Australians--They Like Big Butts

According to the latest obesity study, Australia now has a greater proportion of obese citizens than the United States. Yup, yer numero uno, oy oy oy, nom nom nom:

26% of adult Australians - almost four million - are now obese, one million more than the last calculation in 1999.

The findings give Australia top spot as the world's most overweight nation, ahead of the notoriously super-sized Americans, who have a 25% obesity rate.

Middle-aged Australians are leading the way, with seven in 10 men and six in 10 women aged 45 to 64 now registering a BMI of 25 or more.

In Australia, BMI stands for Bacon, Meat & Ice Cream. Generally, they are all blended together and placed in a bowl of hot fudge and cheese cake and sucked through a straw. Nom nom nom.

At first blush, being the fattest nation in the world sounds terrible. But let's face it, the citizens of Malawi aren't doing cartwheels over the fact that they're the skinniest nation in the world. Know what I mean?

Nom nom nom

Stupid Idiot Women Have Great Sex

A German study released today says that Paris Hilton has great sex. Actually, it doesn't say that, but it infers it:

BRAINY babes find it harder to have an orgasm – because they are too busy thinking, a study claims.

The German survey found that the more educated a woman was, the less likely it was that she would be satisfied by sex.

In the study 62 per cent of women who had completed their education said they often had problems achieving orgasm.

Only 38 per cent of women with a lower educational qualification said they had such problems.

I suppose the only woman having better sex than Paris Hilton at this point would be Britney Spears (rimshot).

This study could be interpreted in two ways. Either the researchers are dead on, and smart women really do have lousy sex, or maybe smart women are having lousy sex because the guys that are banging them are lousy lays. Hmmmm.

One thing is for certain though: If this study is correct and stupid women have great sex and multiple orgasms, then TLDG must be the biggest drooling half-tard on the planet.

I can't wait to tell her what an idiot she is when comes home tonight. She is going to be sooooo happy.

Ouch, that smarts

Masturbation Cuts Cancer Risk

Australian researchers have come to the conclusion that men could reduce their risk of developing prostate cancer through regular masturbation. In other news, there is no other news:

They say cancer-causing chemicals could build up in the prostate if men do not ejaculate regularly.

Imagine, all those times you told the ladies that if you don't *get off* you could die, wasn't a lie.

Men who ejaculated more than five times a week were a third less likely to develop prostate cancer later in life.

I'm sure most of you are doing the math right now and figuring if you're 1/3 less likely to develop cancer if you stroke it 5 times a week, then you're probably closer to 20x less likely considering your dirty little habit.

How does masturbation prevent cancer, you ask?

The researchers suggest that ejaculating may prevent carcinogens accumulating in the prostate gland.

The prostate provides a fluid into semen during ejaculation that activates sperm and prevents them sticking together.

The fluid has high concentrations of substances including potassium, zinc, fructose and citric acid, which are drawn from the bloodstream.

I believe those are the same ingredients in a Caesars salad.

I'm sure most of you are doing the happy dance right now, thinking you are immune from cancer. Well, you're not. You fluked out. Your bizarre fetishes and freakish obsessions may have put you on the road to physical fitness, but it still won't keep you out of the clink if you're caught acting out your grotesque masturbatory puppet show by the police .

I suppose what I'm saying is this: Even though you think your unnatural chronic masturbation habit is good for your health, you still have to eat right and exercise, stop smoking and cut down on your booze intake. Combine that with your disgusting habit of jerking off like a deviant who needs psychological help, and you may live a few more years.

If you think that masturbation is the answer, you haven't asked yourself all the right questions.

NEXT post--Mugshot of the Week

ALSO--Focus on Poverty

Men And Women Have Different Eating Habits

When it comes to food, men and women really are different. This, according to scientific research presented today at the 2008 International Conference on Emerging Infectious Diseases in Atlanta, Georgia:

Men were significantly more likely to eat meat and poultry products especially duck, veal, and ham.

Women, on the other hand were more likely to eat vegetables, especially carrots and tomatoes.

Fascinating. Please, tell me more:

Men were significantly more likely to consume asparagus and brussels sprouts than women while women were more likely to consume fresh hamburgers (as opposed to frozen, which the men preferred).

To say I'm shocked is perhaps the biggest understatement ever made since the time scientists started recording understatements.

What else, I thirst for more knowledge?

Men were significantly more likely to eat undercooked hamburger and runny eggs while women were more likely to eat alfalfa sprouts.

