Re: POLITICS: Maternal Age

[Guest guest]

> Wow! Lots of detail. I didn't know all that ... but ... there has

been a study

> done recently that shows the biggest predictor for homosexuality in

> males is the number of boys born previously to that mother. If a

woman

> has 7 sons, the 7th is likely to be gay.

>

>

> Heidi [HJ] [HTG]

Next thought - there will be/are more gay men from Morman, Catholic

or fundamentalist (of any 'non-birth control' stripe) families than

from smaller, non-religious or pro-birth control families. (!?!) I

don't think that this is true. The lesbians I know are just as

frequently oldest or only children as they are sisters of brothers.

This thought could be tested. Anyone know of such a survey?

There are interesting hints here, but I would pass on making

personal decisions based on what is still early research.

I once knew a lovely Morman woman with 7 (going on 8) sons. She

miscarried all of her daughters (between each son it seemed). The

discovery of that information and a decision to look at why would

not have happened if she had had only, say, three children and then

stopped. I don't know the family now so I don't know if her 7th son

came out.

[Guest guest]

> Laurel,

> And what if the prospectivemother is not at all insulin-resistant?

> Good to go, you think?

> B.

I am insulin resistant and didn't know it. My muscles are insulin

resistant, but not my fat base. Oh joy! I did 5 hour glucose tolerance

tests and passed with flying colors so I thought I wasn't insulin

resistant, but Wiley pointed out the distinction between the muscles and

the fat base. I've got a weird mix. I kicked off puberty with PCOS

induced hospital visit. PCOS indicates androgenized female, but I've

been oddly fertile conceiving easily at 35 and 40 - easy as in pregnant

in one try. The androgenizing increases estrogen so perhaps I had

enough estrogen flowing to keep my FSH from screaming at my ovaries and

burning up all my eggs before I got to 40. So I was insulin resistant

as a 40 year old mom and I have a very tough little boy now. I suspect

an older perspective mom could calm her body with knowledgeable use of

rhythmic living to restore some peaks and valleys in her daily cortisol

secretion and get the insulin levels to follow. That would help with

the androgen problem and provide a less stressed womb environment.

Laurel

www.rhytmicliving.com

[Guest guest]

>Heidi, where did you read this? I've always wondered why so many of

>the gay men I know come from large, religious families (Catholic and

>Mormon mainly) despite incredible pressure NOT to be gay. This could

>*partially* explain it, but I think the formation of sexual preference

>is on the complicated side of things...

>

>

I read it in New Scientist, but it has been reported different places (see

below). It was discussed here too, I think. I've noticed exactly what you

have, and if this turns out to be true, then I think it is soooo ironic:

Catholic and Mormon churches push for big families AND they dislike

homosexuality! It seems there is a birth order effect for pedophilia

too, so the problems in the Catholic church make a lot of sense.

Hmm ... isn't the youngest son in a large family too?

But it makes a lot of sense. In rats they can make " gay rats " by changing

the hormonal balance in the mother rat. And with some species, like

turtles, the sex of the offspring actually changes depending on environment,

like temperature

of incubation. Most homosexuals don't regard themselves as having a " choice "

in the matter either. There are men who have sex with men that do NOT

regard themselves as homosexual, and for them I'd say it is a choice ...

but having sex doesn't seem to change their mental outlook or make

them want to join the " gay world " so I'd argue it's a brain development

issue.

Price made a big deal about nutrition and spacing kids out, and did not

seem to be in favor of large families. I tend to agree: longer spaces

between children, better nutrition, fewer kids = better kids statistically.

(even though also, statistically in our society, the majority of the

time it works out ok, not all younger sons are gay by any means).

-- Heidi Jean

http://www.hlrecord.org/news/2004/03/18/Opinion/Guest.Opinion.Homosexuality.Is.B\

iological.Not.Just.Genetic-636476.shtml?page=2

conception, there is no reason why a couple's third son, for instance, would

independently be more likely to be gay than their first - and yet this is

precisely what we find. With each successive son that a mother bears, the

greater the chances her next son will be gay (keeping in mind a baseline of

2-3%). This is the fraternal birth order effect. Higher numbers of older

brothers translate into a higher probability of male homosexuality. The proposed

theory is that when male fetal cells enter a mother's circulation, her immune

system recognizes them as foreign; this triggers antibodies, which enter the

fetus' brain and shift development away from a male-typical pathway (e.g. sexual

attraction to females). The strength of this immunization increases with each

male fetus, explaining why the chances of male homosexuality increase with each

older brother.

