AdamSmith

How disillusioning. No chicken entrails. But imagine the quantity of lard that can one day be rendered from Scalia.

For some reason, that phrase in this context has me envisioning all the justices filing onto the bench in lipstick and eye liner.

Yes! Not to highjack, but just to note: Too many guys over-groom themselves these days, to my taste anyway.

Damn you, lurker! FourAces is right. We already face too many choices and you just made it even more complicated. Marvelous pics. Thank you for sharing.

And bumps.

Carol Burnett! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzH40Pr29pA As in, taking them off-premises. Talk of the possible uses of rigor mortis -- a Necrophilia forum?

Definition of eating out in NYC. Although now a staple has become $1 pizza slices. As the stomach churns. See my post about rates for offing boys from The Web.

Well, I did cut back on eating out. Even if not in the cases where that verb phrase has a predicate.

To a point. But then viz., as you know, Confessions of an English Opium Eater. Distractions.

Aha! Thank you. So that the governors of the East India Company would not catch on to what they were, in the main, funding?

Damn. And here I had sunk all my capital into the llama bubble.

Hardly. I ended up paying $500/month more for my current apartment than I had first thought to. But then I justified it: each month, just cut out 2 restaurant meals and one hooker! (Btw, no disrespect. The love-of-my-life escort was with me the day I found the apt, and that formula had him doubled over in laughter & agreement.)

This seems counter-productive. In my experience, whether I am being top or bottom at the moment, the top wants the bottom to be tight, not loose and sloppy. What am I missing?

Silly. But so true: ...With thanks to StuCotts for introducing me to Dyszel a year ago, through this thing that I still can't stop watching:

Some of us can catch, though.

A herd of cows. A flock of geese. But, for some wondrous reason, a 'murder' of crows.

"You haven't kissed one that color for a long time." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_25R4BBHYyc Posted here by one who loves every color of the rainbow. Quite literally.

As if we needed to be told. Nice to hear it again, though. Monogamy unnatural for our sexy species By Christopher Ryan, Special to CNN July 29, 2010 2:24 p.m. EDT Editor's note: Christopher Ryan is a psychologist, teacher and the co-author, along with Cacilda Jethá, of "Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality," published by Harper Collins. (CNN) -- Seismic cultural shifts about 10,000 years ago rendered the true story of human sexuality so subversive and threatening that for centuries, it has been silenced by religious authorities, pathologized by physicians, studiously ignored by scientists and covered up by moralizing therapists. In recent decades, the debate over human sexual evolution has entertained only two options: Humans evolved to be either monogamists or polygamists. This tired debate generally devolves into an antagonistic stalemate where women are said to have evolved to seek male-provisioned domesticity while every man secretly yearns for his own harem. The battle between the sexes, we're told, is bred into our blood and bones. Couples who turn to a therapist for guidance through the inevitable minefields of marriage are likely to receive the confusing message that long-term pair bonding comes naturally to our species, but marriage is still a lot of work. Few mainstream therapists would contemplate trying to persuade a gay man or lesbian to "grow up, get real, and stop being gay." But most insist that long-term sexual monogamy is "normal," while the curiosity and novelty-seeking inherent in human sexuality are signs of pathology. Thus, couples are led to believe that waning sexual passion in enduring marriages or sexual interest in anyone but their partner portend a failed relationship, when in reality these things often signify nothing more than that we are Homo sapiens. This is a problem because there is no reason to believe monogamy comes naturally to human beings. In fact, for millions of years, evolutionary forces have cultivated human libido to the point where ours is arguably the most sexual species on Earth. Our ancestors evolved in small-scale, highly egalitarian foraging groups that shared almost everything. Anthropologists have demonstrated time and again that immediate-return hunter-gatherer societies are nearly universal in their so-called "fierce egalitarianism." Sharing is not just encouraged; it's mandatory. Most foragers divide and distribute meat equitably, breast-feed one another's babies, have little or no privacy from one another, and depend upon each other every day for survival. Although our social world revolves around private property and individual responsibility, theirs spins toward interrelation and mutual dependence. This might sound like New Age idealism, but it's no more noble a system than any other insurance pool. Compulsory sharing is simply the best way to distribute risk to everyone's benefit in a foraging context. Pragmatic? Yes. Noble? Hardly. For nomadic foragers who might walk hundreds of kilometers each month, personal property -- anything needed to be carried -- is kept to a minimum. Little thought is given to who owns the land, or the fish in the river, the clouds in the sky, or the kids underfoot. An individual male's "parental investment," in other words, tends to be diffuse in societies like those in which we evolved, not directed toward one particular woman -- or harem of women -- and her children, as conventional views of our sexual evolution insist. But when people began living in settled agricultural communities, social reality shifted deeply and irrevocably. It became crucially important to know where your property ended and your neighbor's began. Remember the 10th Commandment: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that [is] thy neighbor's." With agriculture, the human female went from occupying a central, respected role to being just another possession for men to accumulate and defend, along with his house, slaves and asses. The standard narrative posits that paternity certainty has always been of utmost importance to our species, whether expressed as monogamy or harem-based polygyny. Students are taught that our "selfish genes" lead us to organize our sexual lives around assuring paternity, but it wasn't until the shift to agriculture that land, livestock and other forms of wealth could be kept in the family. For the first time in the history of our species, biological paternity became a concern. Our bodies, minds and sexual habits all reflect a highly sexual primate. Research from primatology, anthropology, anatomy and psychology points to the same conclusion: A nonpossessive, gregarious sexuality was the human norm until the rise of agriculture and private property just 10,000 years ago, about 5 percent of anatomically modern humans' existence on Earth. The two primate species closest to us lend strong -- if blush-inducing -- support to this vision. Ovulating female chimps have intercourse dozens of times per day, with most or all of the willing males, and bonobos famously enjoy frequent group sex that leaves everyone relaxed and conflict-free. The human body tells the same story. Men's testicles are far larger than those of any monogamous or polygynous primate, hanging vulnerably outside the body where cooler temperatures help preserve standby sperm cells for multiple ejaculations. Men sport the longest, thickest primate penis, as well as an embarrassing tendency to reach orgasm when the woman is just getting warmed up. These are all strong indications of so-called sperm competition in our species' past. Women's pendulous breasts, impossible-to-ignore cries of sexual delight, or "female copulatory vocalization" to the clipboard-carrying crowd, and capacity for multiple orgasms also validate this story of prehistoric promiscuity. "But we're not apes!" some might insist. But we are, in fact. Homo sapiens is one of four African great apes, along with chimps, bonobos and gorillas. "OK, but we have the power to choose how to live," comes the reply. This is true. Just as we can choose to be vegans, we can decide to lead sexually monogamous lives. But newlyweds would be wise to remember that just because you've chosen to be vegan, it's utterly natural to yearn for an occasional bacon cheeseburger. http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/07/27/ryan.promiscuity.normal/index.html?iref=obinsite

Just so. Who did what to whom, and at what manifold pressure , can easily and usefully be reported in one sentence. The only thing these contentless reviews necessarily say is, 'I the client was in a good mood or on a good drug, and had a good time.' Cowplop.

Ditto. The amount of the world's electricity supply we have used just discussing it here is more than the topic is worth. Snob, sure. But 3 minutes of that show makes my head hurt. And I love crap culture.

For us of weakening mind, you are taking away a great crutch. In conversation, I more and more find myself repeating what I have already said to the same person a dozen times before. Theme and, hopefully, variations. But I will do my best to do better here than I can in face-to-face interactions.

Thanks for the reminder. The omniscient Wikipedia reports: The Dick Van Dyke Show is an American television sitcom which initially aired on CBS from October 3, 1961 until June 1, 1966. The show was created by Carl Reiner and starred Dick Van Dyke and Mary Tyler Moore. A three-camera/studio audience format was used during production. The series was primarily sponsored by Procter & Gamble and, as an "alternate sponsor" beginning with the second season, Lorillard Tobacco Company (Kent cigarettes). The cast sometimes appeared in "integrated commercials" for their sponsors at the end of the show. The show was also produced by Reiner, who wrote many episodes and played the role of Alan Brady. Many of the show's plots were inspired by Reiner's experiences as a writer for Your Show of Shows, but though he based the character of Rob Petrie on himself, Rob's egocentric boss Alan Brady is less Sid Caesar (host of Your Show of Shows) than a combination of the more abrasive Milton Berle and Jackie Gleason, according to Reiner himself.[1] The Dick Van Dyke Show won 15 Emmy Awards... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_van_dyke_show

Shit, this could be so fucking subversive. Great idea!

The phrase immortalized by the equally priceless Ann Landers! Agree completely with your assessment. Interesting how, in my view, both Dick and Mary got so much sharper and better in their respective follow-on series.

I was just now thinking the same thing. It put me in mind of my post back when (please see this not as button-buffing; given the content, how could it be?)... http://www.maleescortreview.com/forum/index.php?/topic/1672-credences-of-summer/