scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male orgasm, but
what is the evolutionary purpose of the female version?
one thing I learned in sex ed and actually saw a film of, was the cervix
actually dipping into semen inside the vagina. The contractions cause by
orgasm actual help to bring about pregnacy.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm |
17 May 2005 08:12:52 AM |
|
|
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116321009.150203.275040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/science/17orga.html?pagewanted=all
By DINITIA SMITH
Scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male orgasm, but
what is the evolutionary purpose of the female version?
I sometimes get the feeling that some scientists never get out nearly as
much as they should. :P
Boikat
--
<42><
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm |
17 May 2005 07:00:01 PM |
|
|
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116321009.150203.275040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/science/17orga.html?pagewanted=all
By DINITIA SMITH
Scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male orgasm, but
what is the evolutionary purpose of the female version?
I'm willing to sacrifice myself researching this dilemma at the
Playboy mansion.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm |
17 May 2005 01:20:48 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 May 2005 08:12:52 -0500, "Boikat" <boikat@bellsouthnospam.net> wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116321009.150203.275040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/science/17orga.html?pagewanted=all
By DINITIA SMITH
Scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male orgasm, but
what is the evolutionary purpose of the female version?
I sometimes get the feeling that some scientists never get out nearly as
much as they should. :P
And, if while they are out, they should chance to spend an hour in the library
reading room, and another in their local porn cinema, I am sure that they would
find at least two, "purposes", for it, and a clear and simple explanation.
Unless they see, Deep Throat, in which case they will be none the wiser, and go
home, feeling insignificant, and jealous as all get out.
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling, Like any opinion stated here,
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Weldon" |
|
| Title: Re: A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm |
17 May 2005 06:55:52 PM |
|
|
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116321009.150203.275040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/science/17orga.html?pagewanted=all
By DINITIA SMITH
Scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male orgasm, but
what is the evolutionary purpose of the female version?
This is the way it was explained to me, in a sexuality class. The female
orgasm causes the cervix to "spasm" (not sure of the right word), allowing
it to descend "downward" and plunge into the pool of semen (females
generally orgasm after the male), thus ensuring a good supply of semen and
increasing the chances of impregnation.
I am not sure of the "evolutionary" purpose of this action, I suppose it
would be the increased chance of impregnation with orgasm. I write this
assuming that someone is actually interested in a serious answer, of course.
Robert Weldon
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "chibiabos" |
|
| Title: Re: A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm |
17 May 2005 08:21:10 AM |
|
|
In article <1116321009.150203.275040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
maff <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/science/17orga.html?pagewanted=all
By DINITIA SMITH
Scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male orgasm, but
what is the evolutionary purpose of the female version?
Definitely a subject that needs further study . . .
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Casanova" |
|
| Title: Re: A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm |
17 May 2005 05:12:51 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 May 2005 06:21:10 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by chibiabos <chib@nospam.com>:
In article <1116321009.150203.275040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
maff <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/science/17orga.html?pagewanted=all
By DINITIA SMITH
Scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male orgasm, but
what is the evolutionary purpose of the female version?
Definitely a subject that needs further study . . .
.....an in-depth study.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia" |
|
| Title: Re: A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm |
17 May 2005 10:45:49 PM |
|
|
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in
news:11rk815h9tqv82vi7alr3p51h28jfossgo@4ax.com:
On Tue, 17 May 2005 06:21:10 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by chibiabos <chib@nospam.com>:
In article <1116321009.150203.275040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
maff <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/science/17orga.html?pagewanted=all
By DINITIA SMITH
Scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male orgasm, but
what is the evolutionary purpose of the female version?
Definitely a subject that needs further study . . .
....an in-depth study.
I'm recruiting subjects as we speak, mostly from the women's pro beach
volleyball association (Please God Oh Yes Please!).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank J Warner" |
|
| Title: Re: A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm |
18 May 2005 01:23:00 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns9659D4244F63Cnewbnewbcom@68.12.19.6>, Mad Mambo Master
of Macedonia <newb@newb.com> wrote:
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in
news:11rk815h9tqv82vi7alr3p51h28jfossgo@4ax.com:
On Tue, 17 May 2005 06:21:10 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by chibiabos <chib@nospam.com>:
In article <1116321009.150203.275040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
maff <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/science/17orga.html?pagewanted=all
By DINITIA SMITH
Scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male orgasm, but
what is the evolutionary purpose of the female version?