This is science in all its glory, folks. Bask in it, for it is pure.

Here are a few things I know about the culinary delights men and women have: Men like to eat beaver, women like to eat big sausages. Men like to eat tacos while women enjoy sucking on popsicles. Men like clams and fish and women enjoy tube steak and dick. Sorry, I ran out of ideas.

Footlongs & Meat curtains

What Causes Traffic Jams?

A team led by Prof Yuki Sugiyama of Nagoya University, who has spent more than a decade puzzling over the problem of what causes traffic jams, has come to an incredible conclusion:

The real origin of the snarl up often has nothing to do with obvious obstructions such as accidents or construction work but is simply the result of there being too many cars.

I'm pretty sure that at this point, if I had a lab coat, a pocket protector and bad eyesight, I could get a grant to study some particular oddity. Like, why do my eyes hurt when I stare at the sun? Or, why does my cat cry when I pull its tail? Sure it might take me 10 years to figure out the answer, but when I do, you people will be nothing short of amazed!

Baby you can't drive my car

NEXT--Jordan Models Lingerie

AND--How Many Deer Do You See?

Study Links Teen Girls' Status To Weight Gain

A recently released study, shows that the lower teenagers feel they are on their school's social ladder, the fatter they become in later life (that's not exactly how they worded it, but it's close enough). Here is the question that was posed to the teenager's in order to gain that information:

"At the top of the ladder are the people in your school with the most respect and the highest standing. At the bottom are the people who no one respects and no one wants to hang around with. Where would you place yourself on the ladder?"

I'm not sure this study is telling us anything we don't know. I've never heard of one school in the universe where the most popular girl on the school social ladder was Obese Edna. That's most likely due to the fact that obese women tend to bust ladders when their large, puffy feet touch the rungs.

Everything always works out the way God intends it to. Large women are God's way of letting drunk guys get laid. That's where the popularity factor takes a sudden change in school. Maybe Large Marge isn't so popular right now, but after a few times of wedging open her ginormous legs and letting the football team treat her like a fetish monkey treats a hemorrhoid donut, Large Marge will have developed some pretty impressive skillz. Skillz that will, no doubt, come in very handy as she's working the street corners of Sandusky, Pennsylvania in 7 years.

Go Team!

Is Exercise Healthy For You?

A new study from Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine, has found a correlation between physical activity and maintaining a stable weight:

Researchers examined data from over 2,600 participants in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study to determine if high activity patterns over time were associated with maintaining a stable BMI.

A consistently high level of physical activity from young adulthood into middle age increases the odds of maintaining a stable weight and lessens the amount of weight gained over time.

I'll be damned. So, if I'm reading this correctly, if you exercise regularly when you're young, and probably eat right, there is a good chance that you will not become obese in later years?

You could knock me down with a feather.

I've often thought that, but I've never had solid proof. Thank you $2.1 million dollar study!

Better Care Saves 89,000 Afghani Kids This Year

For those of you that are wondering why Mitchieville supports our Canadian troops in Afghanistan, this article should clear that up rather nicely:

Close to 90,000 children who would have died before age 5 in Afghanistan during Taliban rule will stay alive this year because of advances in medical care in the country, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said Sunday.

The under-5 child mortality rate in Afghanistan has declined from an estimated 257 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2001 to about 191 per 1,000 in 2006, the Ministry of Public Health said, relying on a new study by Johns Hopkins University.

The U.N. and aid agency Save the Children both hailed the advances in health care in Afghanistan.

"This is certainly very positive news," said the U.N. spokesman in Afghanistan, Adrian Edwards. "To come from such low life expectancy to see this improvement does appear to be an indication that the work on the health sector here is beginning to pay off."

That is excellent news. We have to give credit where credit is due, and it starts with the troops on the ground.

This is the last day to Vote Mitchieville as Canada's Best Blog--It takes All of Five Seconds to do

Cancer Study Finds What Everyone Already Knew

In what is being described as the *most definitive advice on preventing cancer*, The World Cancer Research Fund released its highly anticipated report today. Among some of the advice they offer:

Keeping slim is one of the best ways of preventing cancer, as is avoiding excessive amounts of red meat and wine, a landmark study has revealed.

"We are recommending that people aim to be as lean as possible within the healthy range, and that they avoid weight gain throughout adulthood."

People should not eat more than 500g of cooked red meat a week.

