A place for Canadians.

Portland, OR
report this user


Bon vivant Intellectual Advocate for radical freedom Professional Aesthete Athlete Temporary resident of the sentient… more »


  • Frank Gehry or Rem Koolhaas
  • What movie can you recite verbatim?: None
  • Cowgirls, Inc. or Pony
  • Elliott Bay or Amazon
  • Dan Savage or Charles Mudede

more »

Mar 15, 2013 mshults99 updated his or her location.
Mar 15, 2013 mshults99 answered a bunch of weird questions about himself or herself.
Mar 15, 2013 mshults99 updated his or her bio.
Mar 15, 2013 mshults99 joined My Stranger Face
Mar 15, 2013 mshults99 joined My Stranger Face
Mar 15, 2013 mshults99 commented on So What You're Saying Is That No One Should Be Monogamous?.
Took me a while, but I read through most of these, looking for even one post that attempted to present or reference a cogent counter-argument to the S@D line of reasoning. The S@D present their evidence with verifiable references. Yes, it isn't 'scientific', since anything of this sort is speculative, and we're not dealing with dropping balls off of the tower of Pisa here (which Galileo never actually did, by the way).

So, is there counter-evidence to the assertion that penises are evolved to produce a vacuum in order to get a head start on competing sperm? There seems to be emerging confirmation that female reproductive biochemistry is indeed autonomously selective with respect to sperm choices. Sperm counts and testicle sizes are in fact falling.

Those are among the specific points of evidence in the book. Dismissing them as 'pop-sci' is convenient, but not compelling. Newton's "Principia Mathematica" was dismissed as 'pop-sci' by some in its day. Where is the fact-based counter-evidence from the fairy-tale theorists of evolutionary psychology? Anyone?

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy