Wednesday, September 05, 2007

Is There Anything Good About Men?

Roy F. Baumeister, a psychology professor gave the 2007 invited address at the American Psychological Association entitled, "Is There Anything Good About Men?" (Hat tip: Bruce Charlton). Some highlights from the talk:

In an important sense, men really are better AND worse than women.

There are more males than females with really low IQs. Indeed, the pattern with mental retardation is the same as with genius, namely that as you go from mild to medium to extreme, the preponderance of males gets bigger.

My guess is that the greater proportion of men at both extremes of the IQ distribution is part of the same pattern. Nature rolls the dice with men more than women. Men go to extremes more than women. It’s true not just with IQ but also with other things, even height: The male distribution of height is flatter, with more really tall and really short men.

Maybe the differences between the genders are more about motivation than ability.

I don't agree with some of what he says, but it is an interesting talk and not terribly anti-male--uhh, except maybe for the title, imagine the reverse, "Is There Anything Good About Women?" My main disagreements are with how he views women as more socially connected and interested in babies rather than in achievement since men in society have to achieve something to get status and a woman has a baby to adore her. I think that women are interested in achievement for itself and not all of us are fullfilled by a baby "adoring" us!

Go read the whole thing and form your own opinion.


Blogger Don Surber said...

Is There Anything Good About Men?

We can open jars.

Women can't.

That's it.

3:36 PM, September 05, 2007  
Blogger TheBrainFromPlanetArous said...

My main disagreements are with how he views women as more socially connected and interested in babies rather than in achievement since men in society have to achieve something to get status and a woman has a baby to adore her. I think that women are interested in achievement for itself and not all of us are fullfilled by a baby "adoring" us!

Well sure, but I still think there's something to that 'socially connected' business.

3:45 PM, September 05, 2007  
Blogger Unknown said...

"Maybe the differences between the genders are more about motivation than ability."

Image if Larry Summers had said that about women...

4:11 PM, September 05, 2007  
Blogger Derek said...

My wife uses me to kill spiders. But aside from that, she's pretty capable.

4:13 PM, September 05, 2007  
Blogger lovemelikeareptile said...

The level of misandry in our society is appalling-- will it ever reach a critical level ( if not now, when? )where men engage in massive collective response? -- no--
-men will never see themselves as an "interest group", serving their self interests to the harm of others, via presenting and defining and expanding "problems" and becoming the experts on how to deal with them, all in totally self-serving ways. Also the victim role necessary to accomplish such efforts is anathema to men, as is the total intellectual dishonesty and moral corruption-- there are too many men ready to criticize such hate and fanaticism as represented by feminism in a new "male world order" .
The self flaggelation and pc of the effete liberal white male is equally unbelievable-- such a question as " is their anything good about men'-- the utter outrageousness so facilely dismissed by our male-friendly host-- can only arise and be tolerated in a society where men have beed degraded and dehumanized by feminists-- and -- most women-- for 40 years , with no sign of abatement, nor any significant response from men.
An interestting period in history-- gynocentric ( devoted to the needs and interests of women-- Vagino- Americans)-- and misandric- ( focused on the evil and inadequacies of men)- to be interpreted by historians some 75 years hence. Why did men allow women to systematically degrade, dehumanize,and injure them-- (socially, educationally, legally etc) ? Why and how did misandry-- created and systematically implemented by feminsm then adopted by most women ( 80-90%)-- achieve cultural/social dominance and an idelogy of hate and total female self-interest institutionalised in our criminal law ( it is impossible for a woman to be found guilty of murdering a man-- mudering, maiming men are political acts from the viewpoint of most women and are immune from prosecution) , civil law, federal and state departments, etc ad nausem
That such behavior is endemic and epidemic amonst women, cannot be disputed-- cheering on mutiliation and murder of sleeping men-- or excusing them- as political acts, thereby seeing themselves as terrorists in a war against the evil male. truly unbelievable.
why-- women ? because they could-- and they enjoy abusing men-- like the white racists of the old south, most women are so anti-male , just give them a mike, a pen, or a keyboard, and without shame, they easily utter the most sexist, antimale drivel. Good example-- I am from mississippi-- I see the film from 1964 and freedom Summer-- the activists coming down to ensure blacks could exercise their franchise... reporter gives a mike to a small town sheriff and asks-- 'What do you think about this "-- answer-- " I don't like these folks coming down here and upsetting our n*****s". no shame, no problem openly expressing his bigotry, its socially acceptable-- he doesn't know and hasn' been shown any different. This is the stance of about 90 % of women. Test it-- watch the anti-male comments flow with no sense of shame or recognition of immorality. Its instituionalized now. It must be a childish level of fun to insult and abuse someone at will , while they take it, and no one comes to their defense or tries to stop it or educates the abuser in the immorality of-- in this case-- her- actions.

just responding to the title of a lecture with a fun little rant.. "is there anything good about jews? ".

