Slashdot Mirror
FMRI Shows Man Loves Wife More Than Angelina Jolie
An anonymous reader writes "We've discussed (at length) functional MRI technology as it pertains to marketing and virtual reality, but now Esquire writer A.J. Jacobs has become the first person to go inside the controversial machine to test the science behind his sex drive. As in, he has fMRI experts read his mind as to whether he's actually more turned on by his young wife or Angelina Jolie. The results, unsurprisingly, are both geeky and hilarious. Would you subject yourself to this kind of reality check?"
I think the MRI would find I preferred rotten turnip to Angelina Jolie. I think she's got no class. The term trailer trash comes to mind.
I actually do love my wife (who doesn't read this board, so this isn't some big suck up) but there would be plenty of celebs (and a few rotten vegies) that'd come closer than Jolie would.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
If it was an honest test, they would have asked him about Kristen Bell.
of his wife.
I would expect that the brain would associate alot of memories and data connected to his wife that he couldn't have about Angelina. Is this really about romance or is there something else going on here...
a) Jolie kinda frightens me.
b) Jolie threatens me.
c) Jolie could easily get most men she was interested in.
d) Jolie is a bit freakish.
I find Jennifer a lot more attractive and a lot less scary (still "out of my league" but I don't have nightmares about her cutting out my liver and eating raw while I watch and bleed to death).
In general, I don't find strong pretty females attractive because of the reasons you see on "The Big Bang Theory".
Unless I feel safe that I'm needed by my spouse, I'm not interested. Of course, I'm co-dependent-- if someone clearly needs me, I'm immediately drawn to and interested in them. If they clearly do not need me, I'm repulsed. If they are in the middle, then it's more about whether I'm interested or not.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
The MythBusters had an episode (episode 93 according to google) where they had team members who took part in a mock crime in order to test various "lie detection" methods, complete with real punishments for various outcomes.
It wasn't valid science, but it was a fascinating exploration of how one could fool these various tests. The polygraph was the usual mumbo jumbo, but the MRI test was interesting in showing how difficult it is to isolate anything for interpretation. I interpreted the results as an effectively random outcome, much like the interpretation is being used here - all correlation with an external event, with everyone involved convincing themselves they've isolated the causation.
But if this works for him to convince himself that he truly loves his wife, I'm not going to argue with him.
To me, it shows the value of double(or more)-blind testing.
Ryan Fenton
"In a cruel twist of bioengineering, the romantic craving actually gets more intense post-dumping."
I would be very interested in seeing this same test run on somebody that just terminated a relationship, and then run once again after a rebound fling. Bonus points if the reboundie was blacked out.
...his wife is more bangable than Angelina.
No joke, no troll, just one hot lady!
Make SELinux enforcing again!
I don't know, I think comparing studio airbrushed photos of Jolie with candid snaps of his wife may not be the best experiment.
This whole thing seems not very scientific and more like "hey lets play with our toy".
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
And I'll take the opportunity with Angelina. Hell, my wife hit me when we watched Tomb Raider.
Are you in love with A.J Jacob's wife more than your own wife?
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
between love and arousal, as I'm one of those romantic types who reckons they're different things. The subject says love, the summary says arousal, I haven't read TFA yet (this is /. after all)... which is it?
Would anybody like to place a bet that Brad Pitt's brain would light up brighter for Jacobs' wife (assuming she's reasonably hot)? Does it mean either guy would even consider trading wives? Not for a second.
And let's not forget that there's a measurable time lag before the hormones kick in and that immediate flash of reflexive horniness morphs into something similar but far from identical.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Perhaps they hate wifes more than Angelina but the device cannot distinguish between love and hate
This is study is flawed, because he had sexual contact with his wife where it's highly unlikely he has ever or will ever have sex with Angelina.
Also, 2D images are don't stimulate the brain as much as 3D images or real life. His brain most likely jumped from 2D representation of his wife to feeling stored in his brain by human 3D observation.
Finally, Pavlovian conditioning is at work here - he responds more to his wife because he conditioned his brain to do that... how else would he get hard?
He should have watched Original Sin for year, not seen his wife for a year and THEN performed this half-assed test.
