From fork-admin@xent.com Mon Sep 9 19:27:41 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.example.com Received: from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 786EB16EFC for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 19:27:40 +0100 (IST) Received: from jalapeno [127.0.0.1] by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0) for jm@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 09 Sep 2002 19:27:40 +0100 (IST) Received: from xent.com ([64.161.22.236]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g89EaTC19304 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:36:30 +0100 Received: from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42C87294185; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 07:30:04 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: fork@example.com Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51.attbi.com [204.127.198.38]) by xent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10FFC2940FC for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 07:29:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from h00e098788e1f.ne.client2.attbi.com ([24.61.143.15]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020909143224.NTSV19682.rwcrmhc51.attbi.com@h00e098788e1f.ne.client2.attbi.com>; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:32:24 +0000 From: bitbitch@magnesium.net X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.52f) Educational Reply-To: bitbitch@magnesium.net X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-Id: <15773384464.20020909103246@magnesium.net> To: Eugen Leitl Cc: fork@example.com Subject: Re[3]: Selling Wedded Bliss (was Re: Ouch...) In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fork-admin@xent.com Errors-To: fork-admin@xent.com X-Beenthere: fork@example.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Friends of Rohit Khare List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:32:46 -0400 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-12.4 required=7.0 tests=AWL,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,KNOWN_MAILING_LIST, NO_REAL_NAME,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES, SIGNATURE_SHORT_DENSE,SPAM_PHRASE_02_03,USER_AGENT_THEBAT version=2.50-cvs X-Spam-Level: EL> On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 bitbitch@magnesium.net wrote: >> So Eugen, how many of your homo friends have -had- 3k lovers? EL> Just one. Not everybody does that. Most of them are now dead, anyway. Point is, you're not likely to extrapolate much. I could probably find one hetero who had just as much sex. Does that mean we're all rampant hos? No. >> Eegads, if you're hypothesizing numbers like -that- Eugen, you at >> least owe it to FoRK to back that shit up. EL> Ain't done no hypothesizing. Anecdotal evidence'R'Us. Couldn't you just EL> Google, or something? Listen. If you pull numbers like that without a fact, the automagic assumption is yes, they were extracted out of your neither orifice. Point wasn't to conclude otherwise unless you had any relevant bits. Its not my job to do _your_ bit searching for you, but I figured I'd humor fork with this bit of finding: http://www.thebody.com/bp/apr01/research_notebook.html (Pointing ot averages of about 13 for every 3 months (for gay men), which totals to about 52 a year. 52 a year doesn't equal 3000. Or even 300. >> Just a quick assumption here. I'm not a math geek or anything, but >> assuming 1 lover every day, that would be like at least one lover >> everyday for 8 years and some change. I don't know about you, but >> very very few of us are -that- lucky (or even close to that lucky) EL> Which was my point. Gurls don't do hyperpromiscuity as a life style. It's EL> interesting that you're launching into a diatribe, and threaten using EL> instant argument (just add hominem) instead of assuming I might be not EL> just pulling this whole thing out my nether orifice. WTF do my shitty math skillz have to do with girls and hyperpromiscuity? I was speaking -generally- meaning that guys and girls probably have better things to do than boink everything they see. As above, I am assuming you're pulling things out of your ass, I just felt like calling you on it. BTW, there's nothing wrong with calling someone on a silly idea. Its allowed, and its generally not considered ad hominem, but the homophobia statement might be. >> and after awhile, even the sexaholics get bored and have to mingle >> something new into their weekends. You really are assumiing that the >> homosexual population is a) that large in a given area (The meccas EL> You ever been to San Francisco? Many times. Which is why I said 'assuming that large ... (The meccas dont count). SF is a mecca in this example. I obviously wasn't clear, tho one could assume I wasn't talking about Medina. >> a few nifty gaybars, but thats a different story) b) that bored/sex >> obsessed/recreationally free to pursue sex that often, with that many >> partners or that they'd even WANT that many partners. EL> This doesn't happen because it couldn't happen. No one would want to. EL> Because you feel that way. Correct? doesn't happen? true. Couldn't happen? who knows. It has nothing to do with how I 'feel' and everything to do with the fact that people do concern themselves with more than just sex (otherwise I think we'd see a helluva lot more of sex, and a helluva lot less of everything else). >> Qualify yourself, or at least lower your outrageous numbers. EL> I didn't expect so much reflexive knee-jerking on this list. Well my suggestion is, if you can't take the responses, don't post flamebait. -- Best regards, bitbitch mailto:bitbitch@magnesium.net