4:50 PM, September 05, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

a woman has a baby to adore her

LOL! That's just funny.

4:57 PM, September 05, 2007  
Blogger Garou said...

Did Mr. Baumeister wake up one morning and decide that he no longer wanted a job in academia? Because I suspect that the long knives are already being sharpened. . .

5:05 PM, September 05, 2007  
Blogger Cham said...

Fortunately for me I don't need a baby to be adored, I am adorable naturally to the untamed masses.

I will agree with Mr. Baumeister on the following point:

"Women specialize in the narrow sphere of intimate relationships. Men specialize in the larger group."

However, I will vehemently disagree with his assertion:

"The essence of how culture uses men depends on a basic social insecurity. This insecurity is in fact social, existential, and biological."

I have an issue with the "biological" part. He writes as if men just are the way they are and there isn't anything anyone can do about it, in fact, according to him "it works". Um, no it doesn't.

Men crave one on one relationships, but our sick little society and culture turns them into excellent acquaintances, lousy friends. The minute men in the US enter into a conversation with each other they often start talking about sports, trucks and, if they want a deep subject, the weather.

American men often rely on romantic relationships with women to get that much needed one on one bond. Women have more experience discussing friendships, feelings, jobs, hobbies and family. This is often why men take the ending of a romantic relationship so hard, not only do they lose the romantic connection but perhaps their only close personal relationship as well.

Is this just the way it is and there is nothing society can do about it? Absolutely not. I think it would be great if men could get beyond discussing sports as their only common subject matter. It would do them well to form better deeper personal relationships with other men.

5:14 PM, September 05, 2007  
Blogger Unknown said...


Actually, I think women do tend to have firmer social networks then men--networks that aren't dependent on work, or if you're young, school. I suspect this is part of the reason why men who've been "off-ramped" are far more likely to commit suicide then women. The suicide curve (which peaks for men in the 15-34 range & 65+ range tends to support me, I think. Older men are more likely to be isolated (retired/widowed) & younger men & teenage boys are still trying to establish careers and relationships, marital and otherwise.

Not that this isn't true for some women as well. But most women, in my experience, maintain friendships and social networks outside of work. They also seem to be more likely to hang on to old friendships, particularly with other women.

5:43 PM, September 05, 2007  
Blogger BobH said...

In her book Mother Nature, Sara Blaffer Hrdy conjectured that the variance in male and female reproductive fitness is about the same. It isn't surprising that she was wrong about that too.

Given Baumeister's reputation in the profession, I suspect that he is very secure in his academic position. Most of what he says is what evolutionary psychologists have been saying for 30 years. Even the part about male interaction causing culture mirrors a conjecture made at least a decade ago that most human material culture was just male lekking behavior.

Larry Summer's big mistake apparently was taking on the faculty at a university where the faculty is royalty.

6:02 PM, September 05, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One word: Cooties.

6:21 PM, September 05, 2007  
Blogger Locomotive Breath said...

The world of women is divided into those with a baby to adore her and those not.

The world of men is divided...

Oh wait! It's not divided. That old biology thing gets in the way again.

6:35 PM, September 05, 2007  
Blogger Unknown said...



I see the T-shirts already:

"Hillary Clinton Has Cooties"

AND, you could print up different versions of the Cootie T-Shirts with different annoying him highlighted...

"Ann Coulter Has Cooties"

"Lindsay Lohan Has Cooties"

"Nancy Pelosi Has Cooties"

"Paris Hilton Has Cooties"

The possibilities are endless!

Other variations are possible of course. For instance:

"Jessica Alba Has Cooties...But She Got Them From Derek Jeter"


7:03 PM, September 05, 2007  
Blogger Bruce Hayden said...

I think that you go overboard with your rejection of a dichotomy between achievement and being adored by babies. Rather, I would suggest that, on average, women tend to balance their lives better, including between achievement and family.