Definitely a subject that needs further study . . .
....an in-depth study.
I'm recruiting subjects as we speak, mostly from the women's pro beach
volleyball association (Please God Oh Yes Please!).
You know they could crush you with those thighs, don't you?
-Frank
--
fwarner1-at-franksknives-dot-com
Here's some of my work:
http://www.franksknives.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm |
18 May 2005 01:43:20 PM |
|
|
"Frank J Warner" <warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote in message
news:180520051123007624%warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net...
In article <Xns9659D4244F63Cnewbnewbcom@68.12.19.6>, Mad Mambo Master
of Macedonia <newb@newb.com> wrote:
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in
news:11rk815h9tqv82vi7alr3p51h28jfossgo@4ax.com:
On Tue, 17 May 2005 06:21:10 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by chibiabos <chib@nospam.com>:
In article <1116321009.150203.275040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
maff <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/science/17orga.html?pagewanted=all
By DINITIA SMITH
Scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male orgasm, but
what is the evolutionary purpose of the female version?
Definitely a subject that needs further study . . .
....an in-depth study.
I'm recruiting subjects as we speak, mostly from the women's pro beach
volleyball association (Please God Oh Yes Please!).
You know they could crush you with those thighs, don't you?
Do you think he cares? :)
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm |
19 May 2005 01:09:56 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 May 2005 14:43:20 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Frank J Warner" <warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote in message
news:180520051123007624%warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net...
In article <Xns9659D4244F63Cnewbnewbcom@68.12.19.6>, Mad Mambo Master
of Macedonia <newb@newb.com> wrote:
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in
news:11rk815h9tqv82vi7alr3p51h28jfossgo@4ax.com:
On Tue, 17 May 2005 06:21:10 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by chibiabos <chib@nospam.com>:
In article <1116321009.150203.275040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
maff <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/science/17orga.html?pagewanted=all
By DINITIA SMITH
Scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male orgasm, but
what is the evolutionary purpose of the female version?
Definitely a subject that needs further study . . .
....an in-depth study.
I'm recruiting subjects as we speak, mostly from the women's pro beach
volleyball association (Please God Oh Yes Please!).
You know they could crush you with those thighs, don't you?
Do you think he cares? :)
What a way to go! ;)
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Azrael" |
|
| Title: Re: A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm |
18 May 2005 08:16:19 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 May 2005 11:23:00 -0700, Frank J Warner
<warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote:
In article <Xns9659D4244F63Cnewbnewbcom@68.12.19.6>, Mad Mambo Master
of Macedonia <newb@newb.com> wrote:
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in
news:11rk815h9tqv82vi7alr3p51h28jfossgo@4ax.com:
On Tue, 17 May 2005 06:21:10 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by chibiabos <chib@nospam.com>:
In article <1116321009.150203.275040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
maff <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/science/17orga.html?pagewanted=all
By DINITIA SMITH
Scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male orgasm, but
what is the evolutionary purpose of the female version?
Definitely a subject that needs further study . . .
....an in-depth study.
I'm recruiting subjects as we speak, mostly from the women's pro beach
volleyball association (Please God Oh Yes Please!).
You know they could crush you with those thighs, don't you?
-Frank
I'm willing to take that risk if it will help advance science.:)
Azrael
The thiest/diest defense:
1)I believe in god, ergo god exists
2)I believe in god, ergo I know what god wills, wants, the path to god, etc.
3)I believe in god, ergo I am right/correct
4)You don't agree with me, you are wrong (see 1,2,and/or 3 above)
5)You dont' beleive as I do then you are wrong (see 1,2,and/or 3 above)
6)You want proof of god? (see 1,2,and/or 3 above)
7)You have evidence god does not exist (see 1,2,and/or 3 above)
8)If you don't believe as I do you are wrong (see 1,2,and/or 3 above)
There was no "before" the beginning of our universe, because once upon a time there was no time.
