yeah men's penises point up- especially in the ones whose erections point down.
Regarding c-sections- I'd say that has more to do with other things.
Sorry guys- in all women the best leveraging is from the back.
Regarding your comments about my sexual postures being normal, if that's true then why don't any sex manuals show those as normal postures? I've never seen any sex manuals that show this? Now why would that be?
I'm not going to put up with being adressed in the manner you have chosen to adress me because I don't have to.
Yeah, god forbid you should be asked to follow the guidelines of the forum you joined and support your claims with evidence.
You don't have to like that I'm put together differently than other women
You seem to have a rather inflated opinion of your own self-importance. What possible concern could it be of mine how your sexual anatomy is put together? It's simply the erroneous conclusions you draw through flimsy logic that I oppose.
Anyway I never particularly cared that much. What I most cared about -because I'm an evolutionist atheist on an evolution debate forum - is why you think the presence of stabilizing feedback automatically implies intelligent design. But for some reason you keep ignoring my requests to elucidate your thoughts on that.
Well, I suspect you're not long for this forum, since you don't like to follow the rules and can't, apparently, be expected to engage in civil discourse. So let me make my goodbyes now. Catch ya on the flip side!
Regarding your comments about my sexual postures being normal, if that's true then why don't any sex manuals show those as normal postures?
Maybe I'm simply not clear on the posture you're trying to describe, but what you're talking about is described in the sex manual I have (Anne Hooper's Pocket Sex Guide.) So as far as I know, it is shown in sex manuals (at least one), so I'm not sure why you haven't seen it.
regarding your question, I sincerely doubt you will be willing to listen so what is the point of my bothering to explain. The only responses I've gotten regarding my anatomy have been at best, poor, and defensive. I don't have a problem with being shown by way of evidence that what I'm saying is incorrect- however what people have been stating to say that I am wrong only demonstrates that they don't know what they're talking about. Because if what they were saying were true, I'd have already found that out myself from my own investigations so would have no need to bring that forth here. You're making so very uneductaed assumptions about what I need to do to feel important so don't even go there. After all, I have two degrees, a long list of acheivments- I've invented a new branch of geometry, techniques to correct learning disabilities, I have a patent, I also revised clothing patterns so they share human skin's abilities to accomadate body movement while conforming neatly to the body. If I want to be important, I can do so based upon my own acheivements in the real world. On top of that, I got James Randi to admit to me in writing that his $1 million dollar paranormal challenge is a scam and in fact there is "no contest" at all. Getting James Randi to admit to me he is pulling a scam makes me feel important, yelling at a bunch of strangers in this forum for making uneducated comments about what is or is not normal- not particularly.
I haven't read the book, but I doubt it. Look I understand what you are all saying. What I'm saying to you is that humans cannot assume the sexual posture I can because if they could, they'd all be doing it because it makes for much better leveraging from the front than other postures. The female pubic bone also can't support that kind of stress. IN addition there simply isn't enough space from front to back for the vagina to be oriented any other way than spine parallel. If you look at my pelvis from the side it looks like a triangle so it looks strangely wide.
To clarify, a correct posture for me is for my legs to be in a "L" position. That is with one leg down, as if I were just laying there, and one leg out to the side. Another position is again, with the one leg just extended down, but the other leg folded up against my chest-and my foot hooked over the man's shoulder, so it's like I'm performing a split. Although it's possible you could assume either of these positions, unless you're hiding something, I doubt it.
Now I'm tired of this argument since all I was expecting originally is for people to look at what I said and be like" Oh, OK"- and move on - not jump down my throat and make a bunch of uneducated comments to try to prove that I'm wrong- or that I think I'm special. I'm just trying to get rid of some demons here and I was actually just using this to test the waters.
Regarding evolution, I generally regard it as a product of random mutation, with the guiding rule being whatever lives to reproduce is how things go. Beyond that, apparently it occurs as a sort of balanceing act. The better question being, is how does nature know that there is a problem going on that needs to be adressed, to do this?
What I'm saying to you is that humans cannot assume the sexual posture I can because if they could, they'd all be doing it because it makes for much better leveraging from the front than other postures.
And I guess all I'm saying is that, from what you've said, your situation is within the range of normal female sexual apparatus, because all females have forward-pointing vaginas to some degree. I'm not saying all women are exactly like you - that's become clear as your descriptions have become clearer - simply that you're not that different. Not enough to make claims that you're the founding member of a new race of human being, certainly.
Although it's possible you could assume either of these positions, unless you're hiding something, I doubt it.
Again that's a sexual posture that I've observed a number of women assume, and none of them thought their equipment was out of the ordinary.
Your claims just don't make sense in the light of my experiences with women, or their claims about themselves. But, you know, whatever. Clearly we're having some kind of communication problem on this, so whatever.
The better question being, is how does nature know that there is a problem going on that needs to be adressed, to do this?
