|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 186 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 75 of 186:
| 
May 2 23:09 UTC 2002 |
That's how they eat. A lot of people eat liquids that way too.
|
scott
|
|
response 76 of 186:
|
May 3 01:11 UTC 2002 |
Um, no, that's how the mosquitoe females feed their kids.
|
oval
|
|
response 77 of 186:
|
May 3 06:05 UTC 2002 |
rane, they suck, those little shitheads.
jeez.
|
scott
|
|
response 78 of 186:
|
May 3 13:19 UTC 2002 |
(Oops. :vi /mosq e x ZZ)
|
oval
|
|
response 79 of 186:
|
May 3 20:32 UTC 2002 |
heh.
|
other
|
|
response 80 of 186:
|
May 4 01:30 UTC 2002 |
re#71: Your labelling of "putting food in one's mouth and swallowing it" as
mastication is incorrect. Mastication is chewing. It involves neither taking
food into the mouth, nor passing it from the mouth to the rest of the system.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 81 of 186:
|
May 4 03:58 UTC 2002 |
I assumed that in #70 scg implied chewing between putting food in mouth
and swallowing, even though he omitted that step. It is very difficult
to put food in mouth and swallow without an urge to chew. The whole process
is "ingestion".
|
oval
|
|
response 82 of 186:
|
May 4 09:28 UTC 2002 |
you guys are such perves.
|
sarkhel
|
|
response 83 of 186:
|
May 5 03:17 UTC 2002 |
Chewing is nothing but "mastication".But the matter is same, sex is an
important tool for loosing weight, even AIDS too cause weight loss. So sex
and eat are opposing each other. Can we conclude that starvation makes one
sexually efficient?
|
bru
|
|
response 84 of 186:
|
May 5 05:21 UTC 2002 |
I have no idea where he came up with THAT theory. Sex may be good for body
tone, but is not good for weight loss. In fact, weight loss would be counter
to the requirements of sex.
|
oval
|
|
response 85 of 186:
|
May 5 09:07 UTC 2002 |
.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 86 of 186:
|
May 5 14:13 UTC 2002 |
Re #84: What?
|
jazz
|
|
response 87 of 186:
|
May 5 14:53 UTC 2002 |
Sex is like any other form of exercise. It depends on what you do,
how you do it, and how long you do it. I'd imagine it'd be entirely possible
to lose weight by exercising that way, and now I'm determined to find out.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 88 of 186:
|
May 5 15:44 UTC 2002 |
I'm trying to figure out why he says weight loss is counter to the
requirements of sex.
|
oval
|
|
response 89 of 186:
|
May 5 21:21 UTC 2002 |
it can not only help you loose weight, but can build muscle tone!
i'm lost on the last part of #84 too..
|
orinoco
|
|
response 90 of 186:
|
May 5 21:37 UTC 2002 |
Perhaps he meant to imply that the evolutionary purpose of sex is to cause
"unexplained weight gain"? Otherwise, I'm lost too.
|
bru
|
|
response 91 of 186:
|
May 6 02:50 UTC 2002 |
The purpose of sex is to procreate. Procreation is given a pleasure stimulis
so that people have an urge to procreate. But, as a survival function, it
needs to use a minimal amount of energy. Any survival function needs to use
a minimal amount of energy to get the job done.
If it took 7000 calories to eat 7000 calories, we would all be out of business
pretty quick.
The average american takes in 2,200 calories per day. You need to burn 3500
calories per day more than you take in. so you need to burn 5700 calories
in sex to lose one lb. 10 hours of foreplay and three hours of intercourse
burns 3200 calories.
You do the math.
|
oval
|
|
response 92 of 186:
|
May 6 03:41 UTC 2002 |
maybe the way *you* do it. :P (you measured?)
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 93 of 186:
|
May 6 03:44 UTC 2002 |
If he can do that in one session, I'm not going to criticize him for it no
matter how many calories he burns.
|
jazz
|
|
response 94 of 186:
|
May 6 04:04 UTC 2002 |
The original purpose of sex was to increase the genetic variety of
offspring, and thus the chances for a favourable mutation, without running
the risk of random genetic change. So, yes, originally it was for
procreation.
However, our hands were also originally feet, and even relatively
recently, only used for foraging and holding on to tree limbs. Sex has
evolved beyond that purpose in all of our nearest primate relatives, who, even
without the benefit of contraception, use it for a variety of social functions
that have nothing to do with having children.
|
jp2
|
|
response 95 of 186:
|
May 6 04:16 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
brighn
|
|
response 96 of 186:
|
May 6 13:56 UTC 2002 |
Desmond does it with Bonobos.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 97 of 186:
|
May 6 15:53 UTC 2002 |
First, change "purpose" to "adaptation" in the above responses. Sexual
functions survived because they had adaptive value, not for any "purpose".
But beyond that, bru has it backwards in #91: most sexual adaptations
involve elaborations and complications and *greater* energy expenditures,
because these are selective for improved adaptations. If it is too easy
even the weak and defective can do it, and there is less selection against
weaknesses and defects. The complicated and elaborate mating rituals
throughout the animal kingdom demonstrate this.
Even among humans there are complicated and elaborate mating rituals,
involving great expenditure of energy (and money, which also involves
great expenditure of energy to get). The success of our species does, of
course, also make it easier for the more poorly adapted to survive and
procreate, with unknown consequences for the long term survival of the
species.
|
mdw
|
|
response 98 of 186:
|
May 7 00:30 UTC 2002 |
Wild creatures in the wild are masters of energy economy. They do as
little as they can if it's not "useful". You won't find wild creatures
speculating on the origins of the moon, making paintings, or telling
ghost stories. The 3 things wild creatures spend energy on are: eating,
avoiding being eaten, and sex. The last mainly happens when the
creatures aren't merely "surviving", but are either doing well enough to
have an excess of energy, or there's sudden downchange in the
environment. The former is an obviously means to take advantage of
plenty; the latter is because new offspring may be more adaptable than
their parents.
Domesticated creatures typically spend their energy budget on: eating,
neurotic behavior, and sex (if allowed). Lots of domesticated creatures
are desexed because the sexual behavior is inconvenient for humans.
People themselves have evolved various behaviors to make sex either less
likely, or less "productive".
|
aruba
|
|
response 99 of 186:
|
May 7 01:49 UTC 2002 |
Some animals spend a lot of energy on reproduction after sex, too.
(Gestation and child rearing.)
|