And I think that you have to look to evolution or whatever to see the basis of this. Males traditionally got women through achievement, whereas women got men through perceived ability to have superior kids and mothering ability.

So, the men got their mating chances through running the fastest, being the biggest, toughest, or even more likely, being the richest. This is how they signaled to the females that their genes were the fittest and that they would be the best providers (actually, apparently two different dynamics, as seen by female choices varying during their monthly cycles).

This isn't to say that excelling at one's job isn't important for women, but rather it most often isn't the most important thing, for which everything else is sacrificed.

7:58 PM, September 05, 2007  
Blogger Bruce Hayden said...

While everything is averages, I view the dynamic as yin and yang. In a relatively normal heterosexual relationship, both sexes provide something that the other really needs. You could say that the males provide a center, and the females a balance.

An illustration may be in order. As a male, watching a group of females decide to do something can be extremely frustrating. Everyone needs to be heard and everyone's needs taken into account. This can sometimes seem to take forever, from a male point of view.

As a male, I think that most of us arer much more comfortable with some discussion, and then a firm decision. Yes, not everyone will be happy. But that is what male hierarchies are all about - some males are alphas and most are betas, and the alphas tend to make the decisions, and the betas follow along. If you want to be followed, you have to earn it by beooming an alpha, at least in that group.

Of course, then you get to the exceptions. My father is in a book group that is shrinking due to the age of the participants. Originally, it was couples, but about half the couples have lost one spouse by now.

So, I was just talking to my father and he reminded me that they are now meeting at noon on Sat. instead of for dinner on Fridays, as they had done for 20 years, because a lot of them have a hard time driving at night. And the decision was made, with no input by anyone else, by one of the women. No one complained because it was the right decision.

Interestingly, twenty years ago, I watched the same woman go around and around with the other women in my mother's hiking group trying to decide where to go and hike. This whole thing could be an indication that as our hormone levels decrease with age, both sexes become less stereotypical when it comes to this sort of thing (and most of the book group are in their eighties now - or older).

8:10 PM, September 05, 2007  
Blogger Yamantaka said...

You have to admit- his point of view is EXTREMELY rare.

8:28 PM, September 05, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pulling out of dad mode for a fleeting moment, I wouldn't mind having cooties if I got them from Jessica Alba.

The first time I saw her in the Fantastic 4 suit, standing there with her hands on her hips and that wide, wide stance, I forgot about a lot of things.

8:28 PM, September 05, 2007  
Blogger Unknown said...


Just for the sake of clarity, were you responding to my comment? Or...someone else?

I'm not criticizing what you say, really. I'm well aware & extremely sensitive to the fact that there are always outliers. I'm the poet & writer in my family. My mother got her MA in Comp Sci. & her three sisters have degrees in business, math & microbiology. My father got his degree in history--he's a survery researcher & his brother is a social worker. So I understand there is always difference...I also know that people in the minority tend to get screwed over a lot, whoever they are.

I'm quite sensitive to this sort of iniquity, actually. One of the reasons I believe it's important to understand difference is that by doing so we can better protect those outliers who fall outside the main and are ostricized thereby.

(BTW: I AM scientifically literate & I understand economics quite well, but I know where my abilities lay.)

I do hold to my argument that men are far, far less likely to be able to hold on to social relationships outside of work or school if/when we get the rug pulled out or fall of the high-wire. I've experienced it and seen it happen to other men. And men deserve a lot of the blame here. We treat each other as success objects almost as much as most women & we scorn those who fail to "win."

Personally, I prefer the company of women who can make decisions and think for themselves and aren't afraid to disagree with me. I just can't find that many of them. Perhaps they're hiding.

But as for your comment about watching (most) women try to make decisions, well, LOL! So true. Sad, but so true.

Except when it's not. ;)


8:59 PM, September 05, 2007  
Blogger Unknown said...


Same question. Were you referring to me? If so, I must say that not only is my point of view not rare but it is supported statistically. If not, well, my bad.


If you plug into Google there's a Derek Jeter herpes tree floating around. Based on volume, I'm guessing he's got to have some endorsement deal with the company that makes Valtrex.

Alba, Biel, Carey, goes on. Very depressing.

Apparently The Captain's privates have infected half of Hollywood. Beware of Jeter's Peter!

9:04 PM, September 05, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

graham - Laugh at cooties if you will. You won't be laughing if some girl touches you and you get them on you.

