View Full Version : Akin theory disproved as of 1820, or 1716
08-26-2012, 03:12 PM
From The Volokh Conspiracy, (http://www.volokh.com/) a right-leaning but high quality legal blog: (live links to original source material at website link; scroll down some to find this)
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
News Rep. Akin Could Use, from Missouri’s Neighbor to the South
Eugene Volokh • August 23, 2012 5:49 pm
Dan Greenberg (The Arkansas Project) notes that the report of United States v. Dickinson, 1 Hempstead 1, 2 n.1 (Ark. Terr. 1820) — possibly the very first reported case from the Arkansas Territory — says the following:
The old notion that if the woman conceived, it could not be a rape, because she must in such cases have consented, is quite exploded. 1 Hale, 631; 1 Hawkins, ch. 41, sec. 8; 1 East, P.C. ch. 10, sec. 7, p. 445; 1 Russ. on Crimes, 677. Impregnation, it is well known, does not depend on the consciousness or volition of the female. If the uterine organs be in a condition favorable to impregnation, this may take place as readily as if the intercourse was voluntary. Taylor’s Med. Jurisprudence.
To be sure, this passage ought not be accused of originality — Hawkins’ Pleas of the Crown (1716) states that, though “it hath been said by some to be no Rape to force a Woman who conceived at the Time; for it is said, That if she had not consented, she could not have conceived,” “this Opinion seems very questionable.”
Needless to say, ancient authorities count for more in law than in medicine, but my understanding is that medicine has not reached a different result than that given in the report of United States v. Dickinson.</div></div>
08-26-2012, 03:44 PM
On the other hand i thort that it woz now well known that female orgazm inkreeces the chances of konception.
Even if that is true [ and I think this has not been established as a fact], what does it have to do with the subject?
08-27-2012, 04:20 AM
It duzz hav a little to do with rape. Female orgazm inkreeces the chances of conception. Bits of the female anatomy moov and change angle etc to help.
Are you saying that a woman who gets dragged into an alley,gets savagely beaten up and violently raped has an orgasm?
Gayle in MD
08-27-2012, 08:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It duzz hav a little to do with rape. Female orgazm inkreeces the chances of conception. Bits of the female anatomy moov and change angle etc to help.
Mac, I like you, but that is absolutely ABSURD!
08-27-2012, 05:19 PM
The 'upsuck' theory of orgasm
Robin Baker and Mark Bellis at Manchester University have made the startling suggestion that the human ejaculate contains 'kamikaze' sperm, whose role is to wage war on sperm shed by other men. On this view, fewer than 1 per cent of human sperm may be 'egg-getters' - sperm specialised for fertilisation. The remainder may be designed to sit in strategic spots in the female tract and interfere with the passage of rival sperm, or to meander through the tract, bent on seeking and destroying those rival sperm.
Sperm have a limited shelf life inside a man's body. Any ejaculation, be it during lovemaking or masturbation, removes ageing sperm from the store, allowing the next ejaculate to contain a particularly youthful, high-quality stock. And so, in the absence of lovemaking, masturbation is a sensible ploy for a man faced with the constant threat of sperm competition. 'Putting in sperm that are younger means that they are going to be inside the woman - and be more competitive - for longer,' says Bellis.
'Flowbacks' usually emerge about half an hour after sex, when women expel - sometimes quite forcefully - three to eight white globules, containing semen and female secretions.
If the woman climaxes at any time up to a minute before the man, or does not have a orgasm at all, she retains relatively few sperm. If she climaxes at any time from a minute before the man to around 45 minutes after, she retains a relatively large number of sperm.
These findings have allowed the Manchester team to adjudicate between two competing theories of the female orgasm. The poleaxe theory - which portrays the orgasm as a device to make women lie down and sleep after sex so as to minimise loss of semen - gets no support from the data. Its main competitor, the equally inelegantly named 'upsuck' theory, fares much better. On this view, the orgasm is a virtuoso muscular performance aimed at sucking vaginal contents, sperm included, towards the womb - just as one might fill a pen with ink. (In an extraordinary experiment performed forty-odd years ago, scientists showed that a mare's uterus could suck up 80 millilitres of fluid in 5 seconds.) If this is indeed what happens during an orgasm, then one would expect a woman to retain more sperm if her orgasm coincided with, or followed, ejaculation, which is exactly what the researchers found.
But there is also another side to all this. If the timing of a woman's orgasm - and whether or not she has an orgasm at all - affects the number of sperm she retains, she is anything but a passive participant in sperm competition. Suppose she has two lovers whose sperm are competing for the chance to fertilise her eggs. In theory, she could affect the outcome of that contest - using her orgasms to retain the sperm of one lover and reject those of his rival. Force of numbers might then help her favourite's sperm win the race to fertilise an egg.
And this is not the only such technique at her disposal. Baker and Bellis also found that the number of sperm a woman retains after intercourse depends on her sexual behaviour in the days leading up to that encounter. Imagine she has sex on two occasions separated by a few days - on Monday and Friday, say. The number of sperm she retains on Friday is apparently influenced by sperm left inside her body as a result of Monday's episode. It is as if sperm from Monday's copulation somehow manage to block retention during Friday's. Although the force of this block declines with time, women can halt the decline in its tracks by having a 'non-copulatory' orgasm - by masturbating on Wednesday, say. The mechanisms behind these effects have still to be discovered, but Baker and Bellis argue that women can exploit them, albeit unconsciously, to influence the number of sperm they retain when making love.
Taken together, the team's findings imply that women have some extraordinary skills. Do they actually use those skills to influence sperm competition? Drawing once again on their survey of female sexual behaviour, Baker and Bellis argue that they do. A woman who is having an affair, they say, tends to act in ways that favour her lover's sperm over her regular partner's.
For more than a hundred more unusual stories and ideas about men, women and sex, see The Global Ideas Bank's Relationships section.
Gayle in MD
08-27-2012, 07:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For more than a hundred more unusual stories and ideas about men, women and sex, see The Global Ideas Bank's Relationships section. </div></div>
Not exactly a scientific organization, Mac.
I would suggest you might want to check on their "theory" since it does NOT match formal medical studies.
Additionally, orgasm or not, women have certain times of their monthly cycle during which they are MORE prone to becoming pregnant.
It has absolutly nothing to do with whether or not she has an orgasm.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Robin Baker and Mark Bellis at Manchester University have made the startling suggestion that the human ejaculate contains 'kamikaze' sperm, whose role is to wage war on sperm shed by other men. On this view, fewer than 1 per cent of human sperm may be 'egg-getters' - sperm specialised for fertilisation. The remainder may be designed to sit in strategic spots in the female tract and interfere with the passage of rival sperm, or to meander through the tract, bent on seeking and destroying those rival sperm.
One theory I have which comes up quite often. Men have a way of expanding their imaginary contributions to the entire impregnation and fertilization story, while failing any full understanding of female physiology!!!!
I thought you could see through that in all of your bible studies.
Now, you're telling me that even in the fallopian tubes, men are STILL waging their stupid wars!
Next you'll be telling us that women can get pregnant from mens' supersonic "Eggetter" spermatozoan which languish in wait on toilet seats, but only if the woman really wanted "it"...or was was having impure thoughts while urinating!
08-27-2012, 08:05 PM
I DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE GLOBAL IDEAS BANK. BUT THEY MIGHT HAV GOOD STUFF.
Global Ideas Bank
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search
The Global Ideas Bank's origins lie in the Institute for Social Inventions, which was set up in 1985 by Nicholas Albery, social inventor and visionary. From small beginnings (a network of inventors, a quarterly newsletter), the Institute grew into a full-fledged organisation under his leadership: producing an annual compendium, running social inventions workshops and promoting creative solutions around the world. It was part of the first European Social Innovations Exchange. In 2001, the Institute was awarded a Margaret Mead Special Recognition Award for "community creativity for a new century"
In 1995, the Global Ideas Bank (originally suggested by an American correspondent, Gregory Wright) was first established online, and has since become the name for the entire project's work. Through the work of several volunteer programmers and technical wizards (especially Flemming Funch of the New Civilization Network), new features were added: online submission, voting systems, categorisation, a message board, and so on.
08-27-2012, 08:57 PM
I WOZ LOOKING FOR AN ARTICLE BY DR RANDY ALLCOCK, AND CAME AKROSS THIS ONE.
A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm
Sign In to E-Mail This Printer-Friendly Reprints Save Article
By DINITIA SMITH Published: May 17, 2005
Evolutionary scientists have never had difficulty explaining the male orgasm, closely tied as it is to reproduction.
But the Darwinian logic behind the female orgasm has remained elusive. Women can have sexual intercourse and even become pregnant - doing their part for the perpetuation of the species - without experiencing orgasm. So what is its evolutionary purpose?
Michael Houghton for The New York Times
Dr. Elisabeth Lloyd says the female orgasm has no evolutionary function.
Over the last four decades, scientists have come up with a variety of theories, arguing, for example, that orgasm encourages women to have sex and, therefore, reproduce or that it leads women to favor stronger and healthier men, maximizing their offspring's chances of survival.
But in a new book, Dr. Elisabeth A. Lloyd, a philosopher of science and professor of biology at Indiana University, takes on 20 leading theories and finds them wanting. The female orgasm, she argues in the book, "The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of Evolution," has no evolutionary function at all.
Rather, Dr. Lloyd says the most convincing theory is one put forward in 1979 by Dr. Donald Symons, an anthropologist.
That theory holds that female orgasms are simply artifacts - a byproduct of the parallel development of male and female embryos in the first eight or nine weeks of life.
In that early period, the nerve and tissue pathways are laid down for various reflexes, including the orgasm, Dr. Lloyd said. As development progresses, male hormones saturate the embryo, and sexuality is defined.
In boys, the penis develops, along with the potential to have orgasms and ejaculate, while "females get the nerve pathways for orgasm by initially having the same body plan."
Nipples in men are similarly vestigial, Dr. Lloyd pointed out.
While nipples in woman serve a purpose, male nipples appear to be simply left over from the initial stage of embryonic development.
The female orgasm, she said, "is for fun."
Dr. Lloyd said scientists had insisted on finding an evolutionary function for female orgasm in humans either because they were invested in believing that women's sexuality must exactly parallel that of men or because they were convinced that all traits had to be "adaptations," that is, serve an evolutionary function.
Theories of female orgasm are significant, she added, because "men's expectations about women's normal sexuality, about how women should perform, are built around these notions."
"And men are the ones who reflect back immediately to the woman whether or not she is adequate sexually," Dr. Lloyd continued.
Central to her thesis is the fact that women do not routinely have orgasms during sexual intercourse.
She analyzed 32 studies, conducted over 74 years, of the frequency of female orgasm during intercourse.
When intercourse was "unassisted," that is not accompanied by stimulation of the clitoris, just a quarter of the women studied experienced orgasms often or very often during intercourse, she found.
Five to 10 percent never had orgasms. Yet many of the women became pregnant.
Dr. Lloyd's figures are lower than those of Dr. Alfred A. Kinsey, who in his 1953 book "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female" found that 39 to 47 percent of women reported that they always, or almost always, had orgasm during intercourse.
But Kinsey, Dr. Lloyd said, included orgasms assisted by clitoral stimulation.
Dr. Lloyd said there was no doubt in her mind that the clitoris was an evolutionary adaptation, selected to create excitement, leading to sexual intercourse and then reproduction.
But, "without a link to fertility or reproduction," Dr. Lloyd said, "orgasm cannot be an adaptation."
Not everyone agrees. For example, Dr. John Alcock, a professor of biology at Arizona State University, criticized an earlier version of Dr. Lloyd's thesis, discussed in in a 1987 article by Stephen Jay Gould in the magazine Natural History.
In a phone interview, Dr. Alcock said that he had not read her new book, but that he still maintained the hypothesis that the fact that "orgasm doesn't occur every time a woman has intercourse is not evidence that it's not adaptive."
"I'm flabbergasted by the notion that orgasm has to happen every time to be adaptive," he added.
Dr. Alcock theorized that a woman might use orgasm "as an unconscious way to evaluate the quality of the male," his genetic fitness and, thus, how suitable he would be as a father for her offspring.
"Under those circumstances, you wouldn't expect her to have it every time," Dr. Alcock said.
Among the theories that Dr. Lloyd addresses in her book is one proposed in 1993, by Dr. R. Robin Baker and Dr. Mark A. Bellis, at Manchester University in England. In two papers published in the journal Animal Behaviour, they argued that female orgasm was a way of manipulating the retention of sperm by creating suction in the uterus. When a woman has an orgasm from one minute before the man ejaculates to 45 minutes after, she retains more sperm, they said.
Furthermore, they asserted, when a woman has intercourse with a man other than her regular sexual partner, she is more likely to have an orgasm in that prime time span and thus retain more sperm, presumably making conception more likely. They postulated that women seek other partners in an effort to obtain better genes for their offspring.
Dr. Lloyd said the Baker-Bellis argument was "fatally flawed because their sample size is too small."
"In one table," she said, "73 percent of the data is based on the experience of one person."
In an e-mail message recently, Dr. Baker wrote that his and Dr. Bellis's manuscript had "received intense peer review appraisal" before publication. Statisticians were among the reviewers, he said, and they noted that some sample sizes were small, "but considered that none of these were fatal to our paper."
Dr. Lloyd said that studies called into question the logic of such theories. Research by Dr. Ludwig Wildt and his colleagues at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg in Germany in 1998, for example, found that in a healthy woman the uterus undergoes peristaltic contractions throughout the day in the absence of sexual intercourse or orgasm. This casts doubt, Dr. Lloyd argues, on the idea that the contractions of orgasm somehow affect sperm retention.
Another hypothesis, proposed in 1995 by Dr. Randy Thornhill, a professor of biology at the University of New Mexico and two colleagues, held that women were more likely to have orgasms during intercourse with men with symmetrical physical features. On the basis of earlier studies of physical attraction, Dr. Thornhill argued that symmetry might be an indicator of genetic fitness.
Dr. Lloyd, however, said those conclusions were not viable because "they only cover a minority of women, 45 percent, who say they sometimes do, and sometimes don't, have orgasm during intercourse."
"It excludes women on either end of the spectrum," she said. "The 25 percent who say they almost always have orgasm in intercourse and the 30 percent who say they rarely or never do. And that last 30 percent includes the 10 percent who say they never have orgasm under any circumstances."
In a phone interview, Dr. Thornhill said that he had not read Dr. Lloyd's book but the fact that not all women have orgasms during intercourse supports his theory.
"There will be patterns in orgasm with preferred and not preferred men," he said.
Dr. Lloyd also criticized work by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, an emeritus professor of anthropology at the University of California, Davis, who studies primate behavior and female reproductive strategies.
Scientists have documented that orgasm occurs in some female primates; for other mammals, whether orgasm occurs remains an open question.
In the 1981 book "The Woman That Never Evolved" and in her other work, Dr. Hrdy argues that orgasm evolved in nonhuman primates as a way for the female to protect her offspring from the depredation of males.
She points out that langur monkeys have a high infant mortality rate, with 30 percent of deaths a result of babies' being killed by males who are not the fathers. Male langurs, she says, will not kill the babies of females they have mated with.
In macaques and chimpanzees, she said, females are conditioned by the pleasurable sensations of clitoral stimulation to keep copulating with multiple partners until they have an orgasm. Thus, males do not know which infants are theirs and which are not and do not attack them.
Dr. Hrdy also argues against the idea that female orgasm is an artifact of the early parallel development of male and female embryos.
"I'm convinced," she said, "that the selection of the clitoris is quite separate from that of the penis in males."
In critiquing Dr. Hrdy's view, Dr. Lloyd disputes the idea that longer periods of sexual intercourse lead to a higher incidence of orgasm, something that if it is true, may provide an evolutionary rationale for female orgasm.
But Dr. Hrdy said her work did not speak one way or another to the issue of female orgasm in humans. "My hypothesis is silent," she said.
One possibility, Dr. Hrdy said, is that orgasm in women may have been an adaptive trait in our prehuman ancestors.
"But we separated from our common primate ancestors about seven million years ago," she said.
"Perhaps the reason orgasm is so erratic is that it's phasing out," Dr. Hrdy said. "Our descendants on the starships may well wonder what all the fuss was about."
Western culture is suffused with images of women's sexuality, of women in the throes of orgasm during intercourse and seeming to reach heights of pleasure that are rare, if not impossible, for most women in everyday life.
"Accounts of our evolutionary past tell us how the various parts of our body should function," Dr. Lloyd said.
If women, she said, are told that it is "natural" to have orgasms every time they have intercourse and that orgasms will help make them pregnant, then they feel inadequate or inferior or abnormal when they do not achieve it.
"Getting the evolutionary story straight has potentially very large social and personal consequences for all women," Dr. Lloyd said. "And indirectly for men, as well."
08-27-2012, 09:50 PM
I heard there were some Nazi experiments that supported Akin but the veracity of such lefty evidence is very much in question.
Gayle in MD
08-27-2012, 09:52 PM
IMO, that is all a boatload of crap!
Sticking with the subject, Akin's statements are absurd, and offensive.
There is no link between a woman's physical reactions to rape, and whether or not she becomes pregnant by the rapist.
Pregnancy is not a psychological issue.
A woman's reproductive life is a very complex progression of physiological events, and pregnancy is not based upon intellectual likes and dislikes, wants or desires.
When her hormones are right, if she is healthy, and the timing is right, any man could impregnate her, any physically healthy man without reproductive problems such as low sprem count, or lazy sperm.
The issue was legitimate rape, remember? And The misogynistic scientifically unproven lie of that theory.
That, and the Ryan/Romney etch-a-sketch history of misogynistic attitudes regarding women and women's rights, along with their demonizing of women who have been raped, and their constant reversals and denials of their former, recent statements, and political actions and voting record in the case of Ryan co- sponsoring Bills which disregard women's rights, their choices and the extremist republican efforts to devalue all women's actual lives. Their statements which say tht women MUST die to save a fetus, would go right out the window if that rule included that the father must commit suicide simultaneously upon her death!
Akin, Ryan and Romney are pigs. They are just as bad as Rush Limpballs and a whole long list of Repiglican demons!
A woman's right to control her own decisions and her own body, are paramount to any and all other decisions and goals that she would make in her own life. In fact, those reproductive choices and rights, ARE her economic future, they are paramount to what her life will become, including her goals, her dreams, and her economic security.
Let's take Condolezza Rice and Laura Bush, for example. Two women who are for a woman's right to choose.
Do they ever speak out about it? Do they ever protest the misogyny of their own political party.
There are people with principles, who have the ecourage to speak their minds, and then there are right wing phonies and fakes who pretend to be other than they are.
They ALL use birth control. ALL of them. And if any of them were raped and impregnated, they would ALL have abortions. All of them! No rational woman would choose to carry the fetus of her rapist.
08-28-2012, 12:27 AM
Yes, i would allow abortions up to 10yrs after birth.
Do you also allow the people around the mother to kill the mother if she allowed a child like yourself (meaning outrageous beliefs) to live beyond 10 years?
Gayle in MD
08-28-2012, 01:04 PM
You do make me laugh, Mac! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif
08-28-2012, 03:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I heard there were some Nazi experiments that supported Akin but the veracity of such lefty evidence is very much in question. </div></div>
I've recently read that as well.
But to clarify, do you mean that this story, that the Nazis did this kind of experiments, is dubious (as it is from leftward sourcing)?
Or, that the Nazi information is dubious, since THEY are from the left (a now common trope on the right)?
08-28-2012, 04:02 PM
The Body After Death
After the heart stops beating, the body immediately starts turning cold. This phase is known as algor mortis, or the death chill. Each hour, the body temperature falls about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit (0.83 degrees Celsius) until it reaches room temperature. At the same time, without circulation to keep it moving through the body, blood starts to pool and settle. Rigor mortis, or a stiffening of the body, sets in about two to six hours after death [source: Marchant, Middleton].
While the body as a whole may be dead, little things within the body are still alive. Skin cells, for example, can be viably harvested for up to 24 hours after death [source: Mims]. But some things that are still alive lead to the putrefaction, or decomposition, of the body -- we're talking about little organisms that live in the intestines.
A few days after death, these bacteria and enzymes start the process of breaking down their host. The pancreas is full of so many bacteria that it essentially digests itself [source: Macnair]. As these organisms work their way to other organs, the body becomes discolored, first turning green, then purple, then black. If you can't see the change, you'll smell it soon enough, because the bacteria create an awful-smelling gas. In addition to smelling up the room, that gas will cause the body to bloat, the eyes to bulge out of their sockets and the tongue to swell and protrude. (In rare instances, this gas has created enough pressure after a few weeks to cause decomposing pregnant women to expel the fetus in a process known as coffin birth.)
A week after death, the skin has blistered and the slightest touch could cause it to fall off. A month after death, the hair, nails and teeth will fall out. The hair and nails, by the way, while long rumored to keep growing after death, don't have any magical growth properties. They merely look bigger as the skin dries out. Internal organs and tissues have liquefied, which will swell the body until it bursts open. At that point, a skeleton remains.
Now, most of us don't see that process because the law requires that we do something with the body. There are endless possibilities: We can choose a coffin for our body or an urn for our ashes. We can be embalmed, mummified or frozen. Some cultures were rumored to engage in cannibalistic rituals of consuming the dead, while others left their dead exposed to the elements for animals to cart away. You could donate your body to science or ask for burial at sea. But unless mummified or preserved, bodies eventually disintegrate in the process described above. However, burial in a coffin slows the process tremendously; even the type of soil in which you're buried can make a difference.
Disposal of a dead bod*y is largely regulated by cultural and religious beliefs. Early cultures buried the dead with their favorite possessions (and sometimes their favorite people) for the afterlife. Sometimes, warriors or servants were buried standing up, eternally ready for action. Orthodox Jews shroud their dead and bury them on the same day as death, while Buddhists believe that consciousness stays in the body for three days [source: Mims]. Hindus are cremated, because it's believed that burning releases the soul from the body, while Roman Catholics frown on cremation out of respect for the body as a symbol of human life [sources: Mims; Cassell et al].
Religion and culture will always be intertwined with death, and one large area of influence relates to the ethical questions surrounding the dying process. On the next page, we'll consider some of the issues.
08-28-2012, 04:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you also allow the people around the mother to kill the mother if she allowed a child like yourself (meaning outrageous beliefs) to live beyond 10 years?eg8r</div></div>A child with Christian beleefs iz an outrage, or shood be an outrage.
Were you going to answer the question or not?
08-29-2012, 03:53 AM
Hmmmmm -- Praps i went a bit silly with that 10yr bizness. But 5 yrs iz ok if u hav the money.
The Bible places no value on fetuses or infants less than one month old.
And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. -- Leviticus 27:6
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.