So...are we talking about Swan monogamy or situational or temporary monogamy? Because last time I checked the majority of Americans or others haven't had just one partner. Nor, even if they have, do they keep those "feelings" of relationship to one individual (Such as that soulmate feeling, sex-free.)

You could argue that boning, fucking, sucking, dating people until you decide it is convenient to settle down is monogamy, and that's fine. Well, right until most people leave/cheat/explore. Then they gotta get back into the routine eventually, because you know it's so natural...

You are born human, sexual, primal, and society tames you. You are born uncircumcised, and who tells you it is wrong? Religious freaks. Who tells you missionary is right, and sex is for procreation? Society. Basically, anything that Rome and Greece did, after they committed atrocities around the world, is now considered wrong. Orgies, emperors, GAY SEX, etc. Coincidence? Probably not.

Tell me Chaos, who did tell you polyamory was "learned"? Biologists? Or society? Or some crappy half-witted data that just says so?

No, devil's advocate here is the same, to me, as devil's advocate against homosexuals.

At least that's my heartfelt belief. I was once wholly monogamous, even turned down a threesome with my first girlfriend. Then I realized that marriage was based on ownership, a very human trait, but monogamy is inconvenient for damn near everyone who practices it.

I think the bigger issue is not with difference in the facility that's housing inmates, it's the inmates themselves. That and the difference in the number of inmates being housed.

Prisons in America are filled with the closest that human beings can be to wild animals where their primal instincts guide most of their actions at all times. It's a cultural problem, in that such people are also like that before going to prison, so if they were placed into a luxurious retreat as shown in this video, it wouldn't work except with a small subset of prisoners.

Wild animals don't care much about being civil or civilized because that would mean demonstrating weakness, and a man in that position cannot afford to be made to look weak (as Mr. Woltz kind of said in The Godfather).

The primary goal of most prisoners in America with relation to everyone around them is to ensure they are perceived as tough. That means 10 prisoners sharing a living area will only be peaceful as long as it takes for someone to feel someone else is looking at them in a manner they dislike or until one guy bumps into another or one guy simply wants to assert his dominance as an alpha male by beating or shanking or raping another guy.

I don't think American prisoners need to be caged and punished like animals, just that when violent American criminals are being imprisoned, what you're doing in most cases is caging animals, regardless of how well or poorly the cage is designed.

Here's a list of the movies for those who don't want to watch the entire 9 minutes:

[spoiler]
10. identity
9. one flew over the cuckoo's nest
8. no country for old men
7. saw
6. rosemary's baby
5. the silence of the lambs
4. primal fear
3. the empire strikes back
2. se7en
1. the usual suspects
[/spoiler]

Rockin' youngsters honin' their chops on the streets-Garage is making a move again-we need a douche after the last 20 years of rap, shit-pop, and indie-I'm tired of hipster's music as well, I'm with Eric Cartman on that one....sorry oritteropo

More destroy the machine vocalists and raw, primal tones-More live music with mixed instrumentation as well-Return to roots

Here is a approximation of a human face. We are going to flash it up in front of you, probably with a sudden sound. You know its coming but it doesn't matter because that primal part of your brain will shit itself before the more civilised parts can stop it. It'll keep working too, as long as its a "face" you don't recognise.

May this be a lesson in how you are still a scared monkey, even if most of the time you do a good impression of something else.

>> ^Deano:

You know this suddenly makes me genuinely concerned as to whether I've been caught doing this but they've let it go. I was working with a lady last week and I was so darn bored I just kept peeking glances, I really couldn't help myself.
After leaving I barely recall doing it until I really thought about it.
Any tips for avoidance? I'm serious! I don't want to give undue offence.

She totally noticed. Doesn't matter how discrete you think you were. She noticed. Hell, I've been behind a girl checking out her ass for split second and I could tell she knew when our eyes met. She knew I knew she knew too. Awkward.


No but seriously. Lets talk tactics. Those guys who wear sunglasses indoors during winter? Its not because they have some ugly eye infection, its because they want to look wherever they fucking please without being judged. Downsides? They get judged to be douches anyway because they're wearing sunglasses indoors in the middle of winter.

Another option is just to drill yourself into looking into her eyes. Imagine they are a pair of perfectly pert breasts and the pupils are the nipples. Downsides? She'll be able to see right into your lust filled soul. She may call the police or take out a restraining order.

