May The Sluttiest, Male Or Female, Come Forward (Or Just Come And Get It Over With)

November 6, 2008 11:27 AM

I'm neither a psychologist or a statistician, but perhaps some nations are sluttier than others.And I'd like to know which. Or whether this is, academically or instinctually, just another steaming - yet amusing - pile of the vilest-smelling bull poo.

Warning: It's a pdf file and, to boot (for boot you may have to), a relatively new discipline, open to amiable derision and charming condescension. And yet the facts are here: Asian and Portuguese women are inherently honourable, whereas the rest of the female population skews as humanly as possible and desirable. How can you look yourselves in the mirror? Is the question we moral - not "moron" - nations ask? If you're open to dinner, for example, our Weltanschauung may change like a butterfly.

posted by MiguelCardoso (99 comments total)

And yet the facts are here: Asian and Portuguese women are inherently honourable

You have very interesting ideas about what constitutes a "fact."
posted by nanojath at 11:34 AM on November 6, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

Can someone plug this into Google Maps and extrapolate where the poontang at
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 11:35 AM on November 6, 2008 [24 favorites has favorites]

Four out of five statisticians recommend standard deviations for their patients who are sluts.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:36 AM on November 6, 2008 [6 favorites has favorites]

And yet the facts are here: Asian and Portuguese women are inherently honourable

This word -- "fact"?

It doesn't mean what you think it means.
posted by jason's_planet at 11:41 AM on November 6, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

If there were ever a paper that deserved to have the type Resluts this one is it.
posted by srboisvert at 11:42 AM on November 6, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

typo...dammit!
posted by srboisvert at 11:43 AM on November 6, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]

This research seems to set a new standard in quantifying the standard deviation of your standard deviant.
posted by TomStampy at 11:43 AM on November 6, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

/begin pedantic statistician rant

Asian and Portuguese women are inherently honourable, whereas the rest of the female population skews as humanly as possible and desirable.

Technically, assuming that Asian and Portuguese women alone don't outnumber the rest of the world, then "slutty" would be the norm, and "honourable" would be the deviation here... for what that's worth. ;)
posted by tybeet at 11:44 AM on November 6, 2008

Facts are what identifiable people come up with, claiming they are above discussion. But nothing is. So it always comes down to "what's your impression about this?". It seems, nanojath, that you've fallen for the carnival pitch. How can any nation be more honourable than another? Even within ourselves, it's hard to find honour, in degrees and measurable. I was hoping that evolutionary psychology's attempts to transcend stereotypes (in themselves not equal to ignorance pure and simple) would be interpreted as a trendy reinterpretation of very old save-time and save-thought ethnical simplifications. I.e., (sorry) not your knee-jerk want-to-say-that-proves-nothing
response.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:46 AM on November 6, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

According to Figure 3, Finland and Latvia look interesting.
posted by caddis at 11:49 AM on November 6, 2008

28 months since your last post Migs, and we get slut psychology?

Overall, the relationships among national profiles of personality traits and national profiles of short-term mating tended to mirror those identified at the individual level. Extraverted nations were, on average, more short-term oriented than introverted nations. Disagreeable nations were more short-term oriented than agreeable nations. Men were more short-term oriented in nations low on conscientiousness, and women’s conscientiousness was linked to greater short-term mating among men. Neurotic nations tended to have lower short-term mating tendencies, although across the sexes women’s neuroticism was linked with higher short-term mating in men. Higher levels of openness were generally associated with more short-term mating in both sexes.
posted by netbros at 11:49 AM on November 6, 2008

This just in, a handful of graphs that look like someone fired a shotgun at a piece of paper will not get you laid.

Oh, and Japanese men are about twice as neurotic as average.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 11:50 AM on November 6, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]

I was so thinking someone changed the background color on askme.

Dear askme, the women here are too uptight. Where should I move? I prefer locals with no snow or or frigid women. Any idea where the sun and sluts can be found? Thanks!
posted by cjorgensen at 11:50 AM on November 6, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

I think it's honorable to be at least somewhat slutty. Plus, you don't want people to think you're a square.

PS plo-chops: sex or not?
posted by Mister_A at 11:50 AM on November 6, 2008

Not sex. Nothing involving Schwarzenegger should possibly count as sex.
posted by YoBananaBoy at 11:52 AM on November 6, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

In my limited experience I'd say that Americans will put out pretty easily. Pushtun girls are a really really hard sell.