9:49 PM, September 05, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I keep telling my 3 and 6 year old daughters that girls have cooties, but they don't believe me.

The disrespect and defiance have begun already.


11:20 PM, September 05, 2007  
Blogger Charles Montgomery said...

etahasgard1986 completely misses the irony in Baumeister's title (and goes mad on the "poor poor pitiful male" tip) and Dr. H. gets so reductive in I think that women are interested in achievement for itself and not all of us are fullfilled by a baby "adoring" us! that response is difficult. In Baumeister's version, the baby is part of the achievement women seek and beyond that the "not all of us" argument is entirely answered by his general demographic approach. Not "all of" anyone go for all of anything.

No in the comment seems to directly address the distribution curve issues that Baumeister is pointing to (or the fact that they seem to be across culture).

Men are part of the 'human' curve, but they represent bumps at either end (as well as a large proportion in the middle).

You can argue Baumeister's analysis of why this is, but you can't argue the numbers unless you have some other numbers to replace them.

Which means you can argue nature or nurture, or some mixture.

If it is all nurture, show me the cultures where this demographic spread does not occur.

Someone must have numbers?

1:27 AM, September 06, 2007  
Blogger Unknown said...

It still seems to me that the misandry and androphobia problems remain outside of discussion.

Eventually, as they continue to grow, we as a society will reach a point where our society becomes ungovernable due to these two things. What happens at that point? This question is not being asked!

As for men not ganging together for change: Has no one read history! Look at the history of labor or any other political change. Men will gang together given enough stimulus and leadership.

As for Baumeister's point on men tending to be outside loaded in some statistical measurements: I would think that is also the case for a lot of other things which have not as of yet been thought of, at least within psychology.

5:08 AM, September 06, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Put aside "good"-"bad" or "superior"-"inferior". Not relevant to the following:

More women than men are wired to operate on emotion rather than "cold intellect". This manifests in a need for bonding and comfort with other individuals and groups having similar wiring.

Observe a typical female discussion. It will contain a LOT of eye contact, shifting facial expressions, tonality, and other interpersonal messages that are often more important than the content - something most men just don't get. It's about meeting emotional needs, not about sharing objective information. The latter, if present, is simply the excuse for the bonding exercise.

Men think that an emotional female can be dealt with calmly and rationally. Wrong. Calm and rationality send "I don't care about you." signals, the opposite of what occurs in a bonding ritual. Sound familiar?

Dressing up this difference as a social skill is rather pointless. It only appears as such to those, men and women, who are similarly wired. To others, who statistically will tend to be male, it just gets in the way and slows everything down.

8:45 AM, September 06, 2007  
Blogger David Foster said...

It has frequently been asserted that, in Japanese corporations, the discussion about a decision takes much longer than in an American corporation--but once the decision is made, implementation is faster and smoother since people are already on board.

So maybe some of these discusion vs decision & action factors are in fact cultural.

10:46 AM, September 06, 2007  
Blogger lovemelikeareptile said...

My long comment on the article made early this am is absent.Have I failed to master this 'publish your comment" thing ?

10:55 AM, September 06, 2007  
Blogger 64 said...

Men fight each other to win the most mates. Civilization comes along and men spend increasingly more time on productive pursuits. This is what feminists call patriarchy.

2:59 PM, September 06, 2007  
Blogger Serket said...

a woman has a baby to adore her.

This sounds like the reason for a teenage girl to want to get pregnant.

I think the title is okay in this context. The audience is probably overwelmingly misandrist so he needs a controversial title and then he can explain all of the reasons why men deserve respect.

3:14 PM, September 06, 2007  
Blogger Helen said...


I agree that the title sounds okay when used in his context. However, there are some digs at men in the talk but it is coupled with some serious and non-PC points so I guess I should have given this speaker a break. However, it seems like one cannot speak about men unless it is with some negative connotation with a "twist."

4:20 PM, September 06, 2007  
Blogger Unknown said...

"Observe a typical female discussion. It will contain a LOT of eye contact, shifting facial expressions, tonality, and other interpersonal messages that are often more important than the content - something most men just don't get."

Um, the men I am friendly with do all of the above. I pity the guy without pals who look them in the eye when they talk, keep their faces blandly or severely frozen, have no tone indicating what they feel and don't give that pat on the knee when you talk about the hurts. I pity those guys, but I also don't think they're that common.

7:39 PM, September 06, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eye Contact? Check. People who don't look at me when talking freak me out, which means they never become friends.

