20 Nov 07
Originally posted by uzlessI like your thinking Uz...everyone who posts in agreement must really be female, so then we can do "direct marketing" on the babes 🙄 🙂
They actually use that phrase in this article.... HA!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21882948/page/2/
This research is really nothing new though is it (?)... the basic design has long been observed and demonstrated by behavioural studies of responses, as boys and girls become men and women...
The men have the inherent urge to procreate (widely, if afforded that opportunity) to extend lineage, and whatever variation his "quick" mind can utilise to draw a females' favour to him instead of another male, will be.
Whereas the female births, suckles and tends nest...and hopes to retain the partner for next season...
Before anyone gets upset, there's nothing intentionally sexist in there....I'm talking purely about animal response.
20 Nov 07
Originally posted by ZadadkaInherent urge to procreate???
I like your thinking Uz...everyone who posts in agreement must really be female, so then we can do "direct marketing" on the babes 🙄 🙂
This research is really nothing new though is it (?)... the basic design has long been observed and demonstrated by behavioural studies of responses, as boys and girls become men and women...
The men have the inhere ...[text shortened]... here's nothing intentionally sexist in there....I'm talking purely about animal response.
Uhh no....we just wanna have sex. Child support payments suck butt.
As for us being simpletons...well we are simple...that is why after sex women want us to turn into emotional, caring beings who can discuss our feelings while we just want the woman to turn into a six pack of beer and a sandwich.
Dave
( couldn't resist having fun with this one...no offense ladies...we really are stupid as this post proves..hehehe )
20 Nov 07
It's funny how a writer could misuse the word "simpleton" when describing approximately half the world's population. It's also funny that her editor let it pass. And the funniest part of all is that the article was completely without substance. If all I have to do is denigrate someone in the title of my article to guarantee someone will read it, I think I've been in the wrong business all along.
20 Nov 07
Originally posted by PBE6Sir, do you bite your thumb at me?
It's funny how a writer could misuse the word "simpleton" when describing approximately half the world's population. It's also funny that her editor let it pass. And the funniest part of all is that the article was completely without substance. If all I have to do is denigrate someone in the title of my article to guarantee someone will read it, I think I've been in the wrong business all along.
20 Nov 07
Originally posted by PBE6Maybe she got divorced recently.
It's funny how a writer could misuse the word "simpleton" when describing approximately half the world's population. It's also funny that her editor let it pass. And the funniest part of all is that the article was completely without substance. If all I have to do is denigrate someone in the title of my article to guarantee someone will read it, I think I've been in the wrong business all along.
20 Nov 07
Originally posted by Bad wolfMarvin. The point would be that you would have a licence and would be able to drive! I didn't have a car of my own when I passed my test. I have a car now, but I don't have a drive to park it on - and who says you have to?
What would be the point unless I could buy myself a car, or afford the petrol, or the fact there is no room on the drive for it? 😕
😛
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
20 Nov 07
Originally posted by Pawn QweenWho in their right mind would let me drive their car if I had a licence? If not anyone, then I wouldn't be driving, and it would be pretty pointless.
Marvin. The point would be that you would have a licence and would be able to drive! I didn't have a car of my own when I passed my test. I have a car now, but I don't have a drive to park it on - and who says you have to?
😛
I'd rather just keep the money.