If people must drink, the report said, they should limit their intake to two units a day for a man or one for a woman. A unit is a half pint of beer or a small glass of wine.

The report makes 10 recommendations including 30 minutes of moderate activity a day, rising to 60 minutes; drinking water rather than sugary drinks; eating fruit, vegetables and fiber and limiting salt consumption.

"This report is a real milestone in the fight against cancer, because its recommendations represent the most definitive advice on preventing cancer that has ever been available anywhere in the world," said Professor Martin Wiseman, project director of the report.

Wow, that report sure is a breakthrough, there's so much new information in it that my head is absolutely spinning.

For instance: Are there many of you out there, like me, that thought exercise WASN'T good for you? Or that being overweight is bad? Did any of you people think that smoking was good for you? Was it a shock to learn that smoking is actually detrimental to your health? Did you know that drinking water is healthier than drinking Coke? Were many of you under the impression that vegetables aren't good for you? Put up your hands if you thought salt and sugar were your friends?

I don't care how much that report cost to compile, it was worth every last cent.

VOTE Mitchieville for Best Canadian Blog

Babies Are Destroying Women's Social Life

A survey conducted by very smart people with pocket protectors found that a large percentage of women feel that having a baby has destroyed their social life:

Two-thirds of new mothers say having a baby has destroyed their social life and they resent their partners for continuing to go out, says a study released today.

The first year after childbirth is the loneliest time of a young woman's life, the survey claims, as mothers with new babies spend only 90 minutes a day in the company of adults other than their partners.

Who would have thought that having a baby would mean so much sacrificing?

Someone should have told these ladies that there is indeed a possibility that having children might cut into party time.

What's next, women are devastated that having babies means more laundry?

Women Are Massive Shoe Hounds

A poll of 1,057 women by the Consumer Reports National Research Center found what every human in the world already knows: when it comes to shoes, women are obsessed:

Women on average own 19 pairs of shoes although they only wear four pairs regularly while 15 percent have over 30 pairs.

19 pairs? Are you sure it's not closer to 700 pairs?

Sometimes I come home from City Hall and at the door are three pairs of TLDG's shoes. I wake up in the morning and there's 8 pairs of her shoes. It's not as if she was trying on shoes in her sleep, yet her shoes have morphed into more pairs of shoes. I have a theory that women's shoes somehow mate with each other while we sleep, producing more shoes and more shoes. One day they will take over the world.

Sales of shoes has increased in recent years with figures from retail tracker NPD Group showing U.S. shoe sales rose 9 percent in 2005 to nearly $42 billion or 1.4 billion pairs.

Thems alot of shoes.

I often hear from TLDG that she needs alot of shoes to match all her outfits. Yet her shoes outnumber her outfits by about 7-1. I'd say something to her, but truth be told, she kind of scares the shit out of me when it comes to shoes. I suppose my biggest worry is that if I said something about all her shoes, one day I'll wake up with a stiletto lodged in my forehead.

Shoes--Crack for women

Does Grapefruit Increase The Risk Of Breast Cancer?

Yes, yes it does:

A study of 50,000 post-menopausal women found eating just a quarter of a grapefruit daily raised the risk by up to 30%.

Previous studies have shown that a molecule called cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) is involved in metabolising oestrogen hormones.

And grapefruit may boost blood oestrogen levels by inhibiting this molecule, allowing the hormones to build up.

The researchers found that in women who ate at least a quarter of a grapefruit daily, levels of oestrogen were higher.

They said: "It is well established that oestrogen is associated with breast cancer risk.

When I first read this article, I couldn't believe it. I thought it was shocking and incredible. I thought of the horrible ramifications this could/will have on women everywhere. Then I started to think of all the women I've known in my life, and I came to the realization that I have never seen even one of them eating a grapefruit. It's as if women are one with fruit. They know what harms them and they stay away.

Boo grapefruit, yeah women!

Gay Funded Study Finds Exactly What It Wants

In what only can be described as shocking, a new survey reveals that anti-gay hate crime is completely out of control:

Nearly four in 10 gay men and about one in eight lesbians and bisexuals in the United States have been the target of violence or a property crime because of their sexual orientation, according to a new study.

Before we continue, and out of sheer curiosity, who commissioned this survey?

Data collection for the study was supported by a grant from the Gill Foundation, a Denver-based organization that supports equal opportunities for people regardless of sexual orientation or gender expression.