Two caveats are instructive. First, the fraternal birth order effect is limited

to males: the chances of homosexuality only increase with each older brother,

not sister, and there is no comparable effect for lesbians. Second, and quite

obviously, not all gay men have older brothers. It is estimated that fraternal

birth order accounts for the sexual orientation of 15-29% of gay men.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstra\

ct & list_uids=14989531

The cause(s) of the fraternal birth order effect in male homosexuality.

WH.

The Galton Laboratory, University College London, Wolfson House, 4 son

Way, London NW1 2HE.

It has been established that the probability that a man is homosexual is

positively related to his number of older brothers, but not older sisters when

the brothers are accounted for. This is known as the 'fraternal birth order'

effect. In the past, efforts have been made to explain this phenomenon in terms

of several alternative biological hypotheses and a psychosocial hypothesis. This

note examines how well these hypotheses accommodate the fraternal birth order

effect. It is concluded that: (1) the evidence for the hypothesis of maternal

immunoreactivity to the male fetus is weak; (2) the evidence for the

intrauterine hormone exposure hypothesis is also weak; (3) the evidence for the

hypothesis of postnatal learning is stronger. Lastly, there seem likely to be

causes common to male homosexuality and paedophilia. They may include sexual (or

quasi-sexual) experience in childhood or adolescence.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstra\

ct & list_uids=15305117

Birth order in sex-offending and aggressive-offending men.

MacCulloch SI, Gray NS, HK, J, MacCulloch MJ.

School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom.

maccullochs@...

The relation between birth order and number of sexual and violent convictions

was investigated retrospectively in a sample of 113 men, to determine whether

the established fraternal birth order effect in male homosexual preference and

deviant sexual preference (e.g., for rape and pedophilia) may be extended to

sexual behavior. Participants were mentally disordered offenders detained in a

medium secure psychiatric unit in the United Kingdom and comprised 64 men with

sexual convictions and 49 men with nonsexual violent convictions. Sibling data

from psychiatric notes were used to calculate Berglin's birth order index for

each participant and conviction data were obtained from the Home Office

Offenders' Index. Fraternal birth order was significantly correlated with number

of sexual convictions (p < or = .05). No association was found between fraternal

or sororal birth order and violent convictions in either the sex offender or

violent offender group. Results suggest that the fraternal birth order effect

previously found for deviant sexual preference in sex offenders (K. Cote, C. M.

Earls, & M. L. Lalumiere, 2002; M. L. Lalumiere, G. T. , V. L. Quinsey, &

M. E. Rice, 1998) also applies to sexually deviant behavior and is specific to

sexual rather than general offending. Results are discussed in terms of the

maternal immunosensitization hypothesis. Copyright 2004 Springer Science +

Business Media, Inc.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>I read it in New Scientist, but it has been reported different places (see

>below). It was discussed here too, I think. I've noticed exactly what you

>have, and if this turns out to be true, then I think it is soooo ironic:

>Catholic and Mormon churches push for big families AND they dislike

>homosexuality! It seems there is a birth order effect for pedophilia

>too, so the problems in the Catholic church make a lot of sense.

>Hmm ... isn't the youngest son in a large family too?

>

The incest and polygamy in the Mormon Church might be something else to

look at. An old friend of mine provided psychological services to

families and said incest was a big issue in Mormons.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

>Next thought - there will be/are more gay men from Morman, Catholic

>or fundamentalist (of any 'non-birth control' stripe) families than

>from smaller, non-religious or pro-birth control families. (!?!) I

>don't think that this is true. The lesbians I know are just as

>frequently oldest or only children as they are sisters of brothers.

There isn't any birth order link to lesbians, that they've found.

I would expect it would be hard to sample JUST religious families.

In such families I'd expect that any " gay " aspects in the younger

sons would be kept under wraps, and likely the son himself might

not acknowledge them (anyone see " Angels in America " ?). I suspect

there is a higher rate of homosexuality than is currently aknowledged,

for this reason.

But yeah, that is exactly what the studies are saying: gay men are

more likely to come from bigger families (which, at this point,

are more likely to be religious). But this only effects 20% or

so (depending on the study) of gay males.

I posted more on this, but I'm moving it to nt_politics ...

