Gender Equality and Semenya by AnthonyT

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

But this case stemmed from performance levels that raised an alarm, and thus suggests something rather opposite of what was drilled into me during my upbringing.

Namely, that there are palpable performance differences between men and women. That the two do not have equal capabilities. That gender equality may be, in some cases, an artificial construct.

I'm confused.

You were taught that men and women have the same biological capability of physical strength?

I think it's fairly obvious that men do have generally greater physical strength, develop more muscles mass (more easily) and have greater upper body strength, etc. Because of their hormones, among other things.

I don't think that equality in the "equal worth and equal rights" way (which, in terms of rights and worth being abstract concepts IS an abstract construct) is affected by that.

I do think that uniform standards should apply for physical fitness where necessary to determine that people have what it takes to perform a certain job or duty, but the standards should be based on what is actually needed in the job. Brute strength is not always the most important skill.

In sports, however, it only makes sense to take away gender divisions where physical strength doesn't play a large role (dressage, racing sports, maybe certain martial arts, etc) because... the point is to compare athletes of a similar physical group. Why else would there be different weight classes in boxing, for example? Women would have a hard time winning against men in certain sports because it's simply silly to compare their two very different physiques. No training or dedication or talent could make up for the biological difference between a very strong, athletic man and a very strong, athletic woman.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 19, 2009 6:27 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

'Zactly.

There are some sport where I imagine light weight is an advantage: rock climbing, motocross, pole vaulting, drag racing, horse racing, most things aerial, etc. In these cases either the power does NOT come from the human (but from a machine, or another animal) or weight is a significant detriment. (A heavy guy- no matter how muscular, cannot hang from a rung as long as a light woman, no matter how unfit. I learned that from Fear Factor!) Other things come into play: reaction time, or balance for example.

In one case- endurance or channel swimming- having a layer of fat is actually a big help.

But in sports that depend on muscle mass, people with higher testosterone will perform better, because testosterone promotes muscle mass.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 19, 2009 6:35 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I was actually raised to believe that a sufficiently motivated woman could exercise and achieve the standards of any man in any physical endeavor. I actually believed this to be the case, and assumed that much of the division of physical capabilities between men and women was largely due to a lack of interest amongst women in persuing such goals.

While it has long been apparent to me that men have a 'natural' untrained strength advantage, for instance, it never occurred to me that women who make a focus of physical training would necessarily fall short of men who did so. I have seen the hulking monstrous forms of female weightlifters, for instance. They seem very similar to the grotesquely muscular frames of male weightlifters. In essence, the 'ceiling' of potential, apparently medically accepted, was a surprise to me.

I have often in the past vocally wondered why the NFL didn't recruit women, or why professional basketball was in need of gender divisions. Surely there are muscular women and tall women who could perform in either role? Or so I thought. It was rather upsetting to discover that gender inequality in terms of physical potential appears to be a measurable fact. That people were able to suspect a racer had male gender traits merely because of foot race performance.

More unsettling is that physically demanding jobs have different standards for men and women.

The only standard for a job should be what is required to accomplish the tasks of that job, regardless of gender. But this does not appear to be the case. I am learning that some jobs have differing physical standards for the sexes, apparently to maintain the illusion which was foisted upon me throughout my childhood.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 19, 2009 6:56 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
While it has long been apparent to me that men have a 'natural' untrained strength advantage, for instance, it never occurred to me that women who make a focus of physical training would necessarily fall short of men who did so. I have seen the hulking monstrous forms of female weightlifters, for instance. They seem very similar to the grotesquely muscular frames of male weightlifters. In essence, the 'ceiling' of potential, apparently medically accepted, was a surprise to me.

Those hulking forms, male or female, are due to 'roids.

Like anything else, women and men are on bell curves which overlap about 85%: Most women are about as strong as most men, and TRAINED women are STRONGER than most men. But in professional sports, you're not comparing most men to most women, you're comparing elite athletes to elite athletes.

I, too, wonder how much is motivation and training. When I watch tennis, its clear that most men hit harder than most women. Also, most men are TALLER than most women, which is clear advantage. I wonder what would happen if tennis was separated by height, rather than gender...? The number one tennis player, Roger Federer, isn't the hardest hitter, so.... I dunno. I think there's a persistent difference, but I still really don't know how much that difference would be.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 19, 2009 7:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I was actually raised to believe that a sufficiently motivated woman could exercise and achieve the standards of any man in any physical endeavor. I actually believed this to be the case, and assumed that much of the division of physical capabilities between men and women was largely due to a lack of interest amongst women in persuing such goals.

What a bizarre thing to teach you. Brute strength is, I believe, one of a very, very few fields in which nature is clearly far more influential than nurture. I've even heard convincing arguments that the difference in spatial awareness between men and women, for example, is if not caused then significantly amplified through lack of training in young girls rather than natural brain chemistry differences, but something like raw muscle power that is so obviously due to hormones? Weird.

Quote:

I have seen the hulking monstrous forms of female weightlifters, for instance. They seem very similar to the grotesquely muscular frames of male weightlifters. In essence, the 'ceiling' of potential, apparently medically accepted, was a surprise to me.

Do you mean weightlifters or "body builders", because there is a stark difference. Both men and women with grotesque muscular definition like that are generally the product of medication, or at the very least a highly specific and strict mix of resistence training and diet. A naturally well-muscled woman... you'd have to look at athletes who need a lot of strength. Google "female olympic weightlifter" and you'll see the difference. Same thing with hammer throwers or wrestlers. Strong, but not in any way bizarrely defined. Women generally don't form muscles of the size that men do.