John D. Barrow
Question #1: If I get im my spaceship and fly to the very edge of the universe what do I see out the front window?
Question #2: What is the most mass/matter that a black hole can obsorb and what happens after it reaches that point and trys to absorb more matter?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm |
18 May 2005 09:46:55 PM |
|
|
"Azrael" <god@my.computer.palace.com> wrote in message
news:p9qn81p9f7uhebqtqv316folhomouo2dhi@4ax.com...
On Wed, 18 May 2005 11:23:00 -0700, Frank J Warner
<warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote:
In article <Xns9659D4244F63Cnewbnewbcom@68.12.19.6>, Mad Mambo Master
of Macedonia <newb@newb.com> wrote:
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in
news:11rk815h9tqv82vi7alr3p51h28jfossgo@4ax.com:
On Tue, 17 May 2005 06:21:10 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by chibiabos <chib@nospam.com>:
In article <1116321009.150203.275040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
maff <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/science/17orga.html?pagewanted=all
By DINITIA SMITH
Scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male orgasm, but
what is the evolutionary purpose of the female version?
Definitely a subject that needs further study . . .
....an in-depth study.
I'm recruiting subjects as we speak, mostly from the women's pro beach
volleyball association (Please God Oh Yes Please!).
You know they could crush you with those thighs, don't you?
-Frank
I'm willing to take that risk if it will help advance science.:)
I just bet you are <smirk> :)
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchpoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm |
19 May 2005 01:10:42 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 May 2005 22:46:55 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Azrael" <god@my.computer.palace.com> wrote in message
news:p9qn81p9f7uhebqtqv316folhomouo2dhi@4ax.com...
On Wed, 18 May 2005 11:23:00 -0700, Frank J Warner
<warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote:
In article <Xns9659D4244F63Cnewbnewbcom@68.12.19.6>, Mad Mambo Master
of Macedonia <newb@newb.com> wrote:
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in
news:11rk815h9tqv82vi7alr3p51h28jfossgo@4ax.com:
On Tue, 17 May 2005 06:21:10 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by chibiabos <chib@nospam.com>:
In article <1116321009.150203.275040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
maff <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/science/17orga.html?pagewanted=all
By DINITIA SMITH
Scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male orgasm, but
what is the evolutionary purpose of the female version?
Definitely a subject that needs further study . . .
....an in-depth study.
I'm recruiting subjects as we speak, mostly from the women's pro beach
volleyball association (Please God Oh Yes Please!).
You know they could crush you with those thighs, don't you?
-Frank
I'm willing to take that risk if it will help advance science.:)
I just bet you are <smirk> :)
Female power.... :)))
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia" |
|
| Title: Re: A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm |
19 May 2005 02:35:00 AM |
|
|
Azrael <god@my.computer.palace.com> wrote in
news:p9qn81p9f7uhebqtqv316folhomouo2dhi@4ax.com:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 11:23:00 -0700, Frank J Warner
<warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote:
In article <Xns9659D4244F63Cnewbnewbcom@68.12.19.6>, Mad Mambo Master
of Macedonia <newb@newb.com> wrote:
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in
news:11rk815h9tqv82vi7alr3p51h28jfossgo@4ax.com:
On Tue, 17 May 2005 06:21:10 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by chibiabos <chib@nospam.com>:
In article
<1116321009.150203.275040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, maff
<maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/science/17orga.html?pagewanted=
all
By DINITIA SMITH
Scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male orgasm,
but what is the evolutionary purpose of the female version?
Definitely a subject that needs further study . . .
....an in-depth study.
I'm recruiting subjects as we speak, mostly from the women's pro
beach volleyball association (Please God Oh Yes Please!).
You know they could crush you with those thighs, don't you?
-Frank
I'm willing to take that risk if it will help advance science.:)
Azrael
In the pursuit of wisdom we must be willing to make sacrifices.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm |
19 May 2005 01:11:14 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 May 2005 07:35:00 GMT, Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia
<newb@newb.com> wrote:
Azrael <god@my.computer.palace.com> wrote in
news:p9qn81p9f7uhebqtqv316folhomouo2dhi@4ax.com:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 11:23:00 -0700, Frank J Warner
<warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote:
In article <Xns9659D4244F63Cnewbnewbcom@68.12.19.6>, Mad Mambo Master
of Macedonia <newb@newb.com> wrote:
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in
news:11rk815h9tqv82vi7alr3p51h28jfossgo@4ax.com:
On Tue, 17 May 2005 06:21:10 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by chibiabos <chib@nospam.com>:
In article
<1116321009.150203.275040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, maff
<maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/science/17orga.html?pagewanted=
all
By DINITIA SMITH
Scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male orgasm,
but what is the evolutionary purpose of the female version?
Definitely a subject that needs further study . . .
....an in-depth study.
I'm recruiting subjects as we speak, mostly from the women's pro
beach volleyball association (Please God Oh Yes Please!).
You know they could crush you with those thighs, don't you?
-Frank
I'm willing to take that risk if it will help advance science.:)
Azrael
In the pursuit of wisdom we must be willing to make sacrifices.
Indeed. (humble look)
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Casanova" |
|
| Title: Re: A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm |
19 May 2005 03:22:52 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 May 2005 11:11:14 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by stoney <stoney@the.net>:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 07:35:00 GMT, Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia
<newb@newb.com> wrote:
Azrael <god@my.computer.palace.com> wrote in
news:p9qn81p9f7uhebqtqv316folhomouo2dhi@4ax.com:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 11:23:00 -0700, Frank J Warner
<warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote:
In article <Xns9659D4244F63Cnewbnewbcom@68.12.19.6>, Mad Mambo Master
of Macedonia <newb@newb.com> wrote:
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in
news:11rk815h9tqv82vi7alr3p51h28jfossgo@4ax.com:
On Tue, 17 May 2005 06:21:10 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by chibiabos <chib@nospam.com>:
In article
<1116321009.150203.275040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, maff
<maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/science/17orga.html?pagewanted=
all
By DINITIA SMITH
Scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male orgasm,
but what is the evolutionary purpose of the female version?
Definitely a subject that needs further study . . .
....an in-depth study.
I'm recruiting subjects as we speak, mostly from the women's pro
beach volleyball association (Please God Oh Yes Please!).
You know they could crush you with those thighs, don't you?
I'm willing to take that risk if it will help advance science.:)
In the pursuit of wisdom we must be willing to make sacrifices.
Indeed. (humble look)
.....marred by sly grin...
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
.
|
|
|
| User: "shane" |
|
| Title: Re: A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm |
19 May 2005 09:58:11 PM |
|
|
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 11:11:14 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by stoney <stoney@the.net>:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 07:35:00 GMT, Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia
<newb@newb.com> wrote:
Azrael <god@my.computer.palace.com> wrote in
news:p9qn81p9f7uhebqtqv316folhomouo2dhi@4ax.com:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 11:23:00 -0700, Frank J Warner
<warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote:
In article <Xns9659D4244F63Cnewbnewbcom@68.12.19.6>, Mad Mambo Master
of Macedonia <newb@newb.com> wrote:
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in
news:11rk815h9tqv82vi7alr3p51h28jfossgo@4ax.com:
On Tue, 17 May 2005 06:21:10 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by chibiabos <chib@nospam.com>:
In article
<1116321009.150203.275040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, maff
<maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/science/17orga.html?pagewanted=
all
By DINITIA SMITH
Scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male orgasm,
but what is the evolutionary purpose of the female version?
Definitely a subject that needs further study . . .
....an in-depth study.
I'm recruiting subjects as we speak, mostly from the women's pro
beach volleyball association (Please God Oh Yes Please!).
You know they could crush you with those thighs, don't you?
I'm willing to take that risk if it will help advance science.:)
In the pursuit of wisdom we must be willing to make sacrifices.
Indeed. (humble look)
....marred by sly grin...