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:23:14 -0800, Heidi Schuppenhauer

<heidis@...> wrote:

>

>

> >[JESS] Heidi, where did you read this? I've always wondered why so many of

> >the gay men I know come from large, religious families (Catholic and

> >Mormon mainly) despite incredible pressure NOT to be gay.

[HJ] I've noticed exactly what you

> have, and if this turns out to be true, then I think it is soooo ironic:

> Catholic and Mormon churches push for big families AND they dislike

> homosexuality!

[JESS] Ain't it the truth...

[HJ] It seems there is a birth order effect for pedophilia

> too, so the problems in the Catholic church make a lot of sense.

[JESS] Yikes...this stat doesn't sit well with me as an overwhelming

number of pedophiles were abused themselves as children. My

uneasiness reflects my personal bias as I find pedophilia totally

unacceptable and disgusting but my attitude towards consensual

homosexual behavior is on the *ahem* liberal side TO SAY THE LEAST.

On the other hand, since sexual abuse is often sadly passed down in

families, perhaps there is a genetic factor as well--it's hard to

untangle the nature vs. nurture thang. I've had the opinion that most

priest abusers simply had nowhere to direct their sexual energy. But

pedophilia (unlike homosexuality IMO) is an aberration. All societies

have made incest a taboo (at least between immediate family members),

but incest still happens. I wonder if the incidence of

incest/pedophilia is greater in a malnourished society? Or (and this

thought makes me pretty uneasy) homosexuality, for that matter?

[HJ]> Hmm ... isn't the youngest son in a large family too?

[JESS] Yup. he's the baby of a very large Jehovah's Witness family.

[HJ] I tend to agree: longer spaces

> between children, better nutrition, fewer kids = better kids statistically.

> (even though also, statistically in our society, the majority of the

> time it works out ok, not all younger sons are gay by any means).

[JESS] I agree with Price's kid spacing idea, but I don't like the gay

= not OK idea that you imply above. Maybe this isn't what you

intended to express...but I couldn't let it slip by.

[Guest guest]

> [JESS] I agree with Price's kid spacing idea, but I don't like the

gay

> = not OK idea that you imply above. Maybe this isn't what you

> intended to express...but I couldn't let it slip by.

>

>

Thanks, . I was about to post on this as well. All too

often no one speaks up when this group is denigrated. And all too

often the value to society of having " spare " adults is overlooked.

Most traditional societies had lots of people who were NOT in

heterosexual couples producing kids - aunts, uncles,

widows/widowers, " dedicated " people of various stripes. And it was

practically speaking from these folks that culture/art/science was

most likely to come - really, exactly how much focus can a guy who

has 6-12 mouths to feed or a woman with 4-6 kids dedicate to

painting or whatever (especially if he/she has little help)?

On a nutrition, maternal environment and genetics basis - doesn't

more food = more kids and wouldn't so many kids mean that the food

supply (if not in this generation but in the next) be at risk? And

having fewer breeders be a good thing?

Connie H.

[Guest guest]

-

>I wonder if the incidence of

>incest/pedophilia is greater in a malnourished society? Or (and this

>thought makes me pretty uneasy) homosexuality, for that matter?

Better that people who are in favor of civil rights for gays think such

thoughts for in case they prove to be true than to leave them to gay rights

opponents to bollix up and use against gays.

-

[Guest guest]

>[JESS] Yikes...this stat doesn't sit well with me as an overwhelming

>number of pedophiles were abused themselves as children. My

>uneasiness reflects my personal bias as I find pedophilia totally

>unacceptable and disgusting but my attitude towards consensual

>homosexual behavior is on the *ahem* liberal side TO SAY THE LEAST.

[HJ] I agree, and most counsellors agree it is really bad for the kids.

There is a strong historical connection between pedophilia and

homosexuality -- I don't think it is the " norm " though, and there is

also a strong link between homosexuality and empathy, and a

really empathetic person wouldn't be aggressive sexually. But one

issue is that homosexuals in our society are sometimes really at odds

with themselves because of the taboo against their own nature,

and I think mental confusion makes people act in extremely odd

ways. That would be more true if you were born to a very

religious, large, happy family (but just happened to like guys

better that gals).

>[JESS] On the other hand, since sexual abuse is often sadly passed down in

>families, perhaps there is a genetic factor as well--it's hard to

>untangle the nature vs. nurture thang. I've had the opinion that most

>priest abusers simply had nowhere to direct their sexual energy.

[HJ] Seems if it were simply a case of repressed energy, they would

go for young women? Certainly young women are the normal targets,

and they are easily coerced, esp. by men in power.

> [JESS] I wonder if the incidence of

>incest/pedophilia is greater in a malnourished society? Or (and this

>thought makes me pretty uneasy) homosexuality, for that matter?

[HJ] I haven't seen anything along those lines for homosexuality

.... the incidence of violence and insanity certainly goes up with

malnutrition, so that might affect incest.

> [JESS] I agree with Price's kid spacing idea, but I don't like the gay

>= not OK idea that you imply above. Maybe this isn't what you

>intended to express...but I couldn't let it slip by.

[HJ] Sorry, I DID NOT intend to mean gay=not OK, my bad. Actually

I had just finished reading the bit about pedophilia, so I was

thinking more of that. Statistically more gays are born to small

families anyway (there are more small families than big ones). I tend

to like the " allele " theory, that humans have alleles for empathy etc.

that get " turned on " in specific instances, and perhaps gay men have

more of these " on " than straight men ... so if I were to be judgemental

at all it would be in favor of *more* " gayness " in men rather than

less. I try to avoid " good " and " bad " judgements though: " helpful "

and " harmful " are easier to analyze.

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/em_homosexuality.html

A plausible possibility for the heterosexual reproduction increasing effects of

a pleitropic homosexuality producing gene would be found in the feminine traits

of sensitivity, kindness, empathy etc. that are frequently exhibited by

homosexuals. These traits would often make for a better father (see discussion

later).

They may be more risk adverse and avoid the costs of inter-male contests (this

point was suggested by Mike Wallace). Werner (1998) has made this point,

suggesting a simple system where two " homosexual " alleles made for a homosexual,

and none for a dominant male who died early in fighting, while one with a single

allele of the homosexual type was most succesful. He ended his essay with

Jesus's comment " Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. "

It is easy to imagine that in most males these traits help attract females, and

hence lead to greater reproductive success. Indeed, one reason why they might be

attractive to potential mates would be that they contribute to being good

fathers and good providers. The typical male without homosexuality related genes

may be too masculine for optimal reproductive success (how this could come to

happen will be discussed later), and greater femininity on a number of

dimensions could contribute to his reproductive success.

>

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

[CONNIE] And all too

> often the value to society of having " spare " adults is overlooked.

> Most traditional societies had lots of people who were NOT in

> heterosexual couples producing kids - aunts, uncles,

> widows/widowers, " dedicated " people of various stripes. And it was

> practically speaking from these folks that culture/art/science was

> most likely to come - really, exactly how much focus can a guy who

> has 6-12 mouths to feed or a woman with 4-6 kids dedicate to

> painting or whatever (especially if he/she has little help)?

[JESS] Gorgeous point, Connie! It's not an accident that many of our

culture's amazing artists/writers/thinkers have been gay. In fact,

the gay friends I have are some of the most interesting people I know!

And fun! And smart! Sure, it's anecdotal, but IME it's just the

truth.

>

> [CONNIE] On a nutrition, maternal environment and genetics basis - doesn't

> more food = more kids and wouldn't so many kids mean that the food

> supply (if not in this generation but in the next) be at risk? And

> having fewer breeders be a good thing?

[JESS] Hear hear! I know there are those on this list that think the

overpopulation problem is a myth, but I disagree. I might be getting

myself into hot water here (mainly because I haven't done the research

to back up my assumptions) but REALISTICALLY, could the population of

the world survive if everyone went NT??? How about GF or low carb

NT??? How sustainable is our model given the current population? Not

very IMO, if cities as we know them continue to exist and a local

focus remained (very NT). Now this is an ON TOPIC debate question

(and Deanna: take note!) My father (a libertarian btw!!!)

claims my way of eating is totally non-sustainable and if everyone

demanded organic food and ate as many animal products as I do, there

would be widespread famine and the world economy would collapse.

Maybe not a bad thing...seems like the US is heading that way in any

case.

[Guest guest]

-

>How sustainable is our model given the current population?

Not. I've read estimates that the US could support 200 million people

sustainably (i.e. without inorganic inputs to the land) but I doubt that

accounts for good nutrition, so it's probably very optimistic.

>My father (a libertarian btw!!!)