Quote:

More unsettling is that physically demanding jobs have different standards for men and women.

Can you give a specific example? I don't doubt your words and we obviously have similar views about physical standards, but it would be much easier to discuss and examine with more particular information. Maybe the reason isn't to maintain and illusion, maybe it is, but it seems like an interesting thing to look at.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 19, 2009 11:08 AM

It's not arbitrary. When I have to move something that weighs 7 or 800 pounds, I don't call over my sister. I'm not particularly strong, but men and women are not the same.

True, sports discriminate so absurdly on physical genetics that people threaten their own lives with drugs just to compete.

But consider this:

coed basketball.
coed wrestling. (For people who have seen WWF/WWE, there's a reason, all scripting aside, it's against the rules for a male player to hit a female player: It might kill them.)

And now we'll have a competition to see what man can defeat Mrs. Duggar in the baby game...

Seriously. This is dumb. Sports should remain separate so that people can compete. I'd like to see less genetically inclined sports, not more so. You know how many female players there would be at the top of sports if all sports were coed? Zero. You know why? Because all sports are designed to favor strength and height, predominantly male characteristics. A woman shouldn't have to be a freak of nature to compete.

In some events, small size and dexterity are an advantage, and women would win, but none of those sports generate money, because we live in a male dominated society.

It was recently resoundingly demonstrated that American cheerleaders are just more athletic than the athletes they support. What they aren't is taller and stronger. Another difference? Professional male athletes make around 4 million a season. Their more athletic cheerleaders, around $2,500.

Quote:
I was actually raised to believe that a sufficiently motivated woman could exercise and achieve the standards of any man in any physical endeavor.

You were raised incorrectly. Women are not men. Women are lighter and more dextrous, they also read faster, because they have larger language centers in their brain.

I have little tolerance for political correctness not because I'm sexist, but because I think this sort of thinking is very damaging. Women should be able to compete in athletics, in the workplace, in the world, *as* women, for the advantages that women have, not turn themselves into mutants just in order to win.

I want to briefly revisit an earlier topic:steroids. I shouldn't have compared Serena Williams to Anna Kournikova, I did it because Kournikova valued her feminine side, and thus had a modeling career, but was beat out of tennis for her refusal to take steroids to make her more manlike. But as someone who plays tennis, I have to say, this is absurd: Serena Williams serves 120mph, Maria Sharpova serves around 70mph. Even the baseball fans will be able to read this one: At 70mph, it's a game of reflects. At 120, it's a shooting range.

Then, Serena Williams, Professional Tennis Player:

Now, Serena Williams, The Beast:

Is this what a woman has to be to compete? A man?
That's absurd. Why don't we take this sexist extreme to the rest of society: I'm sorry Jane Austen, your writing is too "chicky." Once we're settled in, I want to see Netherfield blown up by Napolean's forces, and Miss Bennet hides out in the basement of an abandoned building in a plague town until rescued by Colonel Fitzwilliam, and then in the end she ends up shooting Mr. Darcy.

(The temptation to write this book is growing stronger

)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 19, 2009 6:01 PM

AG05

I'd read it!

As to certain job requirements (in the military, police, firefighters etc.) I think there should be no different between the standards for men than for women. If a man should be able to hump a 110 lb pack 12 miles in 4 hours (or whatever), so should a woman.

That said, when a woman proves able to meet those standards she should be allowed to participate fully in the activity she has chosen. If a woman wishes to serve in a line infantry company, and can prove herself able to meet all the requirements of an infantryman, then by all means, give her a rifle and put her on the line.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 19, 2009 7:32 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

In response to the person above who needed a site for different male/female standards of physical fitness...

I was able to find the fitness standards for the US Army: http://www.apft-standards.com/index.html

It clearly shows different standards for men and women in the scoring of the test. I'd say if, for instance 50 pushups is good enough for a woman, then it should be good enough for a man, and vice versa. Yet the scoring IS different, which makes little sense to me.

It would make more sense for a single performance standard to be maintained that actually has something to do with expected field conditions or the needs of military personnel on deployment.

I also agree with those that say if a woman can demonstrate capability, she should be allowed to serve anywhere a man can serve, in any function that he performs.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 19, 2009 8:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

In response to the person above who needed a site for different male/female standards of physical fitness...

I was able to find the fitness standards for the US Army: http://www.apft-standards.com/index.html

It clearly shows different standards for men and women in the scoring of the test. I'd say if, for instance 50 pushups is good enough for a woman, then it should be good enough for a man, and vice versa. Yet the scoring IS different, which makes little sense to me.

I've thought about it, in what way this might make sense, and I can only guess here that maybe it's not actually about the push-ups, but about the personal fitness level of the man or woman.

Basically, they might not be testing for a level of capability but for a level of individual fitness. "This person is as fit and muscled as anyone their size and gender can be", hence the different standards. To make sure they are at their own maximum level of health and resistance.

After all, a woman at her top level of fitness might do fewer pushups than a man at a lower level of fitness, but she would be healthier, have greater endurance and a better functional control of her own body, rendering her overall more capable to handle all the situations her duty requires.

It's only a theory.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 19, 2009 8:14 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Dream,

Your pictorial evidence is somewhat misleading. People look very different when they are exerting themselves than they do when they are posing casually.

This is a 'then' image from 2003, for instance:

She looks identical to your 'now' image, but this is because she is exerting herself. Every muscle bulging, face contorted in the efforts of the moment.

This does not mean she has made herself grotesque with steroids.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 19, 2009 8:25 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

It's a fair theory, Rouka, and makes good sense.

However, I am then forced to wonder about the efficacy of maintaining people at goal percentages of maximum possible fitness.

If I was at a theoretical 1% of my maximum fitness, what on Earth difference would that make, if I could still perform the actual duties required of me? And if I was at a theoretical 100%, how does that increase the benefit?

Is it not the actual performance of duties that we should seek to quantify?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 19, 2009 8:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

It's a fair theory, Rouka, and makes good sense.

However, I am then forced to wonder about the efficacy of maintaining people at goal percentages of maximum possible fitness.

If I was at a theoretical 1% of my maximum fitness, what on Earth difference would that make, if I could still perform the actual duties required of me? And if I was at a theoretical 100%, how does that increase the benefit?

Is it not the actual performance of duties that we should seek to quantify?

--Anthony

Very possibly.

I was only trying to come up with an explanation that removed the "to maintain an illusion" aspect because I doubt that this is their motivation.

As for fitness levels vs. job-specific capability standards, I can only make guesses there, as well. Maybe the whole package of physical fitness, with greater health and resistance, improved alertness and faster recovery times is what they're after.

After all, people are rarely required to do pushups in their line of duty. They are just a good indicator of physical strength. Maybe raw physical strength is less important in the duties of a solider than a generally high fitness level is?

Maybe someone with actual knowledge can shed some light on this.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 19, 2009 9:50 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
However, I am then forced to wonder about the efficacy of maintaining people at goal percentages of maximum possible fitness.

If I was at a theoretical 1% of my maximum fitness, what on Earth difference would that make, if I could still perform the actual duties required of me? And if I was at a theoretical 100%, how does that increase the benefit?

Is it not the actual performance of duties that we should seek to quantify?

Bah, try telling THEM that.

I've always thought it outright laughable that the US Army places so much emphasis on physical fitness even at the expense and sometimes even exclusion of other training - I watched the emphasis change while I was in and was thoroughly disgusted with bulked out beefcakes who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with a rifle on full auto from inside the barn, cause they shorted marksmanship down to a TOTAL of 15 days, to make room for more physical conditioning.

I don't give a rats ass if you are 300lbs of mountain man muscle and can bend steel bars with your nose hairs, if I put a 7.62x39mm through your brain stem from 250 yards away while you're lumbering into the pathetically short range you can hit ME from... you're still dead.

I watch our bulked out troops, lumbering under well over a hundred fifty pounds of armor, gear and toys, trying to operate with a battle rifle in an urban CQB environment, huffing and wheezing, blinded by sweat and exertion, muscles all twitched up and doing wonderful things to their aim as the adrenalin flood turns their mental processes to mush and I see the same thing that the local insurgents do.

Lunch Meat - on White Bread.

An unarmored or light-armored opponent with an SMG would chop them to pieces, and a trio of them would ensure you got nothin back but the bones.

We up armor the troops till they can't hardly walk despite being hulked out, and so we go to vehicular patrol, and then up armor those to where they're practically draggin the ground and no longer swift nor maneuverable and I think...

If you wanted a fuckin tank, send in a tank.

Anyhows, physical conditioning has it's place, but when you make it practically a holy religion to the exclusion of all else and half the goddamn training curriculum, piss poor that it already was, well... it doesn't go well.

And they WONDER why those "skinny little wussies" kicked our ass all over vietnam ?
*headshake*

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 19, 2009 10:31 PM

TRAVELER

Women have stamina and they have a great threshold of pain. Give birth sometime. God knows I would never last through that. A ballerina burns off more calories in a performance then a football player does in a game. Women outlive men. Go to a nursing home and you will see far more women then men.

I know some male police officers who complained about a double standard in the academy, but I never heard them complain about any women's performance in actual service. As the years go by I see more women in the both police and fire departments, so they must be up to the task. We had a woman police chief in Milwaukee. She was not hired from the outside, but came up through the ranks. With each step of the ladder she had to prove herself. All this happened in my lifetime. When I was but a young lad women were only metermaids. Now their police chiefs.

It may not happen in my lifetime, but I think the physical attributes between men and women will narrow.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 20, 2009 6:22 AM

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ZvVvwaWS9wQ/RiWzgAYll4I

Anthony, my then was from the 1990s, but this is a dumb argument. Look at other female players. Check out Serena's legs. Womens legs do not grow like tree trunks. Then check out her behavior. I'm giving you 100:0 odds that she took steroids.

Let me know when you do give birth. Then I'll consider your gender equality issue.

I agree with frem about the military, I think that sports have forced the same thing.

I don't think genetic differences will decrease between genders. There's a strong trend in the other direction. Our ape ancestors showed little physical difference. Our selection criteria is obvious:

Men, take a pick:

[any anime chick]
No, seriously, all anime does is take characteristic which differential males from females and exaggerate them.
or

Chyna actually went so far as to pose nude for playboy to prove that she was a female, but she has taken a lot of steroids.

But this gender thing is nothing new. Several men have competed as women simple so they can win by strength. It's both bogus and sad.

The name Semenya Castor really sounds like a joke name to me. I suspect this is a guy who couldn't compete, and so cheated, and now wants to hog the spotlight. We should recognize that some actual woman was cheated out of a victory here.

Regardless of your poison:

You're selecting more-feminine than current humans. It's the evolutionary direction we're headed in. Yes, women will have cat ears.

Women will select also:

If you look at high testosterone women and high estrogren men, they're fat, androgynous and unattractive to everyone. There's a reason why no sex stars are in this category.

If you mean to imply that people with neither hormone will take over, then, well, that lacks some underlying science.