Shifting Facial Expressions? Does it count if we laugh so hard our sides hurt and our eyes tear up?

Tonality? Oh yeah, especially after a few beers and a couple cigars. All the tonality you can handle, trust me.

Personally, my friends and I don't spend a lot of time talking about emotions or feelings. We do spend a lot of time talking about career hopes, dreams and frustrations, joyous and sad family experiences and tribulations, hobbies, vacations, kids, etc. Of course, the topics are intermixed with a great deal of sarcasm, jokes, and self-deprecating humor.

All of the above negates the need to talk about emotions or feelings because they are expressed and communicated through the topics of conversation.

And those conversations have created some pretty strong emotional bonds among my friends.

10:15 PM, September 06, 2007  
Blogger lovemelikeareptile said...

This fellow makes points that are well known to, and accepted by, most evolutionary psychologists. But his thesis that "culture" "uses" men and women for "its" purposes is sophomoric. No such causal entity exists. It is hard to believe such metaphysical reification is still around.
1. I like the WWA- "Women are Wonderful Effect", increasing from the 60s to the 70s and achieving dominance in the 80s , when women and men both see women more favorably. I am not familiar with this research, but the movement coincides with the dehumanization and degradation of men fostered by the hate movement known as "feminism". Its destructive, malevolent march through our culture is patent. Even women like women more than men .I expect they always have, men being primarily useful for financial security and the accumulation of material objects. Does a woman over 55 ever marry after inheriting big bucks? Women don't share income with men-- they use men to obtain it. She will marry-- a richer man.... Men always see women as special. Women think they are special , too, and that they deserve special treatment from men as women. So they naturally see other women as special as themselves. Sadly, women don't think men are special... But it is a good point that women have evolved to "appear" more loveable-- a cue to the male that she will be a caring mother, but not necessarily a loving wife.
2. The reified metaphysical concept of culture is truly bizarre. Ever heard of sociobiology or evolution or natural selection or Darwin(1859 !) Professor ? Group selection between competing "cultures" ??
3. The variance among males is old hat.. It is not true that men and women have the same average IQ. Lynn has shown with huge samples that men have a higher mean by 2.5 or 3 points-- not at all trivial, esp given the larger male variance. Of course there is a huge sex difference in IQ in the upper region, and thus, women have contributed virtually nothing to civilization. Only a very few individuals can do so and they are virtually all men.
What are men good for ? Our entire civilization !-- the massive increase in wealth and standard of living, science, philosophy, literature, the arts, medicine,space travel...etc ad nausem. Why would a woman ever want to pose this question ? Most men are far too chivalrous and civil to point out the facts, so they suffer women's mindless abuse. The question better posed is "What are Women Good For?", other than reproduction. See Schopenhauer, On Women, the notorious pessimist and misanthrope gives a hilarious--to men-- commentary on women.
4. The idea that motivational differences explains differences in achievement between men and women is question begging. Why do differences in motivation exist in different areas between men and women? Evolution has created distinct gender identities. One is hardly likely to work vigorously at what one stinks at or doesn't enjoy-- becasue you stink at it. This is just an effort at PC and denying the obvious biological origins of sex differences in aptitude.
5. It is a great point that while 80 % of ancestral females have reproduced , only 40 % of ancestral males have. This is the basis of almost all reasoning on the evolutionary basis of sex differences in reproductive strategies, personality, aptitude, attitude etc. that sociobiologists have been mining since E O Wilson (1975) and D Symons (1980).
6. The "different but equaal " fatuity is also pure PC Differences in ability/achievement is a factual issue. Equality is an ethical and political concept. If men are smarter at math and engineering, the resuls will be unequal , unless "social engineers" get involved, see "Big Sister"-- as Ms Clinton slouches toward Washington for what will certainly be the most anti-male adminstration of all time, actively devoted to harming men and boys. Guys-- maybe it has to get even worse ( is that possible ? ) before we riot in the street, impose moral and rational behavior on women , and Take Back The Patriarchy !!
Sommers "suggestion" is actually well-established, supported by a mountain of literature. There is no question that the highest region of math/spatial ability is almost exclusively male. Benbow ( a girl ) and Stanley published their results in Science in 1980 and 1983, reporting on their nationwide search for gifted youth in math and the huge sex differences in favor of males, 13-1 as I recall. That this should be presented as "controversial " some 20 odd years later only demonstrates the perversion of our culute and even science by feminist ideology. I hear that a female prof of biology swooned upon hearing his words. Probably pre-menopausal...
6. Every human society has been, is now, and, many believe, will always be, a patriarchy . Political, economic, and social equality between the sexes-- defined as equal representation-- has never existed and will never exist-- unless a genetic bottleneck occurs , ushering through the high testerone women that find feminism so beguiling and the effete liberal male who finds masculinity so oppressive.
Thus,Gender differences did not "emerge" with the Industrial Revolution. That idea contradicts his own biological musings and evolutionary psych/sociobiology. Male dominance is as natural as apple pie. Smell the glove.
8."Human women evolved first ". What were men ? Monkeys? Did he really say that?
9. Ahh, women. How does he save then from irrelevance after shamefully pointing out that men have created and sustained all societies. Why , they are the preservers of the "essential"sphere, to the reproduction of our "species" ( no such efforts exist), precious and unique, in the "deep' small grpuop of the family. Men ?-- "shallow" , optional, large groups of interchangeable, expendable units-- that is , all social relationships outside of the primordial home,domesticated by the female. ( Does he realize this is a basis for ' Back to the Kitchen "!)
Well, he must save the women from irrelevance somehow, so he deifies -- the female, queen of that "essential" private family sphere, devoted to domesticity. the children, home, hearth, and that Mr Clean shining floor !
Geee, men in their "shallow', optional, expendable individual large groups-- why they are responsible for-- well, EVERYTHING. What are they good for-- EVERYTHING ! Who historically has paid for that friendly haven of child-rearing, even as women venture out into the male sphere, which evolution has so poorly equipped them to do. Is he Phyllis Schafly in drag ?