I didn't RTFA, but why would you expect Angelina Jolie to love this man's wife more than he does? Have they even met?
sic transit gloria mundi
Imagine the scientist standing outside the fMRI.
Scientist: "Look at the following pictures, please. *Click* Next picture, *Click*, Next picture *Click*"
Patient: *Ding on metal sound*
Scientist: "What was tha--Oh!"
He's not going to "Love" Angela Jolie more because he doesn't know her to have that bond.
That doesn't mean he wouldn't rather shag her though!
If the lie detector wasn't bad enough, this certainly takes the cake of "tests" concerning the psyche of people. It's anything but unheard of that lie detectors are wrong (you can actually train that, go figure), and they at least have a semblance of a realistice chance to guess right. You are asked questions, your physical reaction is measured. That's at least straightforward. Worthless, because if you have a little control over your autonomic system (it's possible, to some degree) you can easily fool it, but at least there's a connection.
Now here's a man that loves his wife more than Angie. So? Maybe he's not into this kind of woman? Maybe he really loves his wife, or maybe he loves fat chicks, unless you ask him (and he chooses to tell the truth) you'll never know.
You add another variable to a test that is already guesswork at best: Personal taste and preference. It's not just true or false anymore. A lie detector is at least straightforward with the question, even if the answer is mostly just "maybe" in most cases. With this test, even the question is fuzzy.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If women hear about this... Next argument: "You don't really love me!" "Baby you know I do!" "Prove it! You, me and my sister are going down to the machine tomorrow!" *Uh oh*
If women hear about this...
Next argument:
"You don't really love me!"
"Baby you know I do!"
"Prove it! You, me and my sister are going down to the machine tomorrow!"
*Uh oh*
This guy is crazy to submit to this test. Here is a (near) pseudo-science test being applied to him with a loaded question that can have only one possible correct and right answer. And the machine is not assured to give him that correct answer. And he does it in a nationally published magazine.
Suppose this machine 'proved' that he was more turned on by a professional sexpot movie star than his own wife. Do you think that she would ...ever... let him live that down? If you say yes, then you don't know anything about women...go fuck your compiler.
Thirty years from now they have some silly disagreement. She says "..but you don't really love me..." He says " but, darling, honey, of course I do..." She says, "no, you really don't, and that machine proved it!".
There are some questions that have only one possible correct answer, regardless of what might be the 'truth'. The most important one is when your wife or girlfriend asks you " do you really love me?". Guys, listen to this, this is important, the only possible thing that you can ever say when this collection of sounds hits your ears is "YES". No hesitation, no ..uh.., no ponderous meaningful silences, just 'yes'. Anything else that you could say or not say would be taken by her to mean 'no, I don't love you'. It just takes one 'no' and she will never believe you next 10 million times that you say "yes, I love you".
Another example of question that has only one possible answer is when someone who has the ability and the inclination to destroy your life asks you: "Have you ever used drugs?" Here the only possible answer is NO!, even if you're standing there with a joint dangling from your lips. Please don't forget this as it may come in useful some day.
A third example is when someone is pointing a gun at you and asks you, "Do you believe in...". Fellas, this is not an occasion for amicable discussion imbued with gentle irony. Chuck it up, smile, and shout 'YES!'. I believe in jumpin' Jehovah, the lizard king, the holy rock, the flying pizza monster, whatever, and add that you're overwhelming glad to find another true believer, and " could you ...uh... maybe ...uh... put down that gun?"
So you or anyone else in the world has nothing to gain by allowing yourselves to hooked up to some machine and be asked one of the questions that have only one possible answer, and gambling that the machine affirms that you actually and truly believe that you are giving the right answer. You have nothing to gain if the machine says 'yes, he's telling the truth' and everything to lose if the machine indicates otherwise.
It's like playing Russian Roulette.
If Brad Pitt took this test it could cause a space-time paradox, possibly starting a chain reaction that could destroy the entire universe. Admittedly, that's a worst case scenario. :)
Show him a picture of a pile of green backs, contrasted with a picture of his wife or Angelina Jolie. I suspect that the green backs would win -- sad, greedy gits!
I mean, you see a half naked pic of your wife and you also know that she goes off in the sack. Jolie, on the other hand, looks pretty but you just have no idea, or memory, of how much fun she is.