Sometimes I take the receiver off the hook, I don't want 'em to ever call at all.
posted by Meatbomb at 11:53 AM on November 6, 2008

This post's wording is super-difficult to parse. Also, unless you've never been out of the US or the UK before, you already know the results: A/NZ girls put out if they're not ultra-Jesus freaks, Central European girls love drinking and dancing and waking up sweaty, Scandinavia/Baltics only has 3 weeks of summer and they use it.

Hmm. I feel like Slothrop now. Well, without the explosions and the octopus. Zow!
posted by electronslave at 11:59 AM on November 6, 2008

Honor is one of those words that seems to be used mostly to insult people who don't adhere to someone else's social norm. Hey, I'm honorable! Which means you're not!
posted by Tehanu at 12:02 PM on November 6, 2008

Evolutionary psychology is all bunk. It isn't science. you'd have to actually observe the events in question or some aspect of the events in question. Basing anything, especially science, on the self-reporting of human beings is just basically wrong.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:04 PM on November 6, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

28 months since your last post Migs, and we get slut psychology?

Netbros, my net bro: Why the aggravation? Have I harmed you? Were you expecting a long and slowly darkened twilight? What drives you? Are there not enough irritants in this world? Perhaps, in your heart, there's a cinder of pity, that would allow you, Red River-like, to let me ride this through?

It would be much lauded and repaid in kind/kindness. Thank you for your trouble.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:05 PM on November 6, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

What about anal?
posted by Mister_A at 12:07 PM on November 6, 2008

Wow, reading Miguel's comment up there makes me regret, for a moment, my unsavory scribblings here.

MOMENT OVER BITCHES WHERE DA WHITE WOMEN AT?
posted by Mister_A at 12:11 PM on November 6, 2008

Basing anything, especially science, on the self-reporting of human beings is just basically wrong.

It peeves me when people play the "psychology is worthless" card just because it makes observations on a human-level.

Is science any "better" when based on theoretical observations of sub-molecular or cosmological processes? What makes observations of humans any different? Human thoughts and communication are merely at a higher level of abstraction, and statistical phenomena occur with the human race just as with the races of quarks, galaxies, and molecules.
posted by tybeet at 12:16 PM on November 6, 2008

According to Figure 3, Finland and Latvia look interesting.

Apparently, there's a lot of quasi-prostitution currently in Latvia, with local women taking home foreign men from bars & clubs with an expectation of receiving a gift in return. Something to do with the fact that most eligible Latvian men have gone West for better money, leaving a surplus of women with only the dregs of the men to choose from, and earnings are still low overall compared with Western Europe.

The government has acknowledged that sex tourism is an increasing problem there.

Can't speak for Finland, but I'd guess that there'd be a fair number of Latvians, Lithuanians & Estonians there, being only a short hop across the Baltic. Probably Estonians especially, given the similarities in language.
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:17 PM on November 6, 2008

Wow so it looks like the less agreeable you are the more likely you are to try to go for some extra-marital hanky-panky. I didn't expect that! Damn my agreeable disposition!

And is it just me, or is that journal designed and laid out in an aggressively bad way? Couldn't ya footnote those citations? This is almost impossible to read and the pictures aren't so great either. Still, all things considered, this MiguelCardoso post is TBOTW.
posted by Mister_A at 12:19 PM on November 6, 2008

Plo Chops? Definitely sex. That anyone could think otherwise perplexes me.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 12:24 PM on November 6, 2008

You fail.

I know it's shocking, but women have an existence other than as a spittoon for your sperm. lol.
posted by stet at 12:26 PM on November 6, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]

What about anal?

What about the night visitors, for that matter?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:43 PM on November 6, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

Wow so it looks like the less agreeable you are the more likely you are to try to go for some extra-marital hanky-panky

A connoisseur emerges. How many marriages, years from now, will pay this toll, through the nose? How many clueless husbands will we see wandering about, muttering shit about how "agreeable" they always tried to be, and yet as cuckold-horned as the healthiest and stupidest billy goat? God protect us from those who have been as prescient as Mister_A : always eager for that beaver that pseudo-science has led him to endeavour to transmit the contagion of sex-fever to all those poor, agreeability-hating wifesluts who simply cannot resist the power of Science Itself? March on, you lowest and most contemptible of statistic-chasers. And keep in touch, will you.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:47 PM on November 6, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

Eh, I'll bite.

