The Female and Male Sex Drive

[DarkVoyuer]

I have heard multiple times that men want more sexual partners than their female counterparts because men "can spread their seed." It may partially explain why some men want more sexual partners but it fails to explain the theory that most men are by nature polygamous. Has anyone bothered to examine the ratio of men to women? From what I have read there are approximately 1% more women in the worlds population. Therefore, when one applies this theory logically, men should be only 1% more promiscuous than women. Secondly, 99% of men and 100% of women should be monogamous. Based on my perception, the spread the seed theory is used to prove that most men (probably over 90%) will screw any woman who gives him the time of day. Some people have even tried to contend that men's nature is to kill other men so they can sleep with more women. This makes no sense because there have been no studies that show men’s primary fantasy is about killing other men so they can get laid by more women. Secondly, when there are enough resources to spread around most men are not prone to kill one another. I simply do not understand why this theory is so popular in our society.

IN order to encourage discussion please answer any of the following questions:
1. Do you believe men are more promiscuous because of the spread the seed theory?

2. How do you explain the spread the seed theory when it pertains to men who are monogamous but desire to have more sex with their one partner? These same men do not want to have sex with other women in reality or fantasy.

3. Should men’s promiscuity be directly related to the male/female population ratio? If this is so, should women be more promiscuous in communities where men outnumber women?

4. Do you think sex drives could be related to a partners’ desire for a big family? If that is the case, do you believe every woman who wants a large family has a high sex drive?

5.Do you think men are prone to kill other men when there are adequate vital resources such as food and water?

[slevin]

You are assuming that men are more promiscuous.

[Chicup]

Amazon.com: The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature (9780060556570): Matt Ridley:…

This should explain much.

I have heard multiple times that men want more sexual partners than their female counterparts because men "can spread their seed." It may partially explain why some men want more sexual partners but it fails to explain the theory that most men are by nature polygamous. Has anyone bothered to examine the ratio of men to women? From what I have read there are approximately 1% more women in the worlds population. Therefore, when one applies this theory logically, men should be only 1% more promiscuous than women.

The sex ratio is not really related to mating patterns. Most sex ratios are 1-1 unless the male is substantially larger at birth like in Elephant seals. This comes down more to mathematics I dont' want to get into. The issue not all males get to mate.

Secondly, 99% of men and 100% of women should be monogamous. Based on my perception, the spread the seed theory is used to prove that most men (probably over 90%) will screw any woman who gives him the time of day.

No they shouldn't be monogamous. They should be looking for the best genes. Your mate isn't always your best genes, you might be better off sharing a man, that sort of thing. Added there is some genetic merit to NOT having all your children with one person. What if that person has a genetic defect you share? None of this is really thought about, we just react as we are programmed. This is why new pussy = old pussy in the short term to be blunt.

Some people have even tried to contend that men's nature is to kill other men so they can sleep with more women.
This makes no sense because there have been no studies that show men’s primary fantasy is about killing other men so they can get laid by more women. Secondly, when there are enough resources to spread around most men are not prone to kill one another. I simply do not understand why this theory is so popular in our society.

VERY VERY old saying. Where armies go genes flow.

IN order to encourage discussion please answer any of the following questions:
1. Do you believe men are more promiscuous because of the spread the seed theory?

Your theory isn't fleshed out enough for me to answer that. Men are promiscuous because there is a genetic pay off for being so. Women can only have one child at a time, men can have 100's in the same time period. This doesn't mean women don't have their promiscuous side too. Its been found that women are more likely to cheat while they are ovulating which is natures little way of saying 'find a different man for the next kid'. They have done studies in England where close to 20% of the children were not of their listed biological father.

2. How do you explain the spread the seed theory when it pertains to men who are monogamous but desire to have more sex with their one partner? These same men do not want to have sex with other women in reality or fantasy.

Monogamy isn't quite natural, but its not horrible either. Before we were swinging I never cheated on my wife, due to circumstances we haven't been swinging for almost a year and I haven't cheated on her during that period either.

3. Should men’s promiscuity be directly related to the male/female population ratio? If this is so, should women be more promiscuous in communities where men outnumber women?

Populations have little to do with it unless the ratio is such that its completely out of balance.

4. Do you think sex drives could be related to a partners’ desire for a big family? If that is the case, do you believe every woman who wants a large family has a high sex drive?

Nope.

5.Do you think men are prone to kill other men when there are adequate vital resources such as food and water?

Yep. Its about status too. The poor in the US live a life that would be 'rich' in many places of the world. We still kill each other over small sums and no one is starving here or dying of thirst.

[lookingfornow]

What a complex topic. Humans have striven to understand the human sexual condition from before our earliest recorded history. Having spent a fair amount of time researching certain aspects of that condition in the last five years, I believe that individual human sexuality is the result of genetic predisposition modified by environment, social conditioning, and learned behavior. In that context, generalities are dangerously applied when discussing humans and sex.

Originally Posted by DarkVoyuer

I have heard multiple times that men want more sexual partners than their female counterparts because men "can spread their seed." It may partially explain why some men want more sexual partners but it fails to explain the theory that most men are by nature polygamous.

Biological anthropologists will argue that, on a genetic level, a polygamous male is more likely to pass his genetic make-up to more off spring than a monogamous male. Accordingly, across multiple generations, more and more off spring are likely to inherit a genetic predisposition to polygamous behavior than to monogamous behavior. It is not what men “want” rationally or logically which is at issue. Rather, what is being preferentially selected is a genetic predisposition which is more likely to be passed on to later generations.

There are some basic anthropological assumptions underlying this theory. The first is that off spring of polygamous-ly inclined males are as likely to thrive as off spring of monogamous-ly inclined males. The second is that males willing to mate more often are more likely to have off spring. While social and religious mores have taken hold of the human condition in more recent times which might challenge these assumptions, I tend to believe that for the eons that pre-date recorded history, males who were physically dominant, very sexually active, and polygamous-ly minded were far more likely to pass their genetic traits on to future generations. After such eons, those future generations represent the majority of mankind.

Western society now embraces monogamy as a societal norm, which norm challenges the basic assumptions of which genetic trait is now more likely to be passed on to the next generation. However, even Western society has not embraced an expectation of absolute male monogamy until the last three or four generations. Before then, it was generally understood and accepted that men would take lovers and mistresses while being socially faithful to their wife. Three or four generations is far too short a period of time for any genetic predisposition to polygamous behavior to be preferentially replaced by a more monogamous genetic predisposition.

Originally Posted by DarkVoyuer

Has anyone bothered to examine the ratio of men to women? From what I have read there are approximately 1% more women in the worlds population. Therefore, when one applies this theory logically, men should be only 1% more promiscuous than women. Secondly, 99% of men and 100% of women should be monogamous.

I read and re-read this statement several times as I could not understand how or why the near equality in number of men and women would result in only a 1% rate of polygamy. I think your argument depends upon an assumption that all females are monogamously minded and, therefore, only 1% of women are available to the polygamous-ly minded males.

Recent research has confirmed that large percentages of woman are, by nature, polygamous-ly minded, too.

Originally Posted by DarkVoyuer

Based on my perception, the spread the seed theory is used to prove that most men (probably over 90%) will screw any woman who gives him the time of day.

I don’t agree with this statement. There is a slightly different social and biological effect in play here. It is sometimes referred to as the Coolidge Effect after the former President and a famous exchange that he and his wife are said to have had while visiting an egg farm. In mammals, it is well documented that males lose sexual interest in their monogamously available mates over time. However, when presented with a different potential mate, their sexual interest is reignited, both in the new mate and in the prior mate.

Extrapolating mammalian behavior to humans, a human male in a long-term monogamous relationship who is willing to consider polygamy is likely to find any available sex partner interesting. The “seed spreading” theory only explains the predisposition towards non-monogamous sexual behavior. A male in a non-monogamous relationship is likely to be every bