Well, I guess the question is--is fifteen minutes spent bringing woman A to orgasm going to be reproductively more valuable than spending it ejaculating into a fresh, possibly still anorgasmic, vagina?

My first reaction to this question was that even my brothers would struggle to secure a second willing partner within fifteen minutes of intercourse.

Are any of them in theatre or comedy? Because seconds are only sloppy when you're reusing the vulva--otherwise they're STUDLY. Which is to say, with the amount of "science made me do it, honey!" it doesn't have to be literally immediately possible with the shell of society wrapped around us, but cats have those bony dicks for a reason, but other animals have game plans that are more heavy on the escape part of it all.

Shit, the magic muffins have nuts today. This is awful. My day is entirely ruined.

And welcome to my unexamined thoughts. Seemed too much for twitter. Well, and I don't tweet. (I'm glad they didn't push for the verb being "to twitter")

eta, fuck. I really came by to post and ask if anyone has read any of this series: [link] -- clearly there has to be wide variety with all the different TV shows and authors, but I was wondering if it would be worth it to pick up one if it's of, say, Buffy, or the upcoming SPN one.

Are any of them in theatre or comedy?

No, but one of them has seven children by three different women, and the other, during his 'player' phase, maxed out at six women willing to take his call, so to speak, at the one time.

Essentially, I see the numbers game and the female orgasm as potentially complementary strategies. I don't see them as being in competition. For the antechinus, quite possibly, but NSM humans.

I swear that Dawkins took on the orgasm in The Selfish Gene.

I'm not going to claim it's everyday, but I do know a non-trivial number of guys (not in theatre or comedy or sports) who have made the decision at least once during their sex lives of "I gotta stop having sex right now in order to have sex with someone else." I have seen very little to imply that orgasm causing was important enough to a gene's selfishness that society told guys the onus was on them.

Pretty much, if a guy doesn't have an orgasm, he's really really cut down on his chances of impregnation with that sexual encounter. Plummeting probability. But I still have no idea how much "more" means. 2%? Who's sticking around for that? 95%? Then guys would be so trained by the behaviour that they'd be displaying it even when they're not trying to reproduce (well, at least the ones that lean on "I'm biologically designed to hit it and quit it, hon! I'd love to stay and chat, but evolution.").

This piece on NPR names must have been written by a (spirit) buffista. [link]

I LOVE that article. But I also love those names.

I figured I'd give you folks a quick update. The damage was not so bad once the Fire Dept. removed the tarps they'd thrown over the areas where water was coming in. I'll lose a couple three dozen cds, a half dozen really nice coffee table books, a closet full of old newspapers and clippings that I've been trying to get through to cull stuff (not a problem now - even if they hadn't gotten wrecked I was probably going to toss them) and a bunch of comic books - nothing especially valuable among them. I also think a futon I had in the spare bedroom is probably a loss, although the frame is probably OK.

Now it's down to packing, getting a new place to live, and moving. I think I will be hiring moves this time.

Sadly I did not have renters insurance, which I'm kicking myself about now. Lesson learned, I guess. That, and always make sure there are working batteries in the smoke detectors, although I'm not sure it would have helped as the landlord didn't keep his up to date either.

Frank, be easy on yourself - this has got to be upsetting in ways we can't imagine. So glad you're safe.

On another matter entirely, 15,000 year old words! [link]

(((Frank))) Hiring movers sounds like the right call. I hope you can find a new home quickly and easily.