Next - adopt a gay lisp, get totally up to date on fashion/clothes. Be that guy. That way you can happily look at the breasts, hell you can even comment on them, suggest clothes that might better accentuate her curves. Its pretty much all fair game when your a gay best friend. Cons - Your her gay best friend. Looking at those breasts/any breasts is all you're ever going to be able to do unless you pull the whole "I think you made me turn straight" thing which is a huge gambit.

4th - Masturbate furiously at every opportunity. Keep your libido as low as possible at all times. I personally used this method for much of my teen years with some success. Its not fool proof but its generally better than nothing. Cons - blindness (although this also serves to solve your problem).

Lastly you could just try to be yourself and hope women aren't too offended by your primal desire to reproduce. If you are attracted to her even more so than normal then consider asking her out. Perving over somebody is somewhat more socially acceptable if you are dating. Hell, maybe love will blossom. Cons - she might say no.

Thats all I got. Hope it helps.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I'm not against having outlets for pure unfettered self-expression, but much like a primal scream therapy session, it doesn't lend itself to real communication very well.>> ^gorillaman:

>> ^dag:
Is there a movement to accountabilise the web? I sure haven't seen much evidence of it. Most places I visit - it's pretty much anything goes.
I don't think it's just honesty and dumbfuckery. It's more about what the article describes, the feeling that "it's just a game" and a fantasy outlet for expressing sublimated rage, sadness etc in a "safe" way (without a chance of retribution).
I agree with @ReverendTed that scaling moderation by members is the way to handle lots and lots of comments.

Why do you think so many need an anonymous outlet for expression? Our culture is so repressive, on an individual scale, and that fear of retribution is real. I think the instinct that the internet is another world where we can reinvent ourselves is something to be encouraged rather than dismissed as a game or a fantasy. We're able to communicate now unburdened by circumstances or the disapproval of our peers. I'd say the less this reality interpenetrates with the lower world the better.
Personally there's almost no difference between my online and offline behaviour, except when I talk to my boss, but most people are more social than I am; they have more people pushing down on them and more to lose if they push back. So let them have their freedom, some might even have something worthwhile to say.

I guess that is because they look at it as a temporary diet (Yoyo dieting) and not a change in their diet for the rest of their lives... I'm a (self-described) "carbaholic" and as such when I "fall of the wagon" I eat carbs like nobodies business (as in 4 doughnuts, a pound of chocolate, about a gallon of soda and energy drinks, 3-6 candy bars and ~2 pounds of assorted pick-and-mix candy every single day). As it is now I will never return to a carb heavy diet because I cannot handle it, in the same way that an alcoholic can't handle drinking just one beer. And not to go all Ad-Hominem on you but as an MD you are specialised on disease and not health.

I recommend that you look at this page as it has 17 links to 17 RCT studies on the effects of LCHF diets.

Also from the mayo clinic which I assume is a pretty good source: "There have been a number of studies comparing weight loss with these two types of diets [LCHF/HCLF - My clarification]. In general, low-carb diets may result in a little more weight loss in the first 3 to 6 months. However, after 1 to 2 years there isn't much difference. What's interesting is that the amount of weight loss varies widely among people following either diet. So which type of diet you choose may matter less than whether you stick to it."
On an LCHF diet where you are full all and have a stable blood sugar level all the time it is a lot easier to stay on the diet and not splurge... (Kind of an anecdote... see my previous post in this thread)

Also some more science posts here
1 LCHF vs. HCLF diet (I recommend reading all of it)
2 (A full text from 2002 that might not be available for all [I logged on my Uni resources to search databases for the it] and it is a decade old but still a bit interesting. Name of the study is: Very-low-carbohydrate weight-loss diets revisited. Authors: Volek JS; Westman EC in case you need to search for it on Google scholar or the like)
3 Long term (1 year +) effects

I'm drunk right now so can't be arsed to find more sources.. it is Friday Damn it!!


>> ^DocDarm:

>> ^pyloricvalve:
In "Why we get fat", Gary Taubes argues very persuasively that the above is almost entirely wrong. Increasing exercise will have have the effect of increasing hunger or reducing your activity at other times through tiredness. Eating less will likewise reduce your activity level or lead to levels of hunger that are intolerable in the long term. The way to lose weight according to him is the Atkins, South Beach, Primal method of reducing sugar and carb intake to something very low. Personally I found it very convincing and I strongly recommend the book.

As a medical doctor, I call bullshit on this guy. Look at Atkins/South Beach's effect on peoples weight 1 year AFTER the diet. I see people go on diets all the time. They almost universally fail after 1 year. (Remember, we're talking about LONG-TERM weight loss, not SHORT-TERM weight loss...Atkins/South Beach perform very well in the short term!) My patients that go to the gym to lose weight do much, much better....but only if they KEEP going to the gym.

You seem like a really reasonable person. Gary Taubes is probably the best authority on weightloss and health right now. Regardless of what the MD's say.

In reply to this comment by pyloricvalve:
That's interesting. When you say people fail, do they start to eat sugar and carbs again and get fat or do they stay not eating sugar and carbs and even so start to get fat again. If it is the former it doesn't mean it's not the correct way to lose weight, it just means people need more determination not to eat sugar and carbs. My impression is that the usual prescription of eat less exercise more is also very hard to maintain in the long run.

Again I strongly recommend the book. It's not so much a diet book as a book about the evolution of the dietary science.

>> ^DocDarm:

>> ^pyloricvalve:
In "Why we get fat", Gary Taubes argues very persuasively that the above is almost entirely wrong. Increasing exercise will have have the effect of increasing hunger or reducing your activity at other times through tiredness. Eating less will likewise reduce your activity level or lead to levels of hunger that are intolerable in the long term. The way to lose weight according to him is the Atkins, South Beach, Primal method of reducing sugar and carb intake to something very low. Personally I found it very convincing and I strongly recommend the book.

As a medical doctor, I call bullshit on this guy. Look at Atkins/South Beach's effect on peoples weight 1 year AFTER the diet. I see people go on diets all the time. They almost universally fail after 1 year. (Remember, we're talking about LONG-TERM weight loss, not SHORT-TERM weight loss...Atkins/South Beach perform very well in the short term!) My patients that go to the gym to lose weight do much, much better....but only if they KEEP going to the gym.

That's interesting. When you say people fail, do they start to eat sugar and carbs again and get fat or do they stay not eating sugar and carbs and even so start to get fat again. If it is the former it doesn't mean it's not the correct way to lose weight, it just means people need more determination not to eat sugar and carbs. My impression is that the usual prescription of eat less exercise more is also very hard to maintain in the long run.

Again I strongly recommend the book. It's not so much a diet book as a book about the evolution of the dietary science.

>> ^DocDarm:

>> ^pyloricvalve:
In "Why we get fat", Gary Taubes argues very persuasively that the above is almost entirely wrong. Increasing exercise will have have the effect of increasing hunger or reducing your activity at other times through tiredness. Eating less will likewise reduce your activity level or lead to levels of hunger that are intolerable in the long term. The way to lose weight according to him is the Atkins, South Beach, Primal method of reducing sugar and carb intake to something very low. Personally I found it very convincing and I strongly recommend the book.

As a medical doctor, I call bullshit on this guy. Look at Atkins/South Beach's effect on peoples weight 1 year AFTER the diet. I see people go on diets all the time. They almost universally fail after 1 year. (Remember, we're talking about LONG-TERM weight loss, not SHORT-TERM weight loss...Atkins/South Beach perform very well in the short term!) My patients that go to the gym to lose weight do much, much better....but only if they KEEP going to the gym.

>> ^pyloricvalve:

In "Why we get fat", Gary Taubes argues very persuasively that the above is almost entirely wrong. Increasing exercise will have have the effect of increasing hunger or reducing your activity at other times through tiredness. Eating less will likewise reduce your activity level or lead to levels of hunger that are intolerable in the long term. The way to lose weight according to him is the Atkins, South Beach, Primal method of reducing sugar and carb intake to something very low. Personally I found it very convincing and I strongly recommend the book.


As a medical doctor, I call bullshit on this guy. Look at Atkins/South Beach's effect on peoples weight 1 year AFTER the diet. I see people go on diets all the time. They almost universally fail after 1 year. (Remember, we're talking about LONG-TERM weight loss, not SHORT-TERM weight loss...Atkins/South Beach perform very well in the short term!) My patients that go to the gym to lose weight do much, much better....but only if they KEEP going to the gym.

>> ^pyloricvalve:

In "Why we get fat", Gary Taubes argues very persuasively that the above is almost entirely wrong. Increasing exercise will have have the effect of increasing hunger or reducing your activity at other times through tiredness. Eating less will likewise reduce your activity level or lead to levels of hunger that are intolerable in the long term. The way to lose weight according to him is the Atkins, South Beach, Primal method of reducing sugar and carb intake to something very low. Personally I found it very convincing and I strongly recommend the book.