It's called "feedback." For instance in a biological system it's the tendancy of a given hormone to retard its own synthesis after a certain point. Other systems have congruent effects - populations reach "K" because when they exceed K individuals start to stave to death.
It's the interdependancies of the systems that give rise to this behavior. Organisms reach equilibrium with their environment because the environment is the limiting factor on population. Moreover, situations that don't have the interdependencies to reach equilibrium don't tend to stick around, so there's a selection factor, too.
It's do or die, and by definition, we only get to observe those that regularly "do."
Umm- again it seems to me if what you were saying were true this would be in sex manuals. It isn't. All sexual postures from the front require that the woman spread her legs. What I think is that what you think I'm talking about and what I'm talking about are two different things.
You are correct- women can assume the positions I'm referring to an extent. However they all require that the woman spread her legs.
I will try to explain this a different way then so I can see if we are talking about the same thing-
So you have the woman lying on her back, with the one leg simply down, and along the same axis as her torso, and the other folded up against her chest- with the other leg along the same axis as her torso so her legs are not spread at all- is this position featured in the sex manual you mention so I can look at it?
Just to be clear, I found the idea that I may be a separate species to be very upsetting, since I've struggled my whole life to be like other people so people would accept me, so finding out that that is apparently something I can't have is devastating to me. This is just getting in the way of me letting other people get close to me since I'm afraid of their reaction. Hence the usefullness of the anonymity if the internet.
The position looks in question looks like she is performing a split, except in this case she's performing the split while lying on her back. So her legs are not spread from side to side in any way. In fact a normal posture for me is to fold my one leg under me so that my knee is bent such that my foot is positioned where my other leg might be (to cause my pelvis to roll up away from the bed), so I can extend my other leg up over my head, while lying on my back.
Is this position featured in the sex manual you mentioned so I can look at it to see if we are talking about the same thing?
Regarding evolution, what you're saying is a little over my head but it sounds like we're probably in agreement( in some version or other), we just have a little different understanding of the underlying drive. I guess the question is how does the population know to do these things you are saying it does. That fact that it does know this by behavior seems to suggest an underlying intelligence.
reagrding your commments about me not being that different from other women, you are correct- I don't look that much different, physically I'm not that much different. What I look like and behave like is more like being "off". Thats why I refer to myself as "probably" being a new species. But my physical attributes are only one part of the picture. The rest of it isn't important, since I don't have the time, energy or interest to argue with you about that, as I am sure what claims I will make about the other things will only lead to more arguements with you.
However they all require that the woman spread her legs.
If you've got one leg up and one leg down, your legs are, by definition, spread.
is this position featured in the sex manual you mention so I can look at it?
I don't know if it's in the manual (I don't have it on me right now), but I've done it that way.
I guess the question is how does the population know to do these things you are saying it does.
Because when it doesn't, individuals die.
It's like asking why you can never pour more water into a glass than it will hold. How does the water know when the glass is full? You're looking at it the wrong way - when the glass is full, additional water simply spills out and is lost.
Populations reach K - equilibrium at carrying capacity - because when populations try to exceed K, some individuals are no longer able to get the resources they need to live, so they die. That brings the population back to K (actually a little under K, so that there's a rebound effect - populations tend to occilate around the K value.)
Thats why I refer to myself as "probably" being a new species.
You're almost certainly not a new species.
Species is a biological term defined as "a reproductive community". You would only be in a new species if two things were true:
1) You're unable to breed with other humans.
2) You can only breed with a group of individuals who themselves cannot breed with humans.
In other words in order to not be a member of the human species you have to have a group of non-human conspecifics that you can breed with, and only with. Is that true? If you can't breed with anyone at all, then I'm sorry - you're not a new species, you're just infertile.
actually spread, regarding what I'm referring to is from side to side. I am sure you have done a version of what I'm referring to but in your version it requires the legs be parted from side to side at least somewhat. In my version the legs aren't parted at all.
Regarding your comment that species do not breed together you are incorrect- two different species can be put together to mate- it is done with plants all the time to create hybrids. If the genes are right you can get it to work and still produce a fertile offspring. And two organisms can appear to be a part of the same species but closer examination reveals that they are not. Birds are a perfect example of this since there are many species of birds that, to a untrained eye, appear to be the same species and it takes an expert to be able to tell that they are not.
I didn't say I was so different that I couldn't breed with humans. The problem I run into is that courtship behavior is so incompatible that I find it hard to make it work. Humans don't suppress their impulses, so when a man is sexually attracted to me, it has a negative impact on my nervous system, and then its like a switch goes off in my head, and I'll automatically become agressive and start attacking them (usually by way of a murdurous glare is usually sufficient to get them to not become sexually excited). This agressive response is a reflex response. I've learned to suppress my agression and sex drives because I have to in order to function, and the reflex response has resulted in the other person becoming angry and taking it out of me, or running away. Humans don't have to suppress their sex and agression drives, because they're somehow able to control the resultant behavior so they can use these impulses as a way to respond to the environment. I'm not as able to do this routinely, but I have other things I can do instead, so that was something by way of evolution, that was lost, the best I can figure.