My wife also gets me excited. And really, that's no surprise. I know what she really likes and I really, really like it too. Everytime I think about it, it gives me a smile.
Results are no shock. Jolie is just eye-candy. That it.
.
That's the wrong question...
about a woman that goes around and adopts children from all over the world. Neither am I.
Perhaps beauty is simply inversely proportional to lip size?
That could be an alternative explanation to these results.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Actually, it does not show what the summary title claims.
"Love" is different from sexual arousal, and I mean that in a medical sense. While many details are still unclear, from what we do know, regarding hormones and brain scans (only one of which is covered by this research), there are marked differences, especially regarding long-term love and sex drive.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
... only to find, that you are actually turned more on by her uncle Bernard than by her ... or Angelina Jolie :-)
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/helen_fisher_tells_us_why_we_love_cheat.html It's down to dopamine, apparently.
Myself and others wax scientific and rant extensively about the problems associated with using this technique. I'll keep mine short this time by keeping it to an example. From TFA in that eminent science journal Esquire:
"When you speak, blood flows to the language centers. When you blink your eyes, it flows to the eye-blinking centers."
The same region that makes something happen is also responsible for inhibiting that action. Each contains both accelerator and brakes. When you withhold speech, blood flows to the language centers. When you prevent your eyes from blinking, blood flows to the eye blinking centers. When the reaction is "I love my wife", blood flows to the I love my wife centers. When the reaction is "I don't love my wife", blood flows to the I love my wife centers.
It is not possible for fMRI to tell the difference between a positive and negative reaction, and is in fact measuring both reactions being considered prior to resolution in the sampling time. The two reactions may use some different Hebbian neural assemblies within the same region, but the low (ie. several cubic millimeters) spatial resolution of MRI catches both of them plus much more in the same voxel (3D pixel). The same problem emerges when different regions "light up" in the different conditions. It can't be determined whether that is excitatory or inhibitory activity.
By way of providing a reference, the above is what I was taught by a biophysicist who was working on his dissertation on this subject under Peter Fox, originator of the use of MRI for functional testing (ie. 'boxcar' design), including the use of SPM (statistical probability mapping) for analysis in comparing the MRI results in the different conditions. The above should also make it clear that using fMRI as a "lie detector" is fruitless.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
So, in a fundamentally subjective matter, you presume to tell people that their own perception is wrong? I'm used to this kind of crap coming from game fanboys, but it's a new twist to actually see it applied to something as _blatantly_ subjective as physical beauty.
If a woman X is attracted to man Y, that's it. That's by definition "attractive". He's attractive... for her. Hint: notice the common word root in there.
Who the fuckk do you think you _are_ to tell her that, in something that's 100% personal perception, her perception is wrong?
And yes, it's 100% subjective. Some people like older women. In fact, for some, it's a major turn on. There's a whole genre of porn about 70+ year old women. (So, yes, to answer that objection, that's one case he actually might like her more after 40 years of marriage.)
Some people like women who are anything between a bit overweight, to outright obese. Again, check out some of the BBW porn out there, and some looks like they filmed a vaguely humanoid blob of fat. Someone pays to watch those, you know?
Some people like huge breasts. Some actually like them small. And I won't just use porn this time, but look at the ideal of female beauty of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Look at all those sculptures that are barely A cup. Presumably because it represented a young woman who hasn't had children yet. (Ditto about the huge penis obsession recently, BTW: the greeks considered a perfect penis to be rather small, and they actually exaggerated in that direction in a lot of their statues. Huge phaluses were considered something the barbarians have.) To get back to breasts, the romans are sometimes credited with inventing the bra, but that's misleading. What actually got into fashion there wasn't some padded wonderbra, but just a strip of cloth tied over the breasts to press them down, so she looks like she has smaller breasts than she actually has.
A lot of people people like redheads, and especially in places where there aren't that many born naturally that way. But in the UK where they have the highest percentage of them, a lot of people aren't turned on by that mutation at all, and the term "ginger" is used as an insult.
Etc. It's really that subjective.
Maybe his wife wouldn't be "deeply beautiful" to you, but how do you know it isn't for him? Oh, right, you presume to tell someone that his tastes are wrong and yours are some kind of platinum standard for all humanity. Carry on.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Seriously, in your brain your wife is a very complicated entity that's backed with a serious amount of information. Where you sat on your first date? That (hopefully) subtle look on her face when she can't stand her friend's conversation matter?
Might be more interesting to see how much you 'love' someone you actually despise but know very, very well.
Unless you have a horrible marriage or are a child, your marriage is a unique thing to your brain. Comparing it to your feelings for Angelina Anybody is just a little different than comparing it to your feelings for your driveway pavement (unless you're delusional ... another result I'd love to see).
Feel free to tell me to RTFA, I skimmed :p
"A matter of internal security, the age old cry of the oppressor" - Jean Luc Picard
Hmmm, let's seee... "love" is the term of human language with a socially mediated meaning (it still can have more or less different meaning for each of us). How the meaning of this socially mediated human language term can be directly compared to output data of the MRI scan is a mystery to me...
I don't know. If he had any sense he would have a plan B ready: if the result was different he'd have to bribe the researcher to "interpret" the results to keep peace in the family :-)
I'd rather face the RIAA without a lawyer than upset the significant other :-).
Insert
Yes there are women who look more pleasing to the eye after major surgery.
However for me personally when I see the before picture it reduces that persons 'new' attactiveness not because they were 'ugly' before hand but because I get the feeling that the person I'm looking at is n't the 'real' person and to me that is kind of creepy.
I can believe this study and i bet even the scientists who did this study expected this result. Anyone who is aware of the chemistry n biology of "love" won't find this surprising at all. When a man n a woman get physical, the body produces some chemicals which make us "feel" in "love". I bet if th guy had sex with angelina a few times, his brain would show a different picture! http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/09/1044725672191.html "Oxytocin" is the one-word answer from psychosexual therapist Paula Hall, of relationship counselling group Relate. It's the "bonding chemical" that is released during sex, and the amount released increases with the quality and quantity of the sex: more orgasms equal more oxytocin and, therefore, more of a sense of closeness, all of which play a big part in that feeling of being in love.
however I do not think anyone has ever seen her before the knife.
Clearly if she willingly put her under the knife to look as she does now she had to be a serious bow wow, or Michael look a like
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Inflate to 50 pounds.
My web domain.
IAITS
-- A good compromise leaves everyone mad. --Calvin and Hobbes
If your man/woman wants to be sure you love her/him and suggests you a fMRI (as usual), I suggest you do the following:
- Think about Angelina (or Brad Pitt) when you are supposed to think about him/her;
- Think about him/her when you are supposed to think about Angelina's (Brad's) nice curves ;)
A lot of partners feel very insecure and believe they have to compete with airbrushed images of sex-symbols. Yet this one shot experiment shows that there for one man, his REAL woman is able to not just compete, but win from a photograph.
This guy can never get and will never meet the real Angelina, who is already taken anyway. But his wife now should now that the image of Angelina is NOT favorite with her husband. That is intresting to know.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
There's a lot of post and counterpost above about the subjectivity of beauty and love, etc... but I'm wondering if it's not simpler than that.
Unless this guy is remarkably (un)lucky, he's never slept with Angelina Jolie. So his reactions to her are purely imaginary, whereas he has (presumably, assuming he's not a slashdotter) consummated his marriage.
So might there be some more of an association there, rather than this being some kind of proof of the Hallmark-Card Nobility of this guy?
My friend, Ms. Ishikawa, who had her face smashed in by a steering wheel, is nearly as robo-hot as she was before the accident. That woman is totally gorgeous, it would have been a crime if the surgeons hadn't reconstructed her (from pictures, yes it was that bad).
Another friend, currently a federal judge, had her face completely torn off her skull by a dog. She still has some pretty extreme scarring under her chin and behind her ears, but she's a cute little thing nonetheless, and looks a lot better than she did with her facial bones showing.
My captcha is "reproof". I think it's pretty cool that vain rich people are willing to be guinea pigs for plastic surgeons to hone their skills, so that my friends haven't had to live with hideous facial scars.
yes I can
Ok, then here's the most beautiful woman ever. Mona Lisa or Helen Of Troy have nothing on her:
[O_O]
I'm sure you can't get a face in much less details than that, so it should be beautiful, right?
That said, I'm also pretty sure that it must be a little more than that. I'm not convinced for example that the face of an obese woman would have to have any more lines than that of a thin woman. So it should be beautiful, right? Well, she wouldn't find many boyfriends in today's culture.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
...from someone who's been married 20 years, would be that love != lust.
Really, a rather sensationalistic experiment which misses the point.
Am I "happier" about my wife, or Angelina Jolie? Well, unless that morning she's done one of the multitude of things that a life partner of 20+ years can do to ruin one's whole day (and that one needs to simply accept and move on from), no doubt it's my wife. :)
On the other hand, if I found Angelina Jolie "sexy", my lust reaction for her might be somewhat more prominent than that for my wife of such a long span. The difference, which I'm sure would matter to my wife (interpreting it from a woman's context), means nothing about my LOVE of my wife.
In fact, I'd assert that one of the general characteristics that distinguishes the male from the female of the human species (*very* broadly generalizing - I know) is that the male can cheerfully lust for someone that utterly repels him in every OTHER way.
In fact, mightn't it be precisely this differential between the genders (that women connect love and lust somewhat more closely than men) explain much about the different gender-views of pornography?
-Styopa
In my experience, women *and* men who look beautiful on film are, in person, quite often freakishly ugly. The facial features that make someone look good on camera are a huge jutting chin, whopping Jurassic jaw bone, bony protruding cheekbones and a Wicked Witch Of The West nose. In other words, the camera-pretty people usually look like they just crawled out of a east Kentucky holler where everyone's been interbreeding since 1778.
Angelina Jolie is a perfect example of this. If you were ever to meet her in person, you'd probably run screaming "Ea! Ea! The three-lobed burning eye!!" so be careful what you wish for.
Just lookin' out for you.
Note to self: watch Hackers tonight. Then Swordfish. Both with the sound down.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
I'm not convinced for example that the face of an obese woman would have to have any more lines than that of a thin woman. So it should be beautiful, right? Well, she wouldn't find many boyfriends in today's culture.
I once fucked a fat girl with a cute face.
Uh, what I mean is, um, you could take the most beautiful face in the world, lop it off its neck, impale it on a pointy stick, and there's not a man alive who would want to fuck it.
Erm, actually, wait... that's probably not true. I'm digging myself deeper, I'll just stop now.
I think you got that phrase a little backwards there. It should be, "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." Makes a little more sense.
"As in, he has fMRI experts read his mind as to whether he's actually more turned on by his young wife or Angelina Jolie. The results, unsurprisingly, are both geeky and hilarious. Would you subject yourself to this kind of reality check?"
Depends on how cute his young wife is - but I'd give it a shot.
If my wife was being hit on by Angelina, I'd love her more too.
Love doesn't just mean you want to have sex with someone. It means you're also willing to put up with all of their shit because they're willing to put up with yours. I don't think he'd be willing to put up with Angelina Jolie's shit, even if he'd have sex with her given the opportunity.
I can't understand why anyone would be turned on by AJ.
She's been with Billy Bob Thornton. So, that's just pretty damn scary.
Would Not Touch Her.
(not even after 2 dozen {insert_beer_of_choice} )
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Not that I think she's that attractive (she's somewhat above average, but nothing to rave about IMO) but women seem to think that Angelina Jolie is the embodiment of beauty itself, and that no man could help but lust for her more than any woman he sees in his day-to-day life. See also: Halle Berry.
It's hard to make a "gender analogy" here, but to give you an idea of what this would mean to a woman, imagine if your wife proved via fMRI that she thought you were more of a rugged badass than Chuck Norris :P
I could actually make a car analogy, but it would be weird and you'd have to be a Toyota Camry :\
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Don't call people trash. It's bigoted and ignorant. Living in a trailer doesn't make your life worthless.
Well, sorta. I generally see your point, but that was one of the reasons why I chose porn to illustrate my point. It actually was there for a bit more reason than "hur hur, I like porn" factor.
The people we actually choose for our relationships, yeah, there's a lot more at work there than merely what's considered attractive. There are considerations about security, compatibility, even bragging rights, etc, who could push one to pick a partner even if otherwise it wouldn't be their first pick. For example, in addition to what you already mention, just look at who was trying to get whom in high school. There are a lot of status-symbol girlfriends and status-symbol boyfriends, chosen more for bragging right value than for anything even vaguely resembling compatibility or natural attraction. E.g., some guy who otherwise might prefer more natural proportions, might try to bag the Barbie-type cheerleader just to show that he can. And viceversa, make no mistake, a lot of women try to bag the top jock just because he's a rare commodity, not because they actually get along.