>claims my way of eating is totally non-sustainable and if everyone

>demanded organic food and ate as many animal products as I do, there

>would be widespread famine and the world economy would collapse.

Ask your father what he thinks is going to happen when there's widespread

disaster because the land stops producing due to abuse under the current model.

-

[Guest guest]

> Better that people who are in favor of civil rights for gays think such

> thoughts for in case they prove to be true than to leave them to gay rights

> opponents to bollix up and use against gays.

>

> -

You know, you're right. Even if I did come to the conclusion that

gayness was caused by malnutrition, I certainly wouldn't let that

conclusion prompt me to want to denigrate the civil rights of those

" afflicted. "

[Guest guest]

> Ask your father what he thinks is going to happen when there's widespread

> disaster because the land stops producing due to abuse under the current

model.

>

> -

Knowing my pops, he'd answer " I'll be dead by then so who cares? " I

love him, but he loves to be ornery just for fun. His favorite

pasttime is to play devil's advocate without stating that he's doing

so.

[Guest guest]

>My father (a libertarian btw!!!)

>claims my way of eating is totally non-sustainable and if everyone

>demanded organic food and ate as many animal products as I do, there

>would be widespread famine and the world economy would collapse.

>Maybe not a bad thing...seems like the US is heading that way in any

>case.

>

>

I'm absolutely with you on overpopulation, but as to NT being unsustainable,

I disagree. Way back in the '70's, " Diet for a small planet " was making the

point that grass fed animals ... esp. animals like goats ... take way fewer

resources than your average grain crop. Your average house with a yard

could provide much of the family's greens and vegies (instead of a lawn,

if need be) and they are already using goats to graze land that needs to

be kept cleared for fire reasons. In those crowded, picturesque Italian

hillside cities, goats, chickens, and gardens were sustained. In crowded

California, there are thousands of acres of grassland that are *mowed*

to prevent fire hazard. Those acres could easily sustain cows and goats.

Goats love kudzu too. Right now cities are using trucks to haul lawn clippings

and " yard waste " to landfills and for composting: if each block had a herd

of goats and some gardens, you'd save a bunch of oil AND have local food.

Plus there is a lot of vacant land, as local farmers have gone out of business

trying to compete with agribusiness: put that farmland back into production,

it won't be quite as efficient as the factory-intensive farms, but the produce

will be better.

Anyway, our household now gets 1 steer a year, which has grazed for a few

years on some grass that wouldn't be used for anything else otherwise.

We grow our eggs from chickens that also eat our household leftovers,

and we grow much of our own produce. We use a lot less farmland than

we would if we ate factory cows fed on corn and produce from the market.

Next year I'm experimenting with growing meat chickens from the

leftovers of our one steer. But all in all, it's a very efficient way to feed

people!

However, if everyone ate like us, the economy MIGHT collapse, since all

those food manufacturers would lose their market.

>

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>> Better that people who are in favor of civil rights for gays think such

>> thoughts for in case they prove to be true than to leave them to gay rights

>> opponents to bollix up and use against gays.

>>

>> -

And since I'm the one who bollixed up MY post, I should

add that most child abusers are heterosexual, and young

girls are the most victimized. They just don't get as much

press.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

> [HJ] Seems if it were simply a case of repressed energy, they would

> go for young women? Certainly young women are the normal targets,

> and they are easily coerced, esp. by men in power.

[JESS] I wouldn't be surprised if many young women get abused by

priests as well--and what about nuns? Probably not as much sexual

abuse there, but the stories one hears about corporal punishment

inflicted by nuns is horrendous. Have you seen " The Magdalene

Sisters? " A true story of an asylum for pregnant and wayward young

women in Ireland run by some pretty scary nuns. As far as I can tell,

requiring humans with power to repress their sexuality is a BAAAAAAAAD

idea. The news stories do seem to suggest that it is mainly

homosexual pedophilia that goes on in Catholic parishes--but perhaps

this sells more papers. I will say that priests, being self-selected

for the most part and presumably attracted to an all-male seminary

life, would automatically be more likely to be gay. Also, priesthood

is a good way to escape marriage, if one so desires.

[Guest guest]

> [HJ] I'm absolutely with you on overpopulation, but as to NT being

unsustainable,

> I disagree. Way back in the '70's, " Diet for a small planet " was making the

> point that grass fed animals ... esp. animals like goats ... take way fewer

> resources than your average grain crop.