Face it-- Men are great ! Why do men have to embarass themselves by pointing out the obvious achievements , aptitudes and value of their gender. Becasue women treat them as wortless, attack, abuse and degrade them, like the two recent books by feminists that argue boys do better in families without adult men, ie their fathers . Men should be excluded from the family, which should consist of women and their offspring only. Its OK to see and talk to adult men, but any more contact would be toxic according to the ladies. One assumes in this female utopia, men are to be taxed to support such a system, as they wander off at 18, for a life of isolation and loneliness, as their mother runs them off as non-essential males, as if they were black bears. And the ladies have seriously presented a proposal to limit society to 10 % males. . Feminists thereby showing their kinship with the architect of the Final Solution.. And the endless female-only utopian novels ( what is it with women that they adore each other so much and try to get rid of men ?).. and the feminist who has a son, wonders how to raise the little oppressor, a menber of the sex she hates.... hopefully not cutting off the sex organs of her five-week old son as a Houston woman did recently... he probably deserved it... colic and all...

There are a few old nuggets
repeated here-- earning manhood, male expendability,, men help strangers ( women help no one, save their offspring), male variance in reproductive success and the resulting shaping of male nature.. Mostly it is embarrassing-- a reified metaphysical 'Culture" as a causal agent using men for 'its' purposes, bizarrely claiming that no innate aptidue sex differences exist, the circular ascribing them to different motivation levels, the "different but equal" incoherence, sex differences emerging with the Industrial revolution contradicting the evolutionary origin of sex differences,...

Now I must check to see if the little woman has taken my weights up to the attic yet. I need her to finish my pedicure, strip the kitchen floor, and wax my surfboard. If so, she may get lucky tonight. Women love that "essential", private, unique, small sphere where they can serve men and children ! Father Knows Best ! My neighbors Ward and June agree !

12:25 AM, September 07, 2007  
Blogger Flash Gordon said...

Nature rolls the dice with men more than women.

If evolution works the way we think it does, that might be an expected result. More females in the normal range would be important to the survival of the species while a lot of throw-away men, i.e, men who cannot breed, would be of little consequence to species survival.

Nature is concerned with our existence, but not our happiness.

9:47 AM, September 09, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................

11:29 PM, May 19, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

5278影片卡通影片做愛影片視訊交友網熟女人影片松島楓免費影片日本美女影像圖庫寫真女郎影片貼影片0800a片區gogo258男同志影音視訊Live秀線上成人影片成人論壇姐姐g罩杯影片小弟弟影片777美女dvd影片視訊交友90739潮吹影片aa影片下載城一葉晴貼影片區 av127浪漫月光論壇

3:07 AM, June 08, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home