Politicians who are legitimately stupid rarely get elected.

[BigV]

Regarding strident calls from the Republican Party for Akin to withdraw from the race, I find myself on Akin's side. I feel he should stay in the race. And not only because I think he is a poor candidate and that McCaskill can and should prevail in the general election against him. But also because he is the choice of the voters. Akin said as much himself, and more power to him. I think he's wrong on the facts, and those who believe him are wrong too. But it is true that he was chosen by the voters to stand in the general election.

The alternative is to accede to the wishes of the party. The party wants to reject the clear intent of the voters. I find this objectionable. I find it hypocritical for any party leadership to make such demands. The party backed him in the first place, put him forward as the party's representative, and in other circumstances proclaims "the will of the voter this" and "the will of the voter that". This is as patronizing as a parent of a young child, when faced with a child who is aggravatingly copying their parent's bad behavior, says "do as I say, not as I do". Only ten times more patronizing and insulting as we voters are not children.

Stay in the race Akin. I hope you lose, but you deserve to run.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by tw

Men under increased stress prefer heavier women with bigger butts.

tw!

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

tw!

Us black people love big butts.

[tw]

Originally Posted by BigV

Regarding strident calls from the Republican Party for Akin to withdraw from the race, I find myself on Akin's side. I feel he should stay in the race.

Again, I do not think that election is a slam dunk. Most people had already decided long ago. Polls put McCaskill far behind.

Also curious - and I don't understand what this means. McCaskill had manipulated her primary campaign ads to feed or encourage support to Akin. I do believe Cellar dwellers exist in MO. What was that report saying?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by tw

Shame on you for posting cheapshots.

Let's get the cheapshot out of the way first, shall we?

Do you even know where babies come from dumbass? You don't indicate any such knowledge with your recent posts.

There? Feel better? Until now, I haven't made any cheapshots, the ridiculousness of your claim makes mockery impossible (see Poe's Law).

Originally Posted by tw

Nope.

It's still "Nope." despite your subsequent posts. Now to your further failure to support your claim with any evidence whatsoever.

I asked you to provide some support for this claim of yours:

Originally Posted by tw

snip--

Reveiw the science. Statistics suggest that women are more likely to become pregnant from sex that occurs during greater emotion. That applies both to rape and to illicit sex (martial cheating). Yes, the pretty boy lover is more often likely to get a wife pregnant than the husband.

--snip

Let's review what you say.

I said your claim is false. You say

Originally Posted by tw

Of course it isn't.

Ok, you're off to a good start. You've unabiguously reiterated your belief in your original statement. I asked you for a cite, or some other evidence to bolster your claim that

Originally Posted by tw

Statistics suggest that women are more likely to become pregnant from sex that occurs during greater emotion.

and you follow up with:

Originally Posted by tw

Considering the number of statements I have made so contrary to popular belief (ie predicting Desert Storm and its response months in advance, the mythical Saddam WMDs, a financial morass called AIG, stupidity of the Chevy Volt, actual cost of Mission Accomplished, escalating military tensions between China and its neighbors, etc).

A nonsensical sentence fragment. Hm.

Originally Posted by tw

Since overwhelmingly unpopular statements have been proven correct so often, then you should accuse with caution. Or at least first learn some facts rather than entertain a feeling. The emotional only remember how unpopular those statement were; and forget unpopular statements were also the accurate ones.

What are you saying here? You've made extremely unpopular statements in the past, but were correct, so I should challenge you on

Originally Posted by tw

Statistics suggest that women are more likely to become pregnant from sex that occurs during greater emotion.

"with caution"? I have learned many facts, I am cautious when caution is called for. Your claim is certainly "overwhelmingly unpopular" but it still hasn't been "proven correct". Not yet anyway, but you talk some more, so let's go see.

Originally Posted by tw

...
Facts come from research into infidelity and propagation of the species.

A quibble--facts can be revealed from research, they don't actually come from research

Originally Posted by tw

Long known was that infidelity and rape tends to result in a higher fertility.

See? This is a claim, it is not evidence. It is an assertion, a false attribution or an appeal to tradition, both fallacious.

Originally Posted by tw

That was never disputed.

Whether or not it has ever been disputed before (and I'm skeptical of that one too), I'm disputing it now. Still no evidence.