I'm using porn because that's something that people actually choose to get off to, and because it has virtually no bragging-rights value for most people. Your average guy wouldn't advertise being a wanker, nor build his claims to greatness on masturbating to an older instead of a younger model, or viceversa. There is not much pressure or social norm about what genre of porn he should be wanking to (in fact, the social norm tends to be "all of it is bad"), so he's free to choose whatever he alone likes the most. If some people actually pay to get off to pictures of old or obese women, well, I'm guessing that there's a genuine turn-on factor there. For them. For whatever reason. And, again, _some_ people must be paying for that stuff.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
[O_O]
Anyone have any hot grits?
find hot grits hotter than Natalie Portman. More news at 11.
Side-channel attacks like this are nothing new, but what makes it worse is that this particular design defect isn't even acknowledged by the manufacturer (who happens to be a well-respected DOD supplier, no less). And this isn't the only problem with this particular platform: It's rife with logic errors, requires frequent (and costly) maintenance, and is plagued by more viruses than Microsoft Windows (which is saying something!) Sure, some of these problems can be avoided with good security practices or patched using third-party updates (although anybody who fully trusts the likes of Bob Jones or Rachel Maddow and doesn't bother to vet what they get from those hackers deserves every bug), but with what we pay a year in support fees (many pay as much as 10% of their gross annual revenue!), you'd think we'd be able to get timely fixes to serious security flaws like this. A couple of hundred thousand years between minor releases just doesn't cut it anymore.
I'm proud of my Northern Tibetian Heritage
[*o*]
Jizz. In. My pants.
Reading the title the first time, I thought, "Of course! Why would Angelina Jolie love his wife at all?"
I'm sorry, but "Man turned on by young wife" is hardly something unexpected, or something a wife needs to check.
Now "Young wife physically turned on by wealthy 50-something man" would be a useful test for the man.
If he cared. Which he probably doesn't.
Nevermind.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
It is much easier for me to imagine my wife giving me a blowjob than to imagine Angelina doing the same, because my wife has actually done this more times than I can count. To a great degree, sexual response is learned behavior. I even find myself much more attracted to other people that look like my wife now... like her kid sister, for example! So, unless your wife is Nadya Suleyman, this isn't really a fair test. (P.S. Angelina's lips look so obviously fake that it is a turnoff.)
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Thanks for telling us what we already know.
You mean "Ferrous Metal Recoil Injury", aka frying pan upside the head? Now there's a mapping I could believe in.
Seriously, this study seems to be lacking in the methodology and protocols department. Unless there's something we're not being told, it seems rather unscientific, what with the investigator stroking the subject's hand to calm him and so forth.
That's a minor quibble, though. I just reject the notion that a functional MRI mapping, which is just a glorified polygraph, with all the limitations and drawbacks, can ever tell us anything about love or any other emotion, merely its chemical history and signature, barring the development of true AI.
I reject Newell and Simon's physical symbol system hypothesis, but that day may not be far off regardless. On the other hand, there are some needed quantum leaps that I haven't seen made yet, so the poets may be able to relax a while longer. Granted, I haven't been able to keep up with the field lately.
smart=a regular grind on someone you really dig as opposed to a high sperm count in the sewer line
She was a dead ringer for Bastinda!
Your average guy wouldn't advertise being a wanker, nor build his claims to greatness on masturbating to an older instead of a younger model, or viceversa.
Not trying to toot my own horn here (ahaaahha) but greatness in masturbation should be achieved by quantifiable measures, not style/performance or porn genre used. Just like with beauty, it has to remain objective, otherwise it's just like figure skating...
So it's really not a matter of 'what kind of porn' but rather 'how many buckets'...
Disclaimer: I haven't been a pro for years. At this point it's just an hobby.
This post is useless without pictures!
Dude, the subject was beauty, beautiful women to be precise. Did you have to post that in the 'dick branch' of the discussion, where greek vs barbarian penis lenght is being ANALyzed?!