What/who is this Gill Foundation that's being spoken of? Great question, let's Google them...

The Gill Foundation, established in 1994 by software entrepreneur Tim Gill, seeks to secure equal opportunity for all people regardless of sexual orientation or gender expression. The Gill Foundation is the nation's largest funder focusing primarily on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender civil rights.

The Gay & Lesbian Fund for Colorado was established in 1996 as a program of the Gill Foundation.

Remember, The Gill foundation seeks to secure opportunity for *All people* regardless of sexual orientation.

Now, let's have a boo at who is considered *Funding Priority* at the Gill foundation:

The Gill Foundation considers grant applications from national and statewide lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) organizations (in states other than Colorado), working to ensure equal opportunity for all people regardless of sexual orientation or gender expression.

I'm sure they just forgot to add the word heteronormative on the Grants page, because the way it stands right now, it seems awfully discriminatory.

Well, I'm sure the foundation itself hires non-gays, I mean, they are against discrimination of all kinds, and even in the survey which they themselves commissioned, a large % of gays say they weren't hired because of their sexual orientation, right? Let's count how many straights there are on the Gill Board. This will prove that the Gill foundation leads by example:

Urvashi Vaid was elected to the board of directors in September 2004. Widely recognized for her work as a gay rights activist and leader

0/1. That's okay, I'm sure the next two will be raving hetero's:

David was the first openly gay partner of Goldman Sachs and the most senior openly gay person on Wall Street at the time

I'm not giving up hope, the next guy looks totally straight:

Tim and his partner Scott Miller live in Denver, Colorado

I'm excited with all the diversity at the Gill Foundation.

Getting back to the survey, I'll save you some time: Every gay has been abused in one form or another. I know what you're thinking, you're thinking, I never discriminate against gays, my friends and family don't either, how is it possible that all these gay folk are being abused so much? First of all, get those thoughts out of your head, what are you, some sort of homophobe? Stop thinking how, and start asking what can we do as a society to help these tortured souls:

"These data highlight the continuing need for criminal justice programs to prevent and deter anti-gay crimes, as well as the need for victim services that will help to alleviate the physical, economic, social and psychological consequences of such crimes," Herek said.

More grants by gay foundations to *Doctors* to prove the prejudice against gays to secure more funding to The Gill foundation to give to doctors for more studies. Oui?

Now that's gay.

Candy-Assed Researchers Study Candy Smoking Kids

New research shows that if you smoked candy cigarettes as a child, you are more likely to smoke real cigarettes as an adult (as opposed to candy cigarettes as an adult, I suppose)

The study is the first to show a statistical link between a history with fake cigarettes and adult experiences with real smokes —22 percent of current or former smokers had also regularly consumed candy cigarettes, while only 14 percent of those who have never smoked had eaten or played with candy cigarettes often or very often.

I'm not so sure that's a cut and dry link between smoking Popeye's and smoking smokes, it all seems a bit weak. 22% to 14% is not a slam dunk.

If the researchers are trying to find out why smokers smoke and what drove them to smoking, ask the smokers if their parent were addicted to the evil weed. I'm sure you will find most smokers parents smoked, most likely in front of them, and probably in the house.

If you followed the reasoning of the researchers, then kids that played with dinky cars, FAST dinky cars, are more likely than kids that played with Tonka trucks to be fast drivers with no concern for others on the road. Or kids that played with toy guns have a better chance of turning into gun-wielding murderers as adults, that's simply ridiculous.

Compulsive/addictive personalities have more to do with why smokers smoke than candy cigarettes. Then again, maybe grant money wouldn't be given to researchers to find out something that's so blatantly obvious as that.

Smoke 'em if you got 'em!

Stopping the evolution of scientific research when it's convenient

A favoured way to avoid debate about global warming is to stuff ones ears with cotton, while proclaiming the issue has already been decided upon because there is consensus in the scientific community. Lawrence Solomon, writing for the National Post, has been chronicling the deniers and concludes diversity is in jeopardy.

Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists -- the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects -- and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction. Not only do most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional wisdom as represented by the IPCC [the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], many say their peers generally consider it to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in his field accepts the IPCC position.

What of the one claim that we hear over and over again, that 2,000 or 2,500 of the world's top scientists endorse the IPCC position? I asked the IPCC for their names, to gauge their views. "The 2,500 or so scientists you are referring to are reviewers from countries all over the world," the IPCC Secretariat responded. "The list with their names and contacts will be attached to future IPCC publications, which will hopefully be on-line in the second half of 2007.