Originally Posted by tw

Researchers have been asking why. Genetic diversity is considered important for the advancement of the species. For example, one in five children are sired by someone other than the wife's spouse. A number that has held consistent even during the 1950s when adults were so more 'moral'. The resulting diversity is considered genetically healthy. A trend that begs the current hypothesis.

What the heck are you talking about? I read ahead and this little detour into a different fantasy and it doesn't connect with your original claim about that

Originally Posted by tw

Statistics suggest that women are more likely to become pregnant from sex that occurs during greater emotion.

Originally Posted by tw

A higher fertility rate during rape or infidelity creates increased genetic diversity. Undisputed is the higher fertility rate. The outstanding question is why and how important that would be for survival of the species.

You're fond of using "undisputed" and "never disputed" and "long known" when you try to round out an argument for one of your claims. The REAL outstanding question is "where are the facts to support your claims?". Answer that one and the others will be much easier to explain and understand.

Originally Posted by tw

Research with animals in England and Australia both demonstrated that the male who "copulatory ambushes" the female also have sperm with higher fertility rates. The romancing mate or 'pretty boy' male tends to be less fertile.

Cite, please.

Originally Posted by tw

In this case, the rapist and not the victim is more fertile. Bottom line conclusion remains despite unsubstantiated and speculative denials.

Let me try to paraphrase you to check my understanding: "I'm right because I'm right because you haven't disproved my claim." Ridiculous.

Originally Posted by tw

Also noted; women tend to become more interested or flirtatious with 'other' males around the time of ovulation. Not only spending more attention on them. But also having increased sexual fantasies about them. Another reason why women tend to have more children from extramarital liaisons - desired or forced.

Other interesting trends also exist. Men under increased stress prefer heavier women with bigger butts. Another trend also believed related to species survival.

Adults who suffered through famines as children or adolescents tend to have fatter children. Also unpopular because many only feel it must be wrong rather than first learn facts. How can a famine decades earlier change genetics?

I'm just tired of trying to understand your logic. There's so much noise and so little signal..."forced extramarital liasons" um... is that code for illegitimate rape? Come on man. Talk english, it aren't that hard.

Originally Posted by tw

Another question not yet answered.

At last, a true statement. This should be your signature, or at least your disclaimer

Originally Posted by tw

But that trend is also clear. Another trend suspected to be related to survival of the species.

Do you feel those are also wrong ... without first learning facts? Responsible denial means first learning facts before condemning.

Since I'm not a child, I learn from other ways--not just from the pedantic repetition of dogma (or dog crap). I'd be happy to deny your claims responsibly if you would just share some actual facts. Let's see some facts from you. Until you do, your claims remain unsubstantiated. Show us some of the facts and proof you esteem so highly.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by tw

Again, I do not think that election is a slam dunk. Most people had already decided long ago. Polls put McCaskill far behind.
--snip

So... let me try to understand. Election not a slam dunk in your opinion, maybe indicating an evenly divided electorate.

Most people already decided, maybe indicating little change in the current state of mind of the electorate.

then...

Polls put McCaskill far behind, maybe indicating a wide margin of victory for Akin since McCaskill's behind.

See? How am I supposed to reconcile your first statement with your third statement? You seem to contradict yourself.

Furthermore, McCaskill is not "far behind" in the polls according to my research. She's ahead.

[DanaC]

*applauds*

Nicely done V.

The men preferring bigger women when stressed is from a recent study that was splashed all over the news a little while ago. Men were put into stresful situations (such as public speaking) and their BMI preferences charted. It was in order to test out at a small scale what tends to be seen at a bigger scale between food secure communities and food poor communities.

The research supports other work that has shown perceptions of physical attractiveness alter with levels of economic and physiological stress linked to lifestyle.

"If you follow people moving from low-resource areas to higher resource-areas, you find their preferences shift over the course of about 18 months. In evolutionary psychology terms, you try to fit your preferences to what works best in a particular environment," said Dr Tovee.

Moreover, the researchers were keen to emphasise how fluctuating environmental conditions could alter the popular perception of an "ideal" body size.

What that has to do with the female body apparently being more likely to conceive during high emotion, I have no fucking clue. Except in the very broadest sense: evolutionary developments favour healthy procreation and that affects desire and behaviour, as well as physiological responses. But that can't be trotted out as a general argument for a specific phenomenon wihout that phenomenon being proven in its own right.