Sorry, I think this is the most bogus idea I've heard since, well, in a very long time. Future women will look like anime cat girls, and future men will look like vampires.

Edit:

I'm guaranteeing you men are going with the older woman here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 20, 2009 12:24 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

DT -

First off, her name is Caster Semenya (and Caster is a nickname; her given name is Mokgadi).

Second off, as counter-point to your "[straight] men like feminine women, [straight] women like masculine men" bullshit, I give you Eddie Izzard:

Many straight women find him to be hot.

ETA: And some straight men find Serena Williams to be hot, even as "The Beast" she is now.

Also:

Quote:
If you look at high testosterone women and high estrogren men, they're fat, androgynous

Cites, please.

Quote:
and unattractive to everyone.

Really? Everyone? Did you go around the whole world and ask?

Quote:
Sorry, I think this is the most bogus idea I've heard since, well, in a very long time.

Ditto to yours.

A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 20, 2009 12:58 PM

FREMDFIRMA

I don't think Lucy counts.

The story is kinda vague about it, but OTHER than Lucy, the "queen bee" - the Diclonus are actually incapable of reproduction for the most part, because only Lucy can spawn Diclonus, other Diclonus spawn Silpelets, which are "drones" and incapable of reproduction, although in their own way far more powerful and dangerous than a Diclonus (Number 35/Mariko).

I might get into observed feminine physical capabilities when I have more time, but advise in advance that the sample pool is almost exclusively drawn from very damaged people - given my own experiences in teaching them self defense though, upper body mass be damned, pound for pound I'd rather fight an XY than an XX, cause my chances are better, berserkerang notwithstanding.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 20, 2009 1:03 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

FWIW

In our evolutionary tree males used to be about twice the size of females. So, overall, the trend is for more equal size over time.

"More unsettling is that physically demanding jobs have different standards for men and women."

I think you need to decide on which standards are essential and which are just a macho pissing contest.

For example, to get my EMT license I had to be able to pick up off the floor, hoist up, and carry an average-sized male in the 'fireman's carry'.

(I have to add that there are some people - of either sex - who are so large no one is going to be able to carry them. And, since then, first responders are being taught to first find another way to move people which is easier and faster and safer for both. For example, at one point I needed to move a co-worker who was in pain. I put the person in a roll-around chair and wheeled them to where they needed to go. Another way to go is to cross your arms, grab the back of the collar from behind, and drag them by the collar. )

To be a rescue person at work, I had to be able to don and carry a Scott Air Pak, and be fit enough to use it for the duration of its rated air supply.

OTOH, years back the Post Office had a requirement that (to the best of my recollection) one be able to pick up a 100 lb sack and carry it 40 feet. And that was the standard until someone asked - why ? When do we ever do that ? Why not just make the requirement for sacks that are smaller and lighter, like the ones we really use ? And so it was.

Pull-ups in basic training ? I'm not sure what one does with that exercise in real life. What about push ups ?

Maybe someone can address some of these.

***************************************************************

ETA: in general the average man is somewhat stronger than the average woman, though there certainly is a good percentage of women who are stronger than a good percentage of men.

Also, women tend to have better lower body strength, men upper body. (This lends itself to different fighting styles.) Women overall do have better endurance. It used to be thought that women have a higher pain threshold, but it turns out that men do. It's just that men complain more over less ! Women have, literally, thinner skin overall.

So, there are physical differences between the sexes. But, I'd like to reiterate SignyM's point - that there is a natural distribution of characteristscs, with much overlap between the two.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 20, 2009 2:00 PM

YY

This is a pretty dumb thread, hence not worth fighting over, but if you want to see the effects of counter hormones on genders, just do a google image search, this isn't a speculation, it's like saying "black people have darker skin than white people." Eddie's trying to look like a woman, but not succeeding. He looks like a man.

Also, "some people" find deviations from the norm attractive. Sure. But so what. If 51% don't, then you have evolution's answer. Statistically, it's been determined that a 1% slant in selection results in 100% domination within 20 generations, which for humans is around 400 years.

Besides, this isn't about homosexuality, it's about gender differences. If Caster Semenya were to run as a gay or transgender male and be discriminated against, that's another issue entirely. The topic of the thread was based on the hypothetical that Semenya is actually a male, what that means for women's sports. My take: Nothing good.

Frem,

Yes, lucy does count. I don't mean Lucy, specifically, but her phenotypical characteristics. I chose her not because she's your avatar, but because she's one of the less exaggerated anime figures in her ultra-femininity, but she's still exaggerated feminity. Lain is another example, but I didn't pick her because you're not supposed to be attracted to Lain. Another good example of the atypical anime sex symbol is Ryoko, who is way too old to be a typical object of desire, yet she sure ranked high on everyone's list.

My point being here that the exaggerative fantasy of anime exists because it works. It's what people select for, subconsciously, and yes YY, not 100% of the people, but more than 50%.

This selection will drive the genders further apart, just as it has done for the last 3 million years. Weight difference between *lean* male and female apes: nearly none. Yes, Kathy, you do see males substantially heavier than females, but these are atypical, and you see the same thing in humans: a woman weighing 160 is generally overweight, a male a 160, underweight
Height difference is fairly minimal in some apes, larger in others, but in our ancestors, about an inch on average. I checked a lot of sites on this. But mainly, this was about secondary sexual characteristics, which are minimal, definitely an evolutionary trend. In our direct predecessory, the bonobo, you can see this start to develop, but nothing compared to the difference you see in humans today. And we're still selecting for greater difference.