An IPCC reviewer does not assess the IPCC's comprehensive findings. He might only review one small part of one study that later becomes one small input to the published IPCC report. Far from endorsing the IPCC reports, some reviewers, offended at what they considered a sham review process, have demanded that the IPCC remove their names from the list of reviewers. One even threatened legal action when the IPCC refused.

HT: Paul McKeever, leader of Freedom Party of Ontario.

I, Lisa, multicultural resident of Mitchieville and London, Ontario, atone for my sins. I failed to produce Friday Manflesh last night and I did not alert the proud citizens of Mitchieville to the danger of petri dish meat.

Oral Sex Linked To Throat Cancer

A John Hopkins study has revealed that a person is 9 times more likely to develop throat cancer if they have had oral with more than 6 partners:

A virus contracted through oral sex is the cause of some throat cancers, say US scientists.
HPV infection was found to be a much stronger risk factor than tobacco or alcohol use, the Johns Hopkins University study of 300 people found.

I'm sure most of Mitchieville's readership just pooed their pants.

That can't be right, what about people that have had oral sex with say....ah.....200 partners? Does that mean they're 6 thousand times more likely to develop throat cancer? Why can't I stop sweating? Why do I suddenly desire a Fisherman's Friend? Why do I want a Minister to read me Psalm 23?

Here's is another factoid that the sadists at John Hopkins would like you to know:

HPV infection is the cause of the majority of cervical cancers, and 80% of sexually active women can expect to have an HPV infection at some point in their lives.

All of a sudden masturbation seems very sexy.

It's official, you have a better chance at finding a person with a full set of teeth at a Willy Nelson concert than finding a disease-less woman.

Oh well, life sucks. Not for me, but for everyone else. I think the strangest part of this whole thing, is now that you are armed with this knowledge, the next time you're getting oral, you won't be able to concentrate on the deed taking place, you'll only be able to concentrate on that Willy Nelson remark I just made. Let's face it, that was pretty funny...an oldie but a goodie.

The Skinny on Manorexia

Harvard researchers reported their first results studying eating disorders, and came up with some startling results:

In a population of nearly 3,000 adults they found that 25 percent of those with anorexia or bulimia and 40 percent of binge eaters were men.

The authors called the rate "surprisingly high" because earlier studies had estimated that males accounted for about 10 percent of the cases of bulimia and anorexia, which can be fatal. Binge eating is not officially recognized as a psychiatric disorder and is not considered life-threatening, but its prevalence among men surprised some eating disorders specialists.

I suppose that manorexia is a serious disorder and all, but I can't help thinking that it seems like total bullshit, as I've never known a manorexic or even heard of one until I read this highly suspect article today.

If your friend is a manorexic, take him to Burger King and shove a Whopper down his little bitch face. How hard can that be, he's got an eating disorder, just like a girl.

The only time a guy doesn't eat is because he has no money. If a guy is swimming in dough, he eats. If he's broke, he smokes. Real men will never become *manorexics*. Manorexia is reserved for city types, guys that listen to show tunes, have been to The Vagina Monologues, and dig Bette Midler.

Manorexia is the new pink

Smoking Pot Does Make You Smarter

From The Halls Of Macadamia

When I was younger, and bear in mind we're going back 30 something years here, I had a friend who insisted that smoking dope made you smarter.

Trouble is, he didn't have ready access to a gazillion dollars worth of lab equipment and a dedicated cadre of grad students who could make that hypothesis scientifically credible.

Well, I guess it was only a matter of time.

THC, the key compound in marijuana, may also be the key to new drugs for Alzheimer's disease. That's because the marijuana compound blocks the formation of brain-clogging Alzheimer's plaques better than current Alzheimer's drugs.

The finding — in test-tube studies — comes from the lab of Kim Janda, Ph.D.

What I remember about smoking dope was that it made you want to lie around on that dusty old couch in somebody's partially finished basement... listening endlessly to the same Steppenwolf 8-track tape on a stereo that was cranked up so high you could've used it to sterilise house pets.

I also remember incredible munchies (a stupid word, dreamed up by a stoner, no doubt)... the undeniable need to pound back vast quantities of pizza, or anything even remotely resembling a foodstuff, like a herd of angry, starving locusts.