This smacks of the 'well it stands to reason, doesn't it..?' line of arguing. The sort of thing that seems to make sense because of other very looselyrelated stuff. There's a whole library's worth of pseudo-scientific bullshit floating around in our culture about evolutionary aspects of gender. It seems to have a greater grip on our imaginations than the stuff that can actually be proved.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by tw

Reveiw the science. Statistics suggest that women are more likely to become pregnant from sex that occurs during greater emotion. That applies both to rape and to illicit sex (martial cheating). Yes, the pretty boy lover is more often likely to get a wife pregnant than the husband.

Someone needs to tell Maury he's out of a job.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Sundae

Someone needs to tell Maury he's out of a job.

What does Maury say?

[Sundae]

He makes his money on a TV show which seems to exist solely to provide DNA tests.
Or at least those are the only ones we get over here.

[tw]

Originally Posted by BigV

How am I supposed to reconcile your first statement with your third statement? You seem to contradict yourself.

The math is easy. McCaskill was behind by 11%to 14%. That obviously said nothing about where McCaskill is today. You are confusing what was with what is. Then assumed an "evenly divided race" conclusion without any reason other than your feelings. You jumped to a conclusion rather than read what was posted.

Now, for McCaskill to win, at least 6% or 7% of voters must change. I see no reason to believe Akins core support really care about his statments. Many apparently agree with him. I suspect most who would vote for Akins are attached to the 'liberal verse conservative' dogma. Don't care about realities. Just want to be told how to think.

Based in that suspicion, I suspect many politicians, who called for him to resign publically, were not doing so privately. It was only politically convenient them to do so.

We will see. If Akins does lose >6% of those who actually vote, then he did have significant moderate support. But I suspect behind the scenes, the 'powers that be' always knew where his support was coming from. If true, then they were only calling for him to withdrawl for political reasons; not from their hearts. Knowing full well the statement would be quickly forgotten even months later.

Rather depressing that so many actually support a political dogma that encourages Akins to make those statements. However even advertising can manipulate well over 50% to believe outright lies. And they deny being manipulated by that propaganda.

Akins only made it interesting.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Sundae

He makes his money on a TV show which seems to exist solely to provide DNA tests.

So what in those DNA tests are relevant here?

BTW, I believe UK was considering laws that banned using someone's DNA to perform a paternity test without their knowledge. Did that become law?

[tw]

Originally Posted by BigV

What the heck are you talking about? I read ahead and this little detour into a different fantasy and it doesn't connect with your original claim about that ...

I'm just tired of trying to understand your logic. There's so much noise and so little signal..."forced extramarital liasons" um... is that code for illegitimate rape? Come on man. Talk english, it aren't that hard.

Why so many denials only from your emotions. And not one fact based in any research. Facts were posted. And again your denials. Well UG is famous for knowing something is wrong because he also feels. Where is your knowledge from science? Nothing but a long post of cheapshot denials - without even one fact.

Summarized were studies that demonstrated, in people and animals, when a female becomes more likely to conceive. Research that contradicts Akins. Even posted were phrases directly from those studies (ie "copulatory ambushes"). So you post cheapshot denials because phrases used in science are foreign? You were suppose to know this stuff BEFORE making conclusions.

If your knowledge is from science, then you knew "forced extramarital liaisons" is an expression found in science. Denying science without even learning the phrases is your emotions saying, well ...

I guess we need a new UG. Since your every denial comes without and facts. You even get angry at phrases used by researchers.

Facts from many studies throughout the world contradict Akins. Females are more likely to conceive during an event of high emotion such as rape or infidelity. So instead, you get angry at the English used by researchers. Resistance is futile. You must do better to dethrone UG.

Fact: women are somewhat more likely to conceive during these events. A fact that has so many Darwinist researchers asking why that is relevant. Fact: animal studies demonstrate higher male fertility rates during "copulatory ambushes" (I believe that conclusion was published by multiple studies about 2001.) Fact: women tend to be more pernicious when they are more likely to conceive. (I believe that study was in a Western US university involving maybe 50 women - 30 who had steady boyfriends - somewhere around 2007.)

After how many posts, where do you cite even one science fact? You have yet to support your emotions with one study. Like UG, you posted plenty of cheapshot denials. And a few personal insults. But then I also expect that from UG. Should we conclude you agree with Akins? Based upon your posted facts, that is a real possibility. Are you really a closet Akins supporter? I would have never guessed.