Interrupted by the alarm clock and the realisation that it was all just
a dream.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm |
20 May 2005 10:12:34 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 May 2005 12:58:11 +1000, shane
<remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 11:11:14 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by stoney <stoney@the.net>:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 07:35:00 GMT, Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia
<newb@newb.com> wrote:
Azrael <god@my.computer.palace.com> wrote in
news:p9qn81p9f7uhebqtqv316folhomouo2dhi@4ax.com:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 11:23:00 -0700, Frank J Warner
<warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote:
In article <Xns9659D4244F63Cnewbnewbcom@68.12.19.6>, Mad Mambo Master
of Macedonia <newb@newb.com> wrote:
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in
news:11rk815h9tqv82vi7alr3p51h28jfossgo@4ax.com:
On Tue, 17 May 2005 06:21:10 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by chibiabos <chib@nospam.com>:
In article
<1116321009.150203.275040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, maff
<maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/science/17orga.html?pagewanted=
all
By DINITIA SMITH
Scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male orgasm,
but what is the evolutionary purpose of the female version?
Definitely a subject that needs further study . . .
....an in-depth study.
I'm recruiting subjects as we speak, mostly from the women's pro
beach volleyball association (Please God Oh Yes Please!).
You know they could crush you with those thighs, don't you?
I'm willing to take that risk if it will help advance science.:)
In the pursuit of wisdom we must be willing to make sacrifices.
Indeed. (humble look)
....marred by sly grin...
Interrupted by the alarm clock and the realisation that it was all just
a dream.
Whew! The sly grin was just a nightmare......
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm |
20 May 2005 10:11:08 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 May 2005 16:22:52 -0400, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 11:11:14 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by stoney <stoney@the.net>:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 07:35:00 GMT, Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia
<newb@newb.com> wrote:
Azrael <god@my.computer.palace.com> wrote in
news:p9qn81p9f7uhebqtqv316folhomouo2dhi@4ax.com:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 11:23:00 -0700, Frank J Warner
<warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote:
In article <Xns9659D4244F63Cnewbnewbcom@68.12.19.6>, Mad Mambo Master
of Macedonia <newb@newb.com> wrote:
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in
news:11rk815h9tqv82vi7alr3p51h28jfossgo@4ax.com:
On Tue, 17 May 2005 06:21:10 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by chibiabos <chib@nospam.com>:
In article
<1116321009.150203.275040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, maff
<maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/science/17orga.html?pagewanted=
all
By DINITIA SMITH
Scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male orgasm,
but what is the evolutionary purpose of the female version?
Definitely a subject that needs further study . . .
....an in-depth study.
I'm recruiting subjects as we speak, mostly from the women's pro
beach volleyball association (Please God Oh Yes Please!).
You know they could crush you with those thighs, don't you?
I'm willing to take that risk if it will help advance science.:)
In the pursuit of wisdom we must be willing to make sacrifices.
Indeed. (humble look)
....marred by sly grin...
DAMN! How did that slip out?
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Casanova" |
|
| Title: Re: A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm |
18 May 2005 03:30:58 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 May 2005 11:23:00 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Frank J Warner
<warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net>:
In article <Xns9659D4244F63Cnewbnewbcom@68.12.19.6>, Mad Mambo Master
of Macedonia <newb@newb.com> wrote:
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in
news:11rk815h9tqv82vi7alr3p51h28jfossgo@4ax.com:
On Tue, 17 May 2005 06:21:10 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by chibiabos <chib@nospam.com>:
In article <1116321009.150203.275040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
maff <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/science/17orga.html?pagewanted=all
By DINITIA SMITH
Scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male orgasm, but
what is the evolutionary purpose of the female version?
Definitely a subject that needs further study . . .
....an in-depth study.
I'm recruiting subjects as we speak, mostly from the women's pro beach
volleyball association (Please God Oh Yes Please!).
You know they could crush you with those thighs, don't you?
I assume you intended that to be a promise, rather than a
warning...
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm |
18 May 2005 12:26:35 AM |
|
|
Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia wrote:
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in
news:11rk815h9tqv82vi7alr3p51h28jfossgo@4ax.com:
On Tue, 17 May 2005 06:21:10 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by chibiabos <chib@nospam.com>:
In article <1116321009.150203.275040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
maff <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/science/17orga.html?pagewanted=all
By DINITIA SMITH
Scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male orgasm, but
what is the evolutionary purpose of the female version?
Definitely a subject that needs further study . . .
....an in-depth study.