I'm with you on the post office: There's no reason that you should have to pick up anything over the PO's official weight limit. I think that's 50 lbs. Here's what's absurd: You pass the weight test when you're hired, say at age 40, and then 20 years later you are still expected to lift 100 lbs. Not a problem for a city postmaster who has underlings, but an issue for rural ones. Our postmaster claims she has no problem with it, but she's around 65 and weighs around 100lbs, and was supposed to retire, but she lost her 401k, and so now she's stuck working. It's ridiculous.

Edit: I finally got the picture above to work. You will notice that Nicole violates the all the rules in a spot competition against bodybuilder Lisa: (age date according to photo info)

28 year old Lisa is in better physical condition according to what people would measure, she is showing more skin, and in a stripper pose.

42 year old Nicole is the same genetic group, so there's no bias there, and there are no obvious genetic differences, shape of nose, forehead, etc. Nicole is just more feminine, all around.

It's Lisa's choice not to be feminine, but it is a choice which makes her not competitive with Nicole, on an evolutionary level for mate selection. Not that Ms. Kidman has a quiverfull of children, but that's actually do to a histo-incompatibility between her and Tom Cruise. (Not something either share with their new spouses.) If Lisa has a fertility problem it will be steroid related. I'm just saying that evolution is natural selection, and human nature is programmed to select.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 20, 2009 2:47 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I can't claim these ideas or examples, I just don't remember the name of the paper they came from. Anyway, the idea is that beauty standards change over time and culture, and are generally reflective of higher status in that time and place. I'm not sure how much 'natural' selection is at work here

Native Hawaiians thought that really tall and hefty women - over 6' and 300 lbs + - were the most attractive, seing as how a normal diet of fish and poi lead to smaller and very lean people (much like pre-war Japanese).

Back in the day in Europe when women worked like animals in the fields and were strong, leathery, and lean - the standard of beauty was a noticeable lack of muscle, curves and a fair complexion.

When office work made us all pudgy and pale, the standard of beauty became a tan, lean and fit woman - obviously one who had better things to do with her time than work.

***************************************************************

Just my $0.02, adjusted for inflation.

And, I have to add this for fun:

With cosmetic surgery available to only a few, augmentation has become the current standard of beauty.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 20, 2009 2:58 PM

Kathy,

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I think that standards of selection are innate, and fairly immutable.
If there's any change over time, we grow less selective as we age.
I'm willing to grant that not all genetic groups have the same selection criteria.

I have had many black friend voice this opinion, which I don't personally share:

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 20, 2009 3:02 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hey there !

Ok, agree to disagree - works for me.

I've been trying to add more in the way of illustration. Has it been successful in the sense that one gets a better idea of what I mean ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 20, 2009 3:11 PM

Not quite sure. I don't know what you mean right now, for example

Edit: Oh yes. Sorry, picture worth 1000 words.

I wanted to make a comment on the 16th c. fat women:
Fat meant wealthy, and wealth was the social goal.
That doesn't mean that the criteria of sexual attraction had changed.
It's just a different social motivator.

You see this in parts of subsaharan africa also, I would imagine for similar reasons:
Don't wanna starve.

So, to a 16th c. european man, that celtic servant girl that looked like Nicole Kidman probably looked very nice.
But he knew that she was no meal ticket.

But yes, overall, I'm more of a nature man than most.
Nurture has it's place, but most things aren't IMHO total social constructs.
I'd say rather that the social constructs are just thinly veiling our own nature.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 20, 2009 3:32 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Dreamtrove,

On the specific issue of the tennis player, you may note that your 'then' image actually has a date on it. I presume this date is related to the picture. It appears twice in the text surrounding the photo.

On the issue of attractiveness, preferences vary. I like short chubby girls with lots of curves.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 20, 2009 3:59 PM

AG05

Quote:
Pull-ups in basic training ? I'm not sure what one does with that exercise in real life. What about push ups ?

Maybe someone can address some of these.

Perhaps because pull ups and push ups are a great indicator of upper body strength and endurance, and upper body strength and endurance are important if you're going to be carrying/firing a 10 pound rifle (or 30 pound machine gun)all day while wearing 60+ pounds of protective gear?

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 20, 2009 4:34 PM

Tony,

You could be right. I did a search on Serena williams 1990s that what came up. But I don't know when she beefed up. Was just saying, "Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, let's at least examine the possibility that ..."

Yes preferences vary. My point: >51% of her potential mates, largely being other Australians, in this case, Keith Urban, will find Nicole more attractive. That's sufficient to tip the scales of evolution, even if 10% of them prefer gay men instead.

A number of polls have been done of the women of firefly. River always wins. Not everyone on this forum is going to agree with that conclusion, but the consensus of popular opinion does. Myself, It's a toss up between her and Saffron. Overall, it's not a bad lot. They all rank better than olympic runners, who to me, all look like men... too much like men for me to be attracted to them.

To some extent, also, it's impression, by which I mean the process by which a duck knows that it is a duck. I am attracted to women with black hair and blue eyes. A rare combination that my mother happens to have. That's anecdotal, but a decent chance that humans do have some natal impression wired into their circuitry.

Doesn't trump other factors though. She's also northern Irish, all sorts of genes that go along with that, which might effect the way I feel towards Nicole, if I didn't know I was in a vast majority there... but still...

No I don't have a Tarja fixation. I'm not going to get into a Tarja vs. Tuomas argument either, I think she was a fool, and well, live and learn.

I would have liked to see her in concert though, would be nice if she would come back and co-vocal with Annette.

Tuomas is the man.., Moving on. Edit: Annette was awesome on stage. Thanks, you were great, and she makes a good vocalist for the band, okay, now back to a pointless rant, sorry for the interruption.