I bet his campaign posters are now collector's items. Can't wait to see you on PBS's Antique Roadshow.

[DanaC]

Tdub, just post some evidence or stfu. You can't just say it's a fact because you borrowed some phrasing from scientific papers and expect people to just take your word for its veracity.

[DanaC]

How bout some of this?

When stress hormone levels run high, women are less likely to conceive and more likely to miscarry (Sapolsky 2004; Nepomaschy et al 2006).

http://www.parentingscience.com/Stre...pregnancy.html

And a little of this:

No one is sure why forced sex is statistically a more successful reproductive strategy than consensual sex. "We think it might be because rapists tend to target young women at peak fertility," Gottschall says. Holmes confirms that most rapes occur in women under 25, and pre-pubescent girls, post-menopausal women and visibly pregnant women are statistically underrepresented among female rape victims, according to Gordon Gallup, an evolutionary psychologist at SUNY-Albany who wrote about rape-related pregnancy in The Oxford Handbook of Sexual Conflict in Humans.

"Rapists don't pick victims at random," Gallup says. "Unbeknownst to them, rapists clearly target victims based on their likelihood of conception. They tend to preferentially target young, post-pubescent females that are in their reproductive prime."

Age alone doesn't it explain it, though, because per-incident rape-pregnancy rates are higher than consensual pregnancy rates even among young women. Seeking out youth and attractiveness -- a fertility cue, according to a growing body of evidence -- gives rapists the reproductive edge, the Gottschalls proposed in their paper. They cited evidence from the 2000 book A Natural History of Rape by University of New Mexico biologist Randy Thornhill and University of Missouri anthropologist Craig Palmer, indicating that rapists seek out young, attractive women.

The Gottschalls wrote: "We propose...that all men -- rapists and non-rapists -- have the capacity to 'read' fecundity cues and pursue the most attractive/fecund women that they can. However, since rapists circumvent the problem of female choice, while non-rapists must confront it, it is plausible that the average instance of rape occurs with a more attractive/fecund woman than the average instance of consensual intercourse. Thus we propose that rapists target victims not only on the basis of age but based on a whole complement of physical and behavioral signals indicating the victim's capacity to become pregnant and successfully carry a child to term."

I called Gordon Gallup for his perspective on rape-related pregnancy. Last year, during a conversation about the antidepressant effects of semen, he mentioned a theory that the nature of a rapist's ejaculate has something to do with his reproductive success. When I asked him to elaborate on that, he told me that semen contains follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH), which trigger ovulation during the female menstrual cycle. FSH is needed for sperm production, but the presence of LH in high levels is more mysterious because it's not important for male fertility. It's possible, Gallup says, that seminal fluid released during forced sex contains higher-than-normal levels of these hormones -- LH in particular -- which may trigger ovulation in the victim.

There's no direct evidence yet of sex-induced ovulation in humans, although there's some very new research hinting at the possibility. The LH in semen has been shown to trigger ovulation in camels, alpacas and llamas. Semen also makes female koalas ovulate, although LH hasn't been identified as the active ingredient in that species' semen yet. A 1973 study found that 70 percent of conceptions from rape occurred outside a woman's most fertile time. And a 1949 study cited seven women who reported becoming pregnant due to rape, despite having not had a period for up to two years leading up to the assault.

The idea that semen produced during rape is especially primed to promote pregnancy seems less far-fetched considering the well-established evidence that what a man is doing when he ejaculates affects the chemical makeup of his semen. Studies on artificial insemination show that semen collected from a man who used his imagination to become aroused and ejaculate is much less likely to result in conception than a sample collected from a man watching porn, Gallup says. Even more potent is semen collected after coitus interupptus, i.e. pulling out during actual sex. The conditions under which a man becomes aroused and ejaculates has been shown to affect factors like sperm count, shape and mobility.

If semen changes based on context, it's plausible, Gallup asserts, that participating in a rape can affect its chemical makeup. Ovulation-inducing semen would be especially useful during rape, which is usually a one-time encounter. As sinister as it is, the ability to unconsciously adjust semen to make it more potent during rape could be one reproductive strategy that evolved in men to increase their reproductive success.

http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...ncies-not-less


It may be the case that women are more likely to conceive if they are experiencing high emotion. Or it may not. You have yet to show a single piece of evidence for it.