I'm recruiting subjects as we speak, mostly from the women's pro beach
volleyball association (Please God Oh Yes Please!).
Successfully?
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Coffey" |
|
| Title: Re: A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm |
18 May 2005 01:37:17 AM |
|
|
On 17 May 2005 02:10:09 -0700, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/science/17orga.html?pagewanted=all
By DINITIA SMITH
Scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male orgasm, but
what is the evolutionary purpose of the female version?
Human evolution may be said to be have been driven by the female
orgasm. Or at least that fraction of evolution dependent on intact
eardrums. Without the female orgasm we'd still be living in caves.
Mitchell Coffey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul J Gans" |
|
| Title: Re: A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm |
18 May 2005 10:21:52 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins Mitchell Coffey <m.dot.coffey.at.starpower.dot.net@giganews.com> wrote:
On 17 May 2005 02:10:09 -0700, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/science/17orga.html?pagewanted=all
By DINITIA SMITH
Scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male orgasm, but
what is the evolutionary purpose of the female version?
Human evolution may be said to be have been driven by the female
orgasm. Or at least that fraction of evolution dependent on intact
eardrums. Without the female orgasm we'd still be living in caves.
Mitchell Coffey
I read the NYTimes article and wondered about the biologists
quoted.
The argument seems to be that since women can get pregnant
without having an orgasm, the orgasm is evolutionarily
useless.
Of course they see a use to the male orgasm -- otherwise,
they recognize, males would not reproduce. And they assume
that male pressure for sex alone would be enough to ensure
reproduction. In other words a kind of propagation via
rape.
In my miniscule experience, having slept with only a
microscopic fraction of the population of females on this
planet, I have nevertheless noted that the female sex drive
is strongly increased by the pleasure women draw from sex.
And women who experience orgasms (by one means or another)
seem to be inclined to want to repeat the experience.
This, one would think, would lead to higher reproduction
rates.
Now of course I've done no study on this and clearly a
study is needed. Thus I'm writing an application to
the NIH to fund a large double blind study. If successful
in getting this grant, I'll probably be too busy to post
to talk.origins.
Sorry about that.
:-)
----- Paul J. Gans
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm |
18 May 2005 10:48:56 AM |
|
|
In article <d6fmig$h48$1@reader1.panix.com> Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> writes:
In talk.origins Mitchell Coffey <m.dot.coffey.at.starpower.dot.net@giganews.com> wrote:
On 17 May 2005 02:10:09 -0700, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/science/17orga.html?pagewanted=all
By DINITIA SMITH
Scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male orgasm, but
what is the evolutionary purpose of the female version?
Human evolution may be said to be have been driven by the female
orgasm. Or at least that fraction of evolution dependent on intact
eardrums. Without the female orgasm we'd still be living in caves.
Mitchell Coffey
I read the NYTimes article and wondered about the biologists
quoted.
The argument seems to be that since women can get pregnant
without having an orgasm, the orgasm is evolutionarily
useless.
Of course they see a use to the male orgasm -- otherwise,
they recognize, males would not reproduce. And they assume
that male pressure for sex alone would be enough to ensure
reproduction. In other words a kind of propagation via
rape.
In my miniscule experience, having slept with only a
microscopic fraction of the population of females on this
planet,
Well, you're still a stud to me. I just now ran the
actual numbers, and computed that I've slept
with a nanoscopic fraction of the world's women.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul J Gans" |
|
| Title: Re: A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm |
18 May 2005 12:43:50 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins Cary Kittrell <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote:
In article <d6fmig$h48$1@reader1.panix.com> Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> writes:
In talk.origins Mitchell Coffey <m.dot.coffey.at.starpower.dot.net@giganews.com> wrote:
On 17 May 2005 02:10:09 -0700, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/science/17orga.html?pagewanted=all
By DINITIA SMITH
Scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male orgasm, but
what is the evolutionary purpose of the female version?
Human evolution may be said to be have been driven by the female
orgasm. Or at least that fraction of evolution dependent on intact
eardrums. Without the female orgasm we'd still be living in caves.
Mitchell Coffey
I read the NYTimes article and wondered about the biologists
quoted.