However I still have problems because I can tell when a male is sexually attracted to me because it produces a physically uncomfortable affect on my nervous system (feels a bit like being electrocuted) so am working on learning to ignore it, as the human race is not going to learn to suppress its sex drive on my behalf.
So the increases is electrical activity that result when a man gets sexually excited are an incompatibility. I can deal with the increases, if I've been properly primed- however what is required to prime me is not something that humans routinely do as a part of courtship. What is required to prime me is actually a lot of heavy eye contact so I can form a mild telapathic bond with them to test for compatibility of our personalities. This bond feels like my brain is touching the other person's brain and is a mutually felt by the other person. If our personalities are compatible enough for a long term relationship to work, the resultant link will be soft, if we are not compatible, the link will feel hard and/or I won't be able to form a bond with them at all.
This also has the effect of familiarizing me with the man enough so I can tolerate the increases in his electrical activity resulting from sexual excitement. Humans don't routinely engage in enough eye contact for me to get this to work in most instances so it is a problem. I also need heavy eye contact in general in order to feel connected, so because of that I have consistent trouble in developing and maintaining social bonds with humans. That's why I tend to prefer cats as friends, because they are very willing to participate in heavy eye contact as a normal part of social interaction.
One of the other incompatibilities is as a routine part of my evaluating a potential partner, I act in such a way as to test their impulse control abilities. Usually I can tell when a potential partner has an impulse control problem right off the bat, is becuse this has a characteristic affect on electrical activity. Poking them a little consistently reveals agressive highly emotional behavior such that they are not able to deal with the stresses that a long term relationship will entail. Most human males lack the impulse control needed to be able to sustain a long term relationship with me and tend to reacte either by becoming agressive or by running away.
The only reason why I would even consider breeding with a human, given these very basic problems, is because there aren't any of my kind around. And you'll see exactly the same sort of behavior out of different species of cats when confined- they will breed with one another. That is why someone was able to produce a new breed of domestic cat that was a cross between a wild cat and a domestic cat, and people also breed wolf- dog pets. So to say that two different species can't produce viable offspring is incorrect. I don't recall the exact requirements for to species to successfully create viable offspring but it has something to do with gene sequences or something.
However this is what artificial insemination is for. Given that I'm a first generation mutation, and that the human race apparently also started with a single female, I believe that I will be able to produce fertile offspring- and after several generations the offspring will be so genetically different that interbreeding will probably not be possible or if it is, it will be undesirable so will not occur anyway. By that time though, the gene pool will be large enough so that my kind can stick to its own kind. Given the basic behavioral incompatibilities, interbreeding is actually not desirable. The basic problem I have with humans is their lack of control over basic impulses like sex and agression- drives I routinely supress.
Your behavior is a perfect example- you argued with me at first loudly and rudely, and automatically jumped to the conclusion that I am a liar or something other to that effect- without having taking really any time to investigate further to find out if that reaction was warrented. This is a rather unfortunate impulse based response I tend to get from humans, and it's a result of that humans just aren't very good at controlling their impulses. Then I fight with them out of simple self defense and tire them out, and then they listen to me, and "Of course" I'm right, they'll agree. And by then its completely beside the point, because by then, from having to listen to them argue and fight with me, I've lost any interest I can possibly develop in forming a relationship with them. This is why I also tend to keep to myself, because at 30 years old, I'm tired of people fighting with me. I am a first of a kind, so my goal is strictly to survive to reproduce.
Regarding my diet, until recently I spend most of my life feeling sick, tired, torpid and having poor digestion. In addition, I looked sickly and it was as if my body was wasting away, because I developed poor muscle tone and became assymetrical. I found out by trial and error, what I require to be healthy is a diet that is primarily composed of animal protein. I'm probably the only person in the world who actually gained weight on an Atkins type diet. I wound up gaining 5 pnds at first because I was eating so much meat, once I figured out what the problem was. I lost the 5 pounds but my weight is otherwise stable. And I don't have cravings for carbohydrates. I do OK with fruits and vegatables but grain type foods (including corn) make me sick all over again, so I can only eat them in limited quantities.
[This message has been edited by jme4538, 04-19-2004]
[This message has been edited by jme4538, 04-19-2004]
[This message has been edited by jme4538, 04-19-2004]
I understand about what you're saying about evolution- that it is essentially a passive activity. I guess what this means is that mutation is so prevalant that statistically speaking, the mutations that lead to making a species better able to cope with the environment to lead to balancing, happen enough automatically for the whole system to work. I suppose that makes sense. However a religious person can also interpret this as meaning that God did this on purpose and the mutations are deliberate acts on his end. It's another way of looking at things that means essentially the same thing because regarding God- there is so much proof around, some may say, for God's existence, that all that is required to know it must be true is a leap of faith.
All in all, it all points to that we still don't have enough information to be able to establish concretely what is actually going on so therein lays the need for more investigation. I bridge the fence.