Oh, selection. Another key selection happens when humans go through puberty. If put in an all boys boarding school, males are more likely to be gay than in a coed situation. They select from the first people who created a reaction in them. For me, it was an irish girl, and then another, and then... Oh dear. And then a polish girl, and a couple more.

So yes, I was destined to fall for this

But I think there is a human trend overall that most men tend to select the girls who appear in sports illustrated than in a bodybuilding magazine.

But it's not just us, and skip the PC and take a look at reality: There's a reason that these people are cast for this story

and not these two,

and it ain't social conditioning because you have a pretty internatonal audience for that. It ain't how we envisioned them, but that's a very possible real world pairing of brits. Oh, and sorry if that's anyone here ;)

Edited to add: Kathy, ironically, I just saw your edit to add Jessica Rabbit, and by coincidence? well, it seems that none of my posted women are surgically enhanced. Particularly I picked some perfectly natural people that I think everyone recognizes, but also, who are attractive to me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 20, 2009 6:49 PM

NCBROWNCOAT

I've been on both ends of the extremes. And both were distressing to me. So here's my perspective.

From age 15-19 (about 110 at 5'8"- my full adult height) I was dieted and exercised like a fiend and lost my period, a natural adaptation that happens when a woman's body fat drops under what it would take to successfully nourish a baby. An adaptation I'm sure that is evolutionary.

And I was 160 at age 14, over weight and miserable.

I've found a happy medium at about 143 (my weight for the past 11 years) at age 49 with a good amount of that weight muscle from exercising (walking, light weight training and swimming).

Personally I like my guys of average height (5'10-about 6'1-2) well toned and blue eyes (my Dad had them) Some examples are the Captain himself, Nathan Fillion, the late Paul Newman, Stephen Moyer etc. for example.

I can't cite statistics but I would guess most women would have the same general preferences.

I also served in the Army from 1985-1992, both on Active Duty and Reserve. I had a "desk job" (in computers and then admin). If the job determined my fitness I wouldn't need to get out of a chair. But I was expected to do situps, pushups-so called "male ones" (I can still knock out about 15-20 depending on how I feel) and run 2 miles in a certain time. What does that have to do with pushing buttons on a computer or filing paperwork? Well, this was back in the day when cutting edge main frame computers had 25 pound delicate disk drives that had to be lifted shoulder height to be put in a drive. And don't forget how much a box of 5 part paper weighs, I don't.

Well, I had to be fit enough to pull multiple 24 hour shifts in garrison or when out in the field. I was in the 7th Inf Div active and a Engineering unit in the Reserves so I was expected to pull my weight in packing and helping load equipment and all sorts of other tasks. And maintain my rifle proficiency even though I was technically "behind the lines". But as everyone knows now, there is no "behind the lines" jobs in the military.

And on the issue of Caster Semenya there is lots of speculation that she is an hermaphrodite and determining sex is complicated.

"Following on from that, "private parts" do not alone constitute male or female. This is a rudimentary distinction, but does not acknowledge a range of developmental conditions that can cause male characteristics to develop without there needing to be male reproductive organs. The condition of pseudohermaphroditism is one where male organs develop in varying degrees, and so the absence of male organs is not proof of anything...

Second, even genetic testing cannot confirm male or female. In fact, it is so complex that to do proper sex determination testing, you have to take a multi-disciplinary approach, and make use of internal medicine specialists, gynecologists, psychologists, geneticists and endocrinologists. I am afraid that dropping your pants is not proof at all."

This is from an excellet article posted here: http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/08/caster-semenya-male-or-female.
html

If she is a hermaphrodite, where does that put her? Does she run with the woman and have an advantage or with the men and have a disadvantage?

http://fireflyfaninnc.livejournal.com/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 21, 2009 2:29 AM

There's no such thing. I'm sorry, but speaking from the science corner here:
Not possible. Gonadal tissues develop either into ovaries or testicles,
based on gene presence due to the absence or presence of a Y chromosome.
It really is that simple.

So called exceptions are no more real than crop circles and UFOs.
Some gays love this idea because it justifies their life choice.

On the subject of religious moral values, I really don't care. It's their choice.
On the subject of darwin, yes, nature and evolution do care. Homosexuality is not a survival characteristic.
Neither is smoking. It's just another cold hard fact of immutable reality.

You can try to force nature against its will with a sex change operation, and sure,
with enough power, you can force the sun to orbit the earth.
Properly placed gravitation centers, maybe small black holes in a mutual orbit could cause this to happen.

Basic rule? Don't fuck with mother nature.

I'm afraid that this story is depressingly simple,
I can't believe people are dumb enough to fall for some guy claiming "women's rights."
Sorry, but this is pretty dumb.

Here's the very short story:

A guy decided to fuck over the women by competing in their sport, either because he had gender issues
(may have even gotten a sex change operation) or couldn't compete in a men's competition.

And allow me to add this note, because it only just occurred to me, but it's true:
This isn't a normal sports, this is South Africa. Specifically, the fucking ANC
Anyone who has been paying attention to claims and "proof" from the ANC...

I think this started with the whole cricket player thing, then "clinical proof that AIDS does not exist," etc. etc.
The oldest woman in the world was "proven" to be 135 from Soweto, I posted that at the time as bogus.
She's since backed down and claimed 97. I doubt that too. But she's not alone, people live forever in this hotbed of science:

It's a sad commentary that people who look "old" can claim any age because no one's ever seen an old person.
The average life expectancy in Soweto is officially 48, but that includes these claims, so it could be lower.
Soweto is a monument to Apartheid and racism. And now, the ANC, a US-sponsored terrorist organization posing as an elected govt.
A country where you can be president *after* your convictions for rape, and also embezzlement.
This isn't freedom. The ANC has maintained the townships and is easily as racist as it's predecessor.
The ANC's elections are as sound as their science. And their sports. They want to win at any cost, even their own population.

