|
Caius -> RE: protected anal sex? (5/17/2010 12:18:55 PM)
|
It never ceases to amaze me how much intelligence quotients are still treated by popular culture as if they were some scientifically valid measure, as opposed to the nonsensical relics from the same era when some 'scientists' thought that race and cranium size were determinative factors on intelligence. Even as cognitive science has evolved at breakneck speed in recent decades, it has done little to reverse the moronic concepts it's predecessors instilled in the popular consciousness. Anyway, you've probably already learned your lesson in this vein, but here's what you do next time someone tells you their IQ: take whatever you initially estimated their intellect and reasoning capabilities to have been and then reduce them by 40%. Sound like an arbitrary, ambiguous, and all-around goofy thought process? It is, and yet significantly less so than the supposed science that underlies a linear scale for intelligence. Better yet, tell them they've been deducted 20 Caius Points and that they can compare the remainder against the Leprechaun Scale to find where they've landed in the Meaningless Self-Indulgence Continuum. Then tell them to read some actual science concerning how their brains -- and by extension minds -- work instead of sitting around congratulating themselves on the results of whatever ridiculous test they were given in grade school that granted them with this unwarranted, empirically un-supported sense of intellectual command over the world around them and which has kept them from attaining any realistic sense of perspective concerning their place in greater human perception and endeavour. If a few weeks later they return to you red-faced and abashed then they may actually have some potential for actual intelligence. IQ tests....you're better off relying on the results for your "love quotient" with one of those thermal grip machines you find in pizza parlours.
Edited to add, in keeping with the original subject matter of the thread:
quote:
ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael
Same thing could be said about shrimp, peanuts, or bdsm. Your experience isn't universal. I have fucked women with popsicles, some women get a yeast infection, some don't. In that case, I don't do it anymore because the benefit doesn't outweigh the risks and I can use an icicle just as easily and get the same response.
Well I was actually just engaging her on the issue of personal choice, outside judgments of said choice, and the choice of venue for voicing such judgments. But there's really very little ground to argue with here regarding the pathology. Her experience isn't relevant to every instance that such activities are practiced but they are universal, as you put it, in regard to female physiology. That is to say, on a large enough time scale, any woman can be expected to develop one of the conditions in question from such behaviours. In this regard, your comparisons are non-sequitors as the same does not apply to shrimp or peanut allergies -- and if it did we would simply label them toxic and few would be arguing for their consumption under any circumstances -- and bdsm is a complex (and individually variant) combination of practices for which we do not have general causal rules as we do with bacterial pathogenesis.
So, again, do what you will -- it's not like we're all in this solely for optimal health outcomes -- but you can't tear her argument down on the basis of a lack of merit in her argument concerning infection, because her argument is actually quite sound there. And the underlying points actually quite universal. I was only saying she likely will not find the receptive audience she might ideally hope for in a woman who a few posts earlier was implying how much she likes the taste of her own ass while she sucks her man off*.
* Not criticism here of Aileen. Ass-to-mouth is like the new "cum on my face"; so common now it is barely note-worthy. God bless Kevin Smith movies.
|
|
|
|