I think, Mr. Cardoso, that I do not actually understand what your motivation in posting this material was. I don't understand the discussion that it seems you were hoping to have.

I can, perhaps, explain my own initial response better. My opinion on the social sciences are thus: inasmuch as I ever studied anything rigorously, I studied the physical sciences, which in part I think could be characterized as trying to isolate that which could justifiably called a fact. While I'm not at all insensitive to the philosophical arguments regarding the absolute attainability of objectivity, I think using these arguments to ignore the relative distinction between observations that can be subjected to objective intellectual rigor versus those which are much more difficult to prise from the entanglement of semantic ambivalence is neither useful nor honest.

A lot of what social science studies seems to me to fall firmly into the latter quality, and I look with an extremely jaundiced eye at the sort of "experiment" that does things like administers verbal surveys to miniscule, non-representative samples of populations, and then translates the results into things like single-data-point numerical representations of traits like "conscientiousness" and "agreeableness" and finally purports to say something about differences among nations by plotting these (to my mind, now utterly meaningless) data points on a graph. My unfortunate experience is that people frequently take such scienced-up presentations of what is, underneath the graphs and dry language of academic publication, incredibly subjective and non-rigorous data at face value and do indeed extend them to making pronouncements about the "facts" about things like the "honorability" of nationalities. So perhaps my reaction to your statement as if it was literally meant was indeed "knee-jerk," but I might protest that it was a reaction that did not arise from an intellectual vacuum.

If you want to have discussions of greater depth (and more in line with your beliefs and intentions), you may need to dial back they lyricism of your expression a bit and put more emphasis on pragmatic communication, because honestly, rereading your post, I find I honestly don't really comprehend what you're trying to get across.
posted by nanojath at 12:47 PM on November 6, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

I know it's shocking, but women have an existence other than as a spittoon for your sperm.

Prove it! Make my dinner!

and now I shall stand back and await the tsunami of justifiable hate
posted by davejay at 12:54 PM on November 6, 2008

I am not sure what you said, Miguel, but by Pan's flute you said it well.
posted by Mister_A at 12:59 PM on November 6, 2008

You know who else is slutty?

Bonobos, that's who. Bunch of deviates.
posted by An Infinity Of Monkeys at 1:01 PM on November 6, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

tsunami of justifiable hate

sockpuppet *yoink*!
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 1:01 PM on November 6, 2008

Mad ravings of a syphilitic?
posted by Burhanistan at 1:03 PM on November 6, 2008

Figure 4 implies that as men get more interested in shot-term hookups, they become less agreeable.

At last proof: pick-up artists really are jerks. SCIENCE!
posted by bonehead at 1:05 PM on November 6, 2008

Mad ravings of a syphilitic?

Yes, please. And can I get that to go?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:07 PM on November 6, 2008

Eh, I'll bite.

I think, Mr. Cardoso, that I do not actually understand what your motivation in posting this material was. I don't understand the discussion that it seems you were hoping to have.

I can, perhaps, explain my own initial response better. My opinion on the social sciences are thus: inasmuch as I ever studied anything rigorously, I studied the physical sciences, which in part I think could be characterized as trying to isolate that which could justifiably called a fact. While I'm not at all insensitive to the philosophical arguments regarding the absolute attainability of objectivity, I think using these arguments to ignore the relative distinction between observations that can be subjected to objective intellectual rigor versus those which are much more difficult to prise from the entanglement of semantic ambivalence is neither useful nor honest.

A lot of what social science studies seems to me to fall firmly into the latter quality, and I look with an extremely jaundiced eye at the sort of "experiment" that does things like administers verbal surveys to miniscule, non-representative samples of populations, and then translates the results into things like single-data-point numerical representations of traits like "conscientiousness" and "agreeableness" and finally purports to say something about differences among nations by plotting these (to my mind, now utterly meaningless) data points on a graph. My unfortunate experience is that people frequently take such scienced-up presentations of what is, underneath the graphs and dry language of academic publication, incredibly subjective and non-rigorous data at face value and do indeed extend them to making pronouncements about the "facts" about things like the "honorability" of nationalities. So perhaps my reaction to your statement as if it was literally meant was indeed "knee-jerk," but I might protest that it was a reaction that did not arise from an intellectual vacuum.