Here's this person's own home town, the version you won't see in any related story:

People believe in the ANC why? because it's black? Does that make you automatically good?
I'm stunned by how people are suckers for flattery. Someone who supports their race or gender in name only.
Yes, that's flattery, and anyone who falls for it is PFD.

Yes, just like Christian conservatism can become moronic when it claims the Earth is 5,000 years old,
so too bleeding heart liberalism can be moronic, totally abandoning science for a fantasy they want to believe in.

Women and men are different. It's the natural world.
Accept it or don't, but it's going to go on being the natural order of things.
Women develop eggs which can grown into embryos, and as a result, they can have babies.
Men produce semen, like Semenya.

End of story.

Oh, and I really do feel like I'm on a creationist forum,
arguing in favor of the existence of diseases as living organisms and not curses.

Edited to add:

I also blame the international community for recognizing either government, and I pity the people of South Africa.
At least Al Qaeda has a charitable side.

My apologies. I hadn't even been thinking about this angle of the whole story, but this is a real concern:
The support for this "controversial sports issue" is a blatantly genocidal regime's desire to win, not just a fucked up individual.
Supporting the idea is like supporting the practices of the German olympic commission in 1936.

Back to sports:
Women, if you let men set the rules to *this* extent, then strength will be the only criteria for sport,
women's sports will become like women's acting in Shakespearian times.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 21, 2009 3:58 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

veering slightly - It nagged me *a little* when I saw River - lithe 90 lb. female - being chosen and trained by the Alliance to be a super killer woman. I know, some of that was based on her extraordinary mental gifts (and this is science fiction), but still, with so little mass her being able to take out heavily armored Alliance Marines as in the end of Serenity seemed mathematically unlikely... force=mass x velocity... that's fixed.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 21, 2009 4:36 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Gonadal tissues develop either into ovaries or testicles,
based on gene presence due to the absence or presence of a Y chromosome.
It really is that simple."

Not ... quite. Look up 'intersex conditions'.

Here's a start:

"Intersexuality in humans refers to (often congenital) intermediate or atypical combinations of physical features that usually distinguish male from female. This is usually understood to be congenital, involving chromosome, morphologic, genital and/or gonadal anomalies, such as diversion from stereotypical XX=female or XY=male presentations, such as sex reversal (XY=female, XX=male), genital ambiguity, sex developmental differences. An intersex organism may have biological characteristics of both the male and female sexes.[1] Intersexuality is the term adopted by medicine during the 20th century applied to human beings whose biological sex cannot be classified as either male or female.[2][3][4] Intersexuality is also the word adopted by the identity-political movement, to criticize medical protocols in sex assignment and to claim the right to be heard in the construction of a new one.[5]"

And homosexuality being a 'life choice' ? Uhhhmmm --- there are an awful lot of animal species with 'gay' and 'lesbian' individuals. Tell me, what 'life choice' did these animals make ? Do you believe they put a lot of thought into it ? Were they culturally conditioned by the PC 'liberal' media ? (< sarcasm)
***************************************************************

ETA: basic lesson in human physical gender.

Aside from the 'normal' chromosomal choice of XX or XY there are genetic anomalies: X(), Y(), XXY, XYY, etc.

And physiologically, males also produce estrogen. Females also produce testosterone. It's not an either/ or situation since both sexes produce and are exposed to both hormones.

The human fetus starts out female, and ends up developing a more male pattern due to exposure to testosterone.

Females can be exposed to higher levels of testosterone through a number of different mechanisms:
- the mother may be producing more testosterone (see below)
- the female may be twinned with (a) male(s)
- 10% or more of females have varying amounts of Y chromosome embedded in their X chromosome(s) and endogenously produce higher levels of testosterone (sometimes these genentic females have a particular portion of the Y chromosome that codes for male gonads making them anatomic males - called XX males)

Males may produce lower levels of testosterone and/ or be exposed to higher levels of estrogen.
- 'estrogenic' pollutants cause intersex and feminized males
- the mother may be producing higher levels of estrogen
- the male may be twinned with (a) female(s)
- some males have low levels of an enzyme that turns testosterone into its far more active form
- some males lack the portion of the Y chromosome that induces gonadal tissues, making them anantomic females - called XY females

In addition, different tissues may be differently sensitive to existing levels of hormone. So, for example, you could have a genetic female with facial hair and abdominal hair, or a genetic male with excess breast tissue.

I suspect Semenya passsed the easiest genetic test to perform, which is a chromosomal check, looking for Barr bodies (the condensed 'extra' X chromosome) from a inner cheek swab.

Anyway, there is a lot more on the topic, but physical gender is not always genetically clear-cut. BTW - there does seem to be plenty of information on XX 'female' males.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 21, 2009 5:06 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

All joking aside...

It didn't make sense that a 90lb girl could easily take out 20 large males. No matter her training.

Its Hollywood fantasy that the more "trained you are" the more (numerical) butts you could kick.

I'll go so far as to say, a well trained girl, in a 1-on-1 fight might have a chance against 1 opponent larger than herself. But the 50 or 60? Please...

In a one on one fight, size matter. Thats true even if the woman is 250lbs and the guy is 140lbs...usually its whoever is bigger, with more mass wins.