Now, truth be told, and I'm hoping my pre-adolescent son doesn't read this for at least another ten years, in my teens and twenties, I had a fairly casual relationship with recreational pharmaceuticals, and it did make me feel smarter... for a while.

Trouble is, thirty years and ten million less brain cells later, I'm not really sure if I'm really remembering it correctly at all.

Oh-oh.

Courtesy of the Halls Of Macadamia

Lesbians Have More Orgasms

Researchers in Australia have found that women having lesbian sex are more likely to reach orgasm than women who have straight sex:

Researchers found that 76 per cent of women who slept with another woman reached orgasm, compared to only 69 per cent who slept with men.

Considering that the female orgasm is nothing but a myth perpetrated by hysterical feminists, I find this study to be lacking truth and substance. But for the sake of argument, let's say that it is possible for a woman to reach orgasm, why is it that women are more likely to reach the big O with other women then with men?

Researchers claimed that the reason behind the findings was that men were selfish and concentrated mostly on themselves.

C'mon now, it's not as if the score was Dykes 76 and men 3, it was 76% to 69%. That's pretty close in the greater scheme of things. That's like a team that wins 3-2 in overtime, sure they won, but it was a pretty close game.

One possible reason why women experience orgasm more with other chicks is that women know each others bodies better then men do. When a woman starts working another woman, she has the distinct advantage of already knowing what she likes as a woman, therefore, she just transfers that knowledge onto the other chick. Where as men need to root around for a while, it's discovery time for guys. Generally, guys do to women what they think women would like. Most of the time guys get these twisted ideas from watching too much porn. "Ya, I bet you she really wants three fingers up her ass". No, I'm sorry, women generally don't want three fingers up their ass, that aint foreplay, that's sexual assault, my friend.

Given time, men will always make a woman reach orgasm, it's just that for the first while men are too busy exploring and taking in the scenery. Hell, men love making women reach orgasm. There is nothing better in this world when you can get your girlfriend/wife/prostitute to shake so much you think she's having an epileptic fit. The contorted look on the face of a woman when they shoot the moon is every guys greatest moment. It's the moment when a man can honestly say, "I made my woman tremble with delight, I took her to the greatest sexual heights possible, I made the ground tremble so much that you would swear Rosie O'Donnel was doing jumping-jacks in the bedroom. I am a man. Now make me some bacon and eggs, bitch".

OOOOOOOhhh Ya!

Women Are Smarter Than Men?

To answer the question to the pic posted, they come to Mitchieville. A new commenter, *l.m*, who resides at Whimpering Jello, responded to my award-winning post, Men Are Smart. Women? Not so Much, with a few well crafter thoughts that I'm sure you will enjoy:

From the information in your post I can conclude only that this study means that men perform better on the SAT than women. Interestingly enough, men also have written more successful novels, created more psychological theories and led more countries than women even though time and time again research has shown women to be more adept at linguistics and social interactions than men, so I'm hazarding a guess that there may be less of a level playing field out there than we would like to believe. But considering that women were only able to go to college, vote and own property within the last century, and still have to deal with ridiculous sexist social pressures even today, I don't think that we are performing all that badly. As far as who is smarter between males and females, I doubt it really matters, since the selfish biology and violent behavior of males will eventually reduce them to mindless, drone-like, video game playing, sperm donors of the future as they become less and less necessary to the rearing of the offspring. Nature seems to have this funny way of reducing what is extraneous to the species over the long haul.

I'm sure l.m. made some good points, but truth be told, I stopped reading her comment when I got to the words *sexual social pressure*.

If throwing in the words *sexual pressure* isn't a thinly-veiled attempt at seducing The Mayor, then I don't know what is. You don't become The Mayor of the 49th fastest growing community in N.E. Durham Region, Ontario, Canada by not being able to read clear-cut signs. And this my friends drips of sexual overtones. If you really want to *bag The Mayor*, l.m., just say so. Your fancy words are obviously just a cover up for something that is so transparent even a backwoods hillbilly with no frontal lobe can see.

l.m, here's some advice; if you want to get it on with a celebrity/politician/love machine, like myself, just send me a dirty email telling me how beautiful I am and how I make your goodie package drip with desire. And send some naked pics of yourself. Oh, right, and send Fenris money.

Anyway, I don't have time for these games, I am a very busy and important person. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go kill the neighbours dog with my bare hands, finish the rest of Halo II, and whack off to a picture of Adrianna Lima.