If you want to have discussions of greater depth (and more in line with your beliefs and intentions), you may need to dial back they lyricism of your expression a bit and put more emphasis on pragmatic communication, because honestly, rereading your post, I find I honestly don't really comprehend what you're trying to get across.





Well said, nanojath.

So well said, in fact, I was ready and willing to agree with your careful, intelligent wording of the problem.

I really believe we must disagree (and respect and wonder) for the world to grind forward.

Your insensitivity to philosophy is similar to mine to science. Similar enough for recognition of mutual ignorance. Neither you (and your sort) or me (and my Mafia) are ignorant and closed-up enough to discount what we neither know or are interested about.

I do not need to dial back my lyricism - as you say - but I do need to take into account your wish (well-meaning) and the vehemence with which you express it.

We're all on different planes - but it's not as if some of us are on more rightful planes than others.

(I too hate C.P. Snow's "Two Cultures")

But those who benefit from our "nuances" of focus and opinion are our common, everlasting enemies: the No-Knowers; the Ignoramuses; the Phiiistines!

(Too many exclamation-marks, I know!)

Shut up!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:08 PM on November 6, 2008

Eponysterical.
posted by Mister_A at 1:08 PM on November 6, 2008

Thanks Miguel, you turned a somewhat dry article entitled Big Five Traits Related to Short-Term Mating: From Personality to Promiscuity across 46 Nations and turned it into a nationalistic referendum on (female) sluttiness. From the Journal of Evolutionary Psychology to bitches and blow jobs and "does she do anal?" in 20+ comments. Nice work, usually you have to talk about US Politics to have things get so HURF DURF so quickly. Well done.
posted by jessamyn at 1:08 PM on November 6, 2008 [8 favorites has favorites]

Said Miguel Cardoso to you:
"I find this fact to be true.
Portugese women are honorable.
The rest are vile smelling bull poo."
posted by Floydd at 1:11 PM on November 6, 2008

nanojath: While I'm not at all insensitive to the philosophical arguments regarding the absolute attainability of objectivity, I think using these arguments to ignore the relative distinction between observations that can be subjected to objective intellectual rigor versus those which are much more difficult to prise from the entanglement of semantic ambivalence is neither useful nor honest.

Which is, of course, why we try to use multiple methods to both show that our instruments are not only reliable, but have some theoretical and construct validity as well. And of course, methods are often shared among multiple such studies. I feel relatively confident when I make the claim that the frequency distribution of number of messages posted in computer-mediated communication across users of a particular communication mode follows Zipf's law, that claim closely maps to a real phenomenon.

A lot of what social science studies seems to me to fall firmly into the latter quality, and I look with an extremely jaundiced eye at the sort of "experiment" that does things like administers verbal surveys to miniscule, non-representative samples of populations, and then translates the results into things like single-data-point numerical representations of traits like "conscientiousness" and "agreeableness" and finally purports to say something about differences among nations by plotting these (to my mind, now utterly meaningless) data points on a graph.

Certainly, and a lot of this sort of shoddy generalization based on limited and unvalidated evidence gets tons of criticism by social scientists.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:11 PM on November 6, 2008

"Honor" is an antiquated way of referring to virginity/chastity; I assumed that was the reason for its use in this context. Rave on you lyrical diamond!
posted by Mister_A at 1:12 PM on November 6, 2008

Women are still killed in the name of honor. It's all too modern.
posted by Tehanu at 1:18 PM on November 6, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

"Honor" is an antiquated way of referring to virginity/chastity

No, no, no, no: it just means how many hoops you insist a suitor (whether male or female or shemale or nomale) jumps through.

We are all in the same business (focus in "busy", as in the buzzing bee), which is: being desired; jumpable; eminently peeled-away from our outer defences, onion-like.

Go!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:19 PM on November 6, 2008

To me, this study suffers from too large a sample size, leading to significant findings based on trivial differences. When we get to the scatterplots, claims to a correlation are dwarfed by noise.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:24 PM on November 6, 2008

Basing anything, especially science, on the self-reporting of human beings is how all my favorite books start.

And science? Oh baby, there's your slut...
posted by From Bklyn at 1:24 PM on November 6, 2008

Thanks Miguel, you turned a somewhat dry article entitled Big Five Traits Related to Short-Term Mating: From Personality to Promiscuity across 46 Nations and turned it into a nationalistic referendum on (female) sluttiness. From the Journal of Evolutionary Psychology to bitches and blow jobs and "does she do anal?" in 20+ comments. Nice work, usually you have to talk about US Politics to have things get so HURF DURF so quickly. Well done.

Jessamyn, love of mine and more: I take this graciousness of yours to mean all is forgiven and I, such as I am, may come back. If I am wrong, I beg of you to not set me straight. Or not just now. How sweet it is not to be deleted by you, I must confess. :)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:38 PM on November 6, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

So this Migs dude is like on dust or something?
posted by The Straightener at 1:45 PM on November 6, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Extraversion, for example, has been linked to higher libido (Eysenck, 1976), which might help explain why extraverts engage in more mating overall.

Being able to talk to people also helps your chances of getting laid. Sitting in the corner with a book, not so much.
posted by desjardins at 1:46 PM on November 6, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Migs' glory deays are before my time here but I did not realize that his popularity was due to some poetic form of insanity.
posted by GuyZero at 1:46 PM on November 6, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

I love you, Migs, don't ever change.
posted by Ryvar at 1:47 PM on November 6, 2008

So this Migs dude is like on dust or something?

He is on stardust cigars, language lagniappe, and 80 proof moonbeam, straight up. Neat.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:51 PM on November 6, 2008

Migs' glory days are before my time here but I did not realize that his popularity was due to some poetic form of insanity.

Fudgey wudgey, dude: it just means saying what you mean. As meaning (what you want to signify) and as end (what you want it to achieve). "Poetic forms of insanity" is such a criticizable, critique-stimulating expression it almost arrives at a satisfying, non-negotiable form of epistemological immunity. Which none of us wants, GuyZero, although your ways are apppetizing in their irrational charm.

He is on stardust cigars, language lagniappe, and 80 proof moonbeam, straight up. Neat.

Very true, It's Raining Florence Henderson. Though 80 proof is hard to find nowadays, because standards have improved. And none too soon, as your good person may well know (and love).
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:58 PM on November 6, 2008

Australia has a vagina.

America has a penis.

It seems pretty cut-and-dry to me.
posted by turgid dahlia at 2:02 PM on November 6, 2008

I still don't know what it all means, but I'm going to incorporate "Fudgey wudgey, dude" into my lexicon.
posted by nanojath at 2:04 PM on November 6, 2008

Jessamyn, love of mine and more: I take this graciousness of yours to mean all is forgiven and I, such as I am, may come back. If I am wrong, I beg of you to not set me straight. Or not just now. How sweet it is not to be deleted by you, I must confess. :)

Are you always this creepy, or is this just a one-off?
posted by Stewriffic at 2:12 PM on November 6, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

Australia has a vagina. America has a penis.

So... Canadians are capable of self-fellatio because Canada looks like it's licking its own penis?

Cross your eyes and squint, Ungava is the tongue.
posted by CKmtl at 2:17 PM on November 6, 2008

Are you always this creepy, or is this just a one-off?

Neither, surprisingly. Then again, I've known Migs for a while so this isn't quite as creepy as it may look. What I'd like to know is whether "love of mine and more" is read as "(love of mine) and more" or "love of (mine and more)" because I will interpret creepiness quite differently depending on the answer.

I take this graciousness of yours to mean all is forgiven and I, such as I am, may come back.

Correct me if I'm wrong, you're back already. Yes?

Yours in sesquipedalianism,

Bitsy.
posted by jessamyn at 2:21 PM on November 6, 2008

I took it as the first parsing, without even seeing the second one as an option. I'm probably in defensive mode, since my hackles rise in threads like this.
posted by Stewriffic at 2:27 PM on November 6, 2008

Wasn't Migs the name of the character in Silence of the Lambs who Lecter murdered by suggestion?
posted by Belle O'Cosity at 2:48 PM on November 6, 2008

Or whether this is, academically or instinctually, just another steaming - yet amusing - pile of the vilest-smelling bull poo.

yes, this is what it is (except for the 'amusing' part)...
posted by jammy at 2:49 PM on November 6, 2008

Not another LOL SESQUIPEDALIANISTS thread.
posted by Mister_A at 2:50 PM on November 6, 2008

Prove it! Make my dinner!

While I realise that was a joke, and I've made the same kind of joke in the past, I don't think that's any more appropriate or cool in this context than saying "Prove it! Pick me some cotton, boy!" when somebody points out that African Americans can do other things than run the country.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:28 PM on November 6, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]

"While I realize that was a joke, and I've made the same kind of joke in the past, I don't think that's any more appropriate or cool in this context than saying "Prove it! Pick me some cotton, boy!" when somebody points out that African Americans can do other things than run the country."

run the country? come on... we have a few months before we know if that's true...

and it's great that you mentioned that. i keep wondering how he deals with all those years and years away from mrs. obama whilst on the road campaigning. what a strong man he must be to have only resorted to nicotine consumption. is it at all strange to anyone else that he's surrounding himself with former clinton advisers given that past president's penchant for cigars.
posted by artof.mulata at 3:37 PM on November 6, 2008

So, Christendom is full of witch whores, then?


Huh.
posted by louche mustachio at 3:41 PM on November 6, 2008

Let's play Pomo Title Generator!!!!


1) Visioning the Dialogic Perversion in MiguelCardoso: A Satisfying, Non-negotiable Form of Epistemological Immunity and Oppression

2) (Re)reading the Bourgeois Supplement in MiguelCardoso: A Satisfying, Non-negotiable Form of Epistemological Immunity and Supplement

3) Tongues and (Author)ity in A Satisfying, Non-negotiable Form of Epistemological Immunity: MiguelCardoso Masculizing Transformational Mythos

4) Affliction as Feminism: Altering Encoded Tolerance in MiguelCardoso's A Satisfying, Non-negotiable Form of Epistemological Immunity

5) MiguelCardoso, A Satisfying, Non-negotiable Form of Epistemological Immunity, and The Privileged: Fetishing Peripheral Corporeality
posted by mrmojoflying at 4:07 PM on November 6, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

(whether male or female or shemale or nomale)

You forgot tamale.

Also: what?
posted by ODiV at 4:35 PM on November 6, 2008

spittoon for your sperm.

I'm gonna try tis as a pickup line...

If my wife will let me.
posted by Balisong at 4:35 PM on November 6, 2008

You'd also have to work out the logistics of getting your own sperm into your mouth, so you can spit it out. So I guess that'd be another question for your wife.
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:45 PM on November 6, 2008

Or your yoga instructor.
posted by cgc373 at 4:48 PM on November 6, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

UbuRoivas! that's just plain mean! but if his wife won't teach him i will...
posted by artof.mulata at 4:57 PM on November 6, 2008

This thread has taken a turn...for the sexy!
posted by turgid dahlia at 5:02 PM on November 6, 2008

While I realise that was a joke, and I've made the same kind of joke in the past, I don't think that's any more appropriate or cool in this context than saying "Prove it! Pick me some cotton, boy!"

Dude. You offended an *australian*. That's hardcore.

Balisong: in fairness, I should admit I stole the phrase from Trevanian's surprisingly good book, The Eiger Sanction. It's worth a read.
posted by stet at 5:06 PM on November 6, 2008

oh, i'm in no way offended. just trying to learn to be as hypersensitive as you cunts.
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:21 PM on November 6, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

(by which i mean "my american friends" of no specified gender, except that i'm hereby excluding women from "you cunts")
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:23 PM on November 6, 2008

Ha ha! You're becoming sensitive! You can't hide your delicate sensibilities anymore.
posted by stet at 5:29 PM on November 6, 2008

*blushes*
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:40 PM on November 6, 2008

This is still here?
posted by swift at 6:52 PM on November 6, 2008

Damn this is a weird thread.
posted by paisley henosis at 7:24 PM on November 6, 2008

awwww! i just discovered that a lady taipan has set up her nest behind some boxes underneath my desk! she'll probably be laying her eggs soon...aren't baby animals just the *sweetest*? i can't wait to meet the cute little wrigglers!
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:46 PM on November 6, 2008

No, no, no, no: it just means how many hoops you insist a suitor (whether male or female or shemale or nomale) jumps through.

I'm after your time, Senor Cardoso, but I have to ask:

Are you always this full of shit?
posted by jason's_planet at 8:06 PM on November 6, 2008

and I hate to get all pedantic about grammar with a published novelist, BUT:

shouldn't "jump" be in the subjunctive after "insist"?