[JESS] LOL! I went to high school with Frances Lappe's daughter,

. The book does IIRC advocate a grain-based veggie diet. is

now vegetarian advocate #1 at my food coop...sigh.

>[HJ] Your average house with a yard

> could provide much of the family's greens and vegies (instead of a lawn,

> if need be) and they are already using goats to graze land that needs to

> be kept cleared for fire reasons. In those crowded, picturesque Italian

> hillside cities, goats, chickens, and gardens were sustained.

[JESS] Heidi, I love your model, but I'm thinking Manhattan here...we

are SO vertical. I live in 800 square feet with no yard--and that's

considered a decent amount of space for two people here. My choice,

sure, but if you spread us out suburb-style, we'd be the size of Utah

or something. One thing about my city is that most folks don't own

cars, so we are actually " greener " than the average suburb in terms of

oil consumption. There was a great article in the New Yorker about

this not too long ago.

[Guest guest]

>[JESS] I wouldn't be surprised if many young women get abused by

>priests as well--and what about nuns? Probably not as much sexual

>abuse there, but the stories one hears about corporal punishment

>inflicted by nuns is horrendous. Have you seen " The Magdalene

>Sisters? " A true story of an asylum for pregnant and wayward young

>women in Ireland run by some pretty scary nuns. As far as I can tell,

>requiring humans with power to repress their sexuality is a BAAAAAAAAD

>idea. The news stories do seem to suggest that it is mainly

>homosexual pedophilia that goes on in Catholic parishes--but perhaps

>this sells more papers. I will say that priests, being self-selected

>for the most part and presumably attracted to an all-male seminary

>life, would automatically be more likely to be gay. Also, priesthood

>is a good way to escape marriage, if one so desires.

[Heidi] I'd agree on all counts. My Mom was educated by nuns, and she

had some stories! " Sexual abuse " in general though, seems to be mainly

a male thing (though there are women who are guilty of it). I asked a

guy once why guys didn't get attacked by women and he said " Well,

if I did, I certainly wouldn't call it a *problem*! "

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>

>[JESS] Heidi, I love your model, but I'm thinking Manhattan here...we

>are SO vertical. I live in 800 square feet with no yard--and that's

>considered a decent amount of space for two people here. My choice,

>sure, but if you spread us out suburb-style, we'd be the size of Utah

>or something. One thing about my city is that most folks don't own

>cars, so we are actually " greener " than the average suburb in terms of

>oil consumption. There was a great article in the New Yorker about

>this not too long ago.

[HJ] Yeah, well Manhattan and Las Vegas would be goners as far as

locally produced food. Los Angeles too. Still, there is more potential

for " small acreage " than folks account for. Most of the estimates

I've seen are for larger farms using conventional farming methods,

which are extremely wasteful and only use THE most productive

acreage. I've been amazed at how much I can grow just on my deck

in a planter, and if I had a greenhouse I'd bet I could do it all year.

I'd guess I could grow meat chickens year round too, on a deck,

and they'd provide plenty of fertilizer. People in apartments manage

to keep dogs and cats, after all ...

It's funny/tragic about ... back when I read the book most of

what I recalled was about the grass fed beef part, not the vegetarian

part. My bias, I guess.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

> " Sexual abuse " in general though, seems to be mainly

> a male thing (though there are women who are guilty of it). I asked a

> guy once why guys didn't get attacked by women and he said " Well,

> if I did, I certainly wouldn't call it a *problem*! "

LOL! Actually, his comment sheds some light on why we have had to

fight so hard for sexual abuse, rape, and incest to be talked about

and treated as crimes--men can't imagine NOT wanting sex!

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>However, if everyone ate like us, the economy MIGHT collapse, since all

>those food manufacturers would lose their market.

Ehh, just export all that crap to the third world like they want to do with

cigarettes. <g>

-

[Guest guest]

-

>Knowing my pops, he'd answer " I'll be dead by then so who cares? " I

>love him, but he loves to be ornery just for fun. His favorite

>pasttime is to play devil's advocate without stating that he's doing

>so.

Hmm, well, I guess you can always retort " Don't you care about me? " .

-

[Guest guest]

>Ehh, just export all that crap to the third world like they want to do with

>cigarettes. <g>

>

>-

" Want to " ? I thought they already were.

Heidi Jean