There are no pacts between wolves and men.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 21, 2009 6:14 AM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

DT -

Alright, no fighting. Just two more things before I go.

1) The difference between sex and gender:

Quote:
"Sex" refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women.

"Gender" refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women.

http://www.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en

The testing Semenya had was really sex testing, not gender testing, as biological characteristics do not determine gender (despite common knowledge that says sex and gender are essentially the same).

There's also more than two genders - look up berdache, two-spirit, third gender, non-gendered, androgyne, transgender (which is different from transsexual, which involves sex reassignment surgery).

2) In general, I'd recommend you not try to speak for science, because nature supports more weird things than you or I could imagine.

P.S.

Quote:
Oh, and I really do feel like I'm on a creationist forum,
arguing in favor of the existence of diseases as living organisms and not curses.

Lol. That was the comparison I was going to make about you! But, suffice it to say that our perspectives are so different that discussing this issue with each other isn't going to end up anywhere.

Edited to correct my stupid mistakes.

A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 21, 2009 6:57 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Just complete speculation on my part, but I wonder if Semenya inherited two 'masculinized' X chromosomes - female X chromosomes with portions of Y chromosome added in - one from each parent. S/he would make an interesting genetic study. Also, I wonder if s/he identifies as female, since there are no obvious exernal male parts.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 21, 2009 7:11 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

The whole problem is that she may have inherited masculine muscular definition. Which means that her muscles are stronger than a womans.

Which would disqualify her as a female athlete.

If all of this stuff is true, she is neither female nor male.

Caught between 2 worlds.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 21, 2009 7:28 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
In a one on one fight, size matter. Thats true even if the woman is 250lbs and the guy is 140lbs...usually its whoever is bigger, with more mass wins.

Umm... no.

You don't fight someone bigger and stronger on their own terms - thing is, most folks who don't understand that kinda thing get their idea of what a "fight" is from sports or hollywood.

I'm like 5'6" and MAYBE 130lbs, soakin wet with boots on, dude, EVERYONE is like bigger and stronger than me - and yanno what ?

That don't matter a whole lot when they're on the ground choking half to death from a badly bruised windpipe, or crumpled against a wall with a snapped collarbone - it AIN'T like hollywood, and it gets serious enough, nobody is gonna buck a trio of 70 grain corbon powerballs blasted into their body cavity neither.

Numbers count for a lot, I'll give ya that one, just hollywood stupidity to wade right in, smart move is to duck behind a corner, and blow away anyone who follows - volunteers will get a bit thin REAL quick.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 21, 2009 7:40 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

I meant when you got someone 250lbs versus someone 120lbs... with no weapons...

Yeah, granted, anything can be a weapon...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 21, 2009 8:00 AM

HKCAVALIER

Holy crap. Do I even dare? This thread has gotten so outa hand. Someone is wrong on the internet, Dream, and boy howdy, I think it's you.

DT, you really don't seem to be talking about actual sexual selection--you seem to know a lot about the pornographic imagination, or more specifically your own pornographic imagination, but the pornographic imagination does not drive morphology or choose our flesh and blood partners (no matter what Desmond Morris says)--not for long anyway, and not consistently enough across the species to be a determining factor in our evolution.

Women in the future will all look like manga versions of Nicole Kidman? Not if biology has anything to say about it. You know what trumps your fantasies of sexual perfection? Sweat. If your partner's sweat doesn't turn you on, she could look like the perfect combination of Marilyn Monroe, Nefertiti and Sailor Moon and it wouldn't last longer than a weekend in most cases. If her sweat sings the right song, you will make up every excuse in the book--I was drunk, I was desperate, I felt sorry for her--to get with her and stay with her, though she look like Herman Munster. Man is the rationalizing animal, Dream, and depending on how repressed and how lacking in self-knowledge he is, he's got a lot of rationalizing to do.

But I'll tell ya, the totalitarians sure want you to believe as you do (funny, how the conversation keeps coming back to this). If you really believe that the world is a dark and inhospitable place of dog eat dog, and sexual desire is really no more complicated and personal than some centerfold's "vital statistics," then you will be pretty dang easy for them to dominate because you will be systematically shutting down your inner life.

A boy brought up in an abusive system will learn to fear his inner life, fear his discontents and his idealistic dreams as "maladaptive." Within an abusive system, they ARE maladaptive. He'll grow to blame his own thoughts for the beatings he received and the love of which he is deprived. The farther the boy runs from his inner life, the more his sexuality will turn to pure fetishism of one kind or another.

Psychologically, we associate the inner life with the feminine, and so the boy can also be said to be running from his own femininity. His notions of sexual identity will likewise be distorted, polarized. He'll see hypermasculinity and hyperfeminity as the norm, as what should be, and anything in between will be suspect, frightening to him, even disgusting.

To dream of falling in love with a woman and being close to her and wanting to grow old together is a very frightening prospect to a boy who must avoid his inner life. Jacking off to Playboy centerfolds or anime porn is a hell of a lot safer. The only inner life that kind of sex excites, if any, is shame and embarrassment and you gotta know, the totalitarians looooove it when their subjects feel shame and embarrassment.

A man who can imagine no deeper reason for homosexuality than "life style choice" is simply justifying his heterosexual fetish. You do know that homosexuality is more common in denser, more static populations, right? What possible reason could nature have to curb population growth under such conditions? Hmmmmmmm.

The fundy Christians made up this idea that sex is only for procreation--it's an article of faith. You never learned that from science, Dream. Science, to say nothing of simple in-front-of-your-nose reality, does not bear it out.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 21, 2009 8:14 AM