The argument seems to be that since women can get pregnant
without having an orgasm, the orgasm is evolutionarily
useless.
Of course they see a use to the male orgasm -- otherwise,
they recognize, males would not reproduce. And they assume
that male pressure for sex alone would be enough to ensure
reproduction. In other words a kind of propagation via
rape.
In my miniscule experience, having slept with only a
microscopic fraction of the population of females on this
planet,
Well, you're still a stud to me. I just now ran the
actual numbers, and computed that I've slept
with a nanoscopic fraction of the world's women.
Well, if you want to be quantitative, I have it on
good authority from several creationists that my fraction
is so small as to be considered zero.
Since I also have a couple of children, I claim that I
have reproduced by budding.
By the way, in my experience, budding also causes orgasms.
---- Paul J. Gans
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm |
18 May 2005 12:55:11 PM |
|
|
In article <d6fusl$ibr$1@reader1.panix.com> Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> writes:
In talk.origins Cary Kittrell <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote:
In article <d6fmig$h48$1@reader1.panix.com> Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> writes:
In talk.origins Mitchell Coffey <m.dot.coffey.at.starpower.dot.net@giganews.com> wrote:
On 17 May 2005 02:10:09 -0700, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/science/17orga.html?pagewanted=all
By DINITIA SMITH
Scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male orgasm, but
what is the evolutionary purpose of the female version?
Human evolution may be said to be have been driven by the female
orgasm. Or at least that fraction of evolution dependent on intact
eardrums. Without the female orgasm we'd still be living in caves.
Mitchell Coffey
I read the NYTimes article and wondered about the biologists
quoted.
The argument seems to be that since women can get pregnant
without having an orgasm, the orgasm is evolutionarily
useless.
Of course they see a use to the male orgasm -- otherwise,
they recognize, males would not reproduce. And they assume
that male pressure for sex alone would be enough to ensure
reproduction. In other words a kind of propagation via
rape.
In my miniscule experience, having slept with only a
microscopic fraction of the population of females on this
planet,
Well, you're still a stud to me. I just now ran the
actual numbers, and computed that I've slept
with a nanoscopic fraction of the world's women.
Well, if you want to be quantitative, I have it on
good authority from several creationists that my fraction
is so small as to be considered zero.
Since I also have a couple of children, I claim that I
have reproduced by budding.
By the way, in my experience, budding also causes orgasms.
"A man shall leave his father and mother, and cling to his wife,
and the one shall becomes as two"?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul J Gans" |
|
| Title: Re: A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm |
18 May 2005 08:16:29 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins Cary Kittrell <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote:
In article <d6fusl$ibr$1@reader1.panix.com> Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> writes:
In talk.origins Cary Kittrell <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote:
In article <d6fmig$h48$1@reader1.panix.com> Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> writes:
In talk.origins Mitchell Coffey <m.dot.coffey.at.starpower.dot.net@giganews.com> wrote:
On 17 May 2005 02:10:09 -0700, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/science/17orga.html?pagewanted=all
By DINITIA SMITH
Scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male orgasm, but
what is the evolutionary purpose of the female version?
Human evolution may be said to be have been driven by the female
orgasm. Or at least that fraction of evolution dependent on intact
eardrums. Without the female orgasm we'd still be living in caves.
Mitchell Coffey
I read the NYTimes article and wondered about the biologists
quoted.
The argument seems to be that since women can get pregnant
without having an orgasm, the orgasm is evolutionarily
useless.
Of course they see a use to the male orgasm -- otherwise,
they recognize, males would not reproduce. And they assume
that male pressure for sex alone would be enough to ensure
reproduction. In other words a kind of propagation via
rape.
In my miniscule experience, having slept with only a
microscopic fraction of the population of females on this
planet,
Well, you're still a stud to me. I just now ran the
actual numbers, and computed that I've slept
with a nanoscopic fraction of the world's women.
Well, if you want to be quantitative, I have it on
good authority from several creationists that my fraction
is so small as to be considered zero.
Since I also have a couple of children, I claim that I
have reproduced by budding.
By the way, in my experience, budding also causes orgasms.
"A man shall leave his father and mother, and cling to his wife,
and the one shall becomes as two"?
Bud, you've got that right!
---- Paul J. Gans
.
|
|
|
| User: "shane" |
|
| Title: Re: A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm |
18 May 2005 08:31:16 PM |
|
|
Paul J Gans wrote:
In talk.origins Cary Kittrell <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote:
In article <d6fusl$ibr$1@reader1.panix.com> Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> writes:
In talk.origins Cary Kittrell <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote:
In article <d6fmig$h48$1@reader1.panix.com> Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> writes:
In talk.origins Mitchell Coffey <m.dot.coffey.at.starpower.dot.net@giganews.com> wrote:
On 17 May 2005 02:10:09 -0700, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/science/17orga.html?pagewanted=all
By DINITIA SMITH
Scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male orgasm, but
what is the evolutionary purpose of the female version?
Human evolution may be said to be have been driven by the female
orgasm. Or at least that fraction of evolution dependent on intact
eardrums. Without the female orgasm we'd still be living in caves.
Mitchell Coffey
I read the NYTimes article and wondered about the biologists
quoted.
The argument seems to be that since women can get pregnant
without having an orgasm, the orgasm is evolutionarily
useless.
Of course they see a use to the male orgasm -- otherwise,
they recognize, males would not reproduce. And they assume
that male pressure for sex alone would be enough to ensure
reproduction. In other words a kind of propagation via
rape.
In my miniscule experience, having slept with only a
microscopic fraction of the population of females on this
planet,
Well, you're still a stud to me. I just now ran the
actual numbers, and computed that I've slept
with a nanoscopic fraction of the world's women.
Well, if you want to be quantitative, I have it on
good authority from several creationists that my fraction
is so small as to be considered zero.
Since I also have a couple of children, I claim that I
have reproduced by budding.
By the way, in my experience, budding also causes orgasms.
"A man shall leave his father and mother, and cling to his wife,
and the one shall becomes as two"?
Bud, you've got that right!
---- Paul J. Gans
At exactly the same time as getting it wrong, quite an achievement.
--
shane
The truth will set you free.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm |
19 May 2005 10:04:34 AM |
|
|
In article <E%Rie.17$Qf6.1114@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au> shane <remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au> writes:
Paul J Gans wrote:
In talk.origins Cary Kittrell <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote:
In article <d6fusl$ibr$1@reader1.panix.com> Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> writes:
In talk.origins Cary Kittrell <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote:
In article <d6fmig$h48$1@reader1.panix.com> Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> writes:
In talk.origins Mitchell Coffey <m.dot.coffey.at.starpower.dot.net@giganews.com> wrote:
On 17 May 2005 02:10:09 -0700, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/science/17orga.html?pagewanted=all
By DINITIA SMITH
Scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male orgasm, but
what is the evolutionary purpose of the female version?
Human evolution may be said to be have been driven by the female
orgasm. Or at least that fraction of evolution dependent on intact
eardrums. Without the female orgasm we'd still be living in caves.
Mitchell Coffey
I read the NYTimes article and wondered about the biologists
quoted.
The argument seems to be that since women can get pregnant
without having an orgasm, the orgasm is evolutionarily
useless.
Of course they see a use to the male orgasm -- otherwise,
they recognize, males would not reproduce. And they assume
that male pressure for sex alone would be enough to ensure
reproduction. In other words a kind of propagation via
rape.
In my miniscule experience, having slept with only a
microscopic fraction of the population of females on this
planet,
Well, you're still a stud to me. I just now ran the
actual numbers, and computed that I've slept
with a nanoscopic fraction of the world's women.
Well, if you want to be quantitative, I have it on
good authority from several creationists that my fraction
is so small as to be considered zero.
Since I also have a couple of children, I claim that I
have reproduced by budding.
By the way, in my experience, budding also causes orgasms.
"A man shall leave his father and mother, and cling to his wife,
and the one shall becomes as two"?
Bud, you've got that right!
---- Paul J. Gans
At exactly the same time as getting it wrong, quite an achievement.
Thank you, thank you. I learned that after years of ardous study in
a Shaolin monastary, culminated by picking up a caldron of incandescent
oxymoroni with my naked wrists. (they proved to be al dente)
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
