From: Alistair on

docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote:
> In article <4shheeF1010qhU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> ><docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message news:ejvmo0$c3p$1(a)reader2.panix.com...
> ><snip>
> >>
> >>>To be blunt, don't lift the skirt. No,
> >>>best to go with the first impression and not seek confirmation.
> >
> >Absolutely... and better a skirt lifter than a shirt lifter... right?
>
> That might depend on 'better... for what'; it could be better to have a
> shirt lifter about when one needs cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
>
> DD

Obviously cpr has changed since my day as we never needed to adjust
shirts.

BTW, shame upon you gentlemen (especially PD) for engaging in this line
of thought.

From: Howard Brazee on
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 17:19:56 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

>> More important than "the best sperm" is "the best post-natal support".
>> Any caring Dad is better for the child's survival (and success) than
>> the best genes without the Dad.
>
>Well, yeah. But I get my information from a book entitled: "Sexual Choices:
>Why women pick the men they do" which puts the whole choice thingy on a
>biological standard. The author, herself a woman who objects to the phrase
>"Gold-digger," prefers to denominate the custom as "resource accrual."
>Resource accrual is in her top five reasons.
>
>A (partial) consequence of Resource Accrual is the fact that old geezers
>don't pick young chicks; it's the young chicks that choose the old geezers.
>And one of the reasons they do, is we elder-care citizens have more, um,
>resources accrued. Should I desire, I can probably pick up more
>fresh-squeezed with my Lamborghini than the hip-hoppers can with their
>stainless steel protuberance piercings. [To be fair, another reason is that
>we seniors have demonstrated, through our longivity, that our offspring are
>unlikely to inherit a congenital early-death gene.]

Those resources are a better indicator of children thriving than sperm
are.

It is interesting to note what societies set up as standards of
attractiveness. For example, in poor rural societies, plump pale
people were wealthy - and laborers covered themselves up to look pale.
In richer city societies, the laborers use tanning saloons and fat
farms to look like the leisured class.

When women's main wealth is producing babies, the standard for beauty
for women is "young". Even early movies and Miss America pageants
showed much younger women than we see as the Hollywood ideal of today
- and we had them falling for older men (who could support those
babies).

In a modern western societies, optimizing the children's success means
funneling more money to fewer children - and the standard for beauty
has women older and possibly professional.

Also - in many societies, having lots of neighbors was useful for
survival - to protect against the Huns and such. Any behavior which
didn't optimize this was frowned upon - the acceptable way to avoid
having kids was to be married to your church. People praised big
families. Old Maids were pitiful, and homosexually had to be
part-time. Onin's crime was not making babies.

To optimize our own children's success, society no longer looks
favorably on big families, except within some minority societies. We
like later marriages.
From: Pete Dashwood on

"Alistair" <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1164206812.798404.290380(a)m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote:
>> In article <4shheeF1010qhU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
>> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>> >
>> ><docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message
>> >news:ejvmo0$c3p$1(a)reader2.panix.com...
>> ><snip>
>> >>
>> >>>To be blunt, don't lift the skirt. No,
>> >>>best to go with the first impression and not seek confirmation.
>> >
>> >Absolutely... and better a skirt lifter than a shirt lifter... right?
>>
>> That might depend on 'better... for what'; it could be better to have a
>> shirt lifter about when one needs cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
>>
>> DD
>
> Obviously cpr has changed since my day as we never needed to adjust
> shirts.
>
> BTW, shame upon you gentlemen (especially PD) for engaging in this line
> of thought.
>

Yes, on re-reading it I thought I could have done better... it was supposed
to be ironic but it verged on the cheap shot, and that isn't like me.
Hopefully I don't need to reaffirm that I have no prejudices towards any
particular section of our societies; I try to treat them all with the same
contempt :-)

Pete (who knows where his heart is...)


From: Pete Dashwood on

"Alistair" <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1164206689.916371.276560(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>> "Alistair" <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:1164111732.314982.277480(a)h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Pete Dashwood wrote:
>> >> "Alistair" <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> <snip>
>> >
>> > Geeks, not Greeks, surely?
>> >
>>
>> Nah, Geeks are a dying breed... they don't get to reproduce... :-)
>>
>> Pete.
>
> So Bill Gates is not a geek?
>

Ask his wife....

Pete.


From: on
In article <4sk3gpF10c8huU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:

[snip]

>Pete (who knows where his heart is...)

You got a heart? During my Sergeanting-Daze there were those who swore
that I had no such organ... just a thumpin' gizzard.

DD