No, no, no, no: it just means how many hoops you insist a suitor (whether male or female or shemale or nomale) jumps jump through
posted by jason's_planet at 8:11 PM on November 6, 2008

Oh, you're Portuguese?

I'm sorry to say that I've never read your books, but I have read Antonio Lobo Antunes. Have you met him? What's he like in person?
posted by jason's_planet at 8:14 PM on November 6, 2008

Thank you Miguel, this is the most entertaining post on MeFi in weeks, no months. This is just the thing to push politics off the front page. You are the most delicious of provocateurs. At lunch we hand a spoon to the person who provokes the fun. Here is yours.
posted by caddis at 8:17 PM on November 6, 2008

Ooh, I love Antonio Lobo Antunes' work! An Explanation of the Birds - in particular - had me wanting to kill myself almost from page one. Such relentless existential hopelessness!

If you do know him, Miguel, please don't spoil it for me by saying that he's a cheerful, happy-go-lucky chappy.
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:44 PM on November 6, 2008

Ok, I get it. Miguel has turned into Gore Vidal.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 10:04 PM on November 6, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Maybe he was *always* Gore Vidal - you know, just method acting a Portuguese character for one of his books...?
posted by UbuRoivas at 10:35 PM on November 6, 2008

I don't know what's going on.
posted by dirigibleman at 10:36 PM on November 6, 2008

(and speaking of baby animals, make sure you check out the new baby pygmy hippo at taronga zoo)

slightly NSFW - contains advert featuring tasteful nekkid lady
posted by UbuRoivas at 10:39 PM on November 6, 2008

Yours in sesquipedalianism

Let me take a stab at this:

ses -- obviously some kind of foreign for sex
quip -- a joke
ped -- children
alian -- a foreigner

So, presumably a sesquipedalianist is someone who makes jokes about the predisposition of foreigners to want to have sex with our children?

I can see how this might fit that Cardoso character, but I didn't know Jessamyn had those kind of tendencies
posted by PeterMcDermott at 2:08 AM on November 7, 2008

probably a fucken' joke, ya pommy tiddler.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:55 AM on November 7, 2008

You spelt 'youse' wrong:
oh, i'm in no way offended. just trying to learn to be as hypersensitive as you cunts.

And may I say I LOLed!
posted by asok at 7:30 AM on November 7, 2008

Prove it! Make my dinner!

While I realise that was a joke, and I've made the same kind of joke in the past, I don't think that's any more appropriate or cool in this context than saying "Prove it! Pick me some cotton, boy!" when somebody points out that African Americans can do other things than run the country.

The battle of the sexes will be with us long after we're all one homogenous light brown mass. It just matters whether it's good natured sparring or subjugation.
posted by Not Supplied at 12:49 PM on November 7, 2008

You spelt 'youse' wrong

yeh, but the septic tanks don't talk proper english.

for them, it's all "y'all, y'all, y'all" like a series of Oprah out-takes.

write "youse" and they'll think it rhymes with scouse.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:17 PM on November 7, 2008

"Migs" rhymes with "pigs" -- just sayin'.
posted by vronsky at 7:21 PM on November 7, 2008

Science is science, even if the data it gathers makes us think less of ourselves.

The information here is a boon to public health officials, and less so to sexual tourists. Don't let that stop you from being horrified and indignant, tho.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:48 PM on November 7, 2008

I am a little brain dead at the moment to really read the article carefully, but I just wanted to note a few things.

1. Does anybody here know how credible or well-known this Evolutionary Psychology journal is? I've come across it before under the discussion of one Dr. Kanazawa (previously on MeFi), whose research strikes me as dubious at best. The journal is supposedly peer-reviewed, but I am still doubtful of its credibility.

2. Quickly glancing at the results, I was struck by how small the correlation values were -- many of them less than 0.2. The authors managed to achieve statistical significance due to the large sample size, but this doesn't mean that these personality traits are good predictors of sluttiness or what have you (i.e., what KirkJobSluder said). Then again, maybe these values are typical of personality and/or evolutionary psychology.
posted by tickingclock at 8:53 PM on November 7, 2008

Vronsky rhymes with Bronski.
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:08 PM on November 7, 2008