Yup, I've done Keto combined with Intermittent Fasting (I usually eat one meal a day after I get home from work, sometimes I eat lunch too if we go out and eat at my workplace) and I've lost ~30 kg (~66 pounds) in 5-6 months and I have not been hungry once since I entered ketosis. No exercise involved at all either. (Yes yes... 1 data point does not a fact make, especially when they are subjective feelings)

So instead of eating sugar with more sugar and fat-free foods with added sugar in it to make it palatable... eat natural full-fat products and protein and be full all day... or you could eat sugar and have an insulin spike 30 mins later and end up with a lower blood sugar than you started with... unless you eat again. Ergo the "You should 5 meals a day" thing.

Some linky things
Scientific sources about the effects of Ketogenic Diet
1 Cancer
2 Alzheimers
3 Diabetes (Type 2)
4 Cardiovascular health and Dietary saturated fat
5 Review of LC diet and health markers

Blog
6 Cholesterol (Blog by a doctor so iffy source but interesting stuff anyway; I recommend reading all parts really)
7 How we came to believe cholesterol and fat is bad for us (From the same blog. 1 hour talk on the subject)

Video series/lectures
8 Cancer again (Video lecture)
9 The role of fat in weight loss (Video series, 3 parts)
10 Why we get fat (Video series, 3 parts)
11 2011 Public Forum in San Francisco at Nutrition and Health Conference (Video series, 4 part playlist)

You can also look into some of the videos on the sift such as:
12 The Food Revolution (Video/lecture sifted on VS)
13 Sugar the bitter truth.

(Seems they are both sifted by me... Oh my... self promotion galore!)

In "Why we get fat", Gary Taubes argues very persuasively that the above is almost entirely wrong. Increasing exercise will have have the effect of increasing hunger or reducing your activity at other times through tiredness. Eating less will likewise reduce your activity level or lead to levels of hunger that are intolerable in the long term. The way to lose weight according to him is the Atkins, South Beach, Primal method of reducing sugar and carb intake to something very low. Personally I found it very convincing and I strongly recommend the book.

Yeah...the day we get a virus, bacteria, or straight up parasitic organism that can tell our brains to do certain things--I'm quiting the human species (I might be overstating it, but I certainly will become very paranoid concerning certain conditions, if you understand me), assuming it looks like this is going to be able to be spread via a fairly hardy species of: younameit. Zombies are one thing, but seriously I REALLY, REALLY, do not want these type of attacks to EVER reach us. Could you even imagine?

On the other side of things, I wonder if that is considered as the best dump evAr.(?) Second, it seems like it just a GREAT species as it seemingly has atleast two worms from the onset of infection (although it looked to me as though there was atleast one more still to come). I mean can the Praying Mantis even survive this event? Is it now the Prayed Upon Mantis instead?

All of the fungi, insects, and other species that use mind or nuerochemicals on their prey and then FORCE their prey to do any sort of commands to do miscellaneous things (like this one, get to water the natural home for that creature). It's literally amazing and terrifying at the same time. My scientific side is extremely engrossed by this and I'm literally in wonder at the amazing biochemistry at play--needed to do this hijack of the mind and to literally reboot it with a new program that told a FOREIGN BODY, something with literally no connection to the predator, it took control and got that body to go to a body of water so that the "litter" could hatch in their primal environment--a TRUE wonder of evolution, even though it is used in such a terrible way, it may have huge things in store for us research wise.

I'm waiting for the day that one of these little bastards makes a little leap and crosses-over and affects humans. Could you even begin to imagine the panic? I imagine that whatever it is would be much like smallpox and shortly after a few infections it would be eliminated from the face of the planet.

The thing I do like about auto-tune is that it enables those that NEVER, atleast in front of the public, to sing. There is something primal and deeply connecting about music and song, it connects with us in ways we never get connected to, especially emotionally. It calms us, it brings a grand hush to those listening intently (and if there not listening intently, they are the idiots in the mosh pit) as though something profound may be learned at any moment.

For those that did bring so much to the world, like the Carl Sagan auto-tune, it had the same response... You shut-up, listened and believe it or not there was a profound message in that one AND there is one here, but on a much smaller scale. I'd love to see more of our most beloved humans and those of the humanities that have given us all so much get this treatment, but only if done with the same amount of respect as this one had and Carl Sagan had as well.

Music and song strangely seems to access a part of us that destroys the worst motivations in us, atleast for awhile--as long as you're listening (although if you're the one creating it, I'm not so sure; I think you must be a savant for that to happen). Next to our ability to reason and create, this is by far our next most powerful ability.

I hope to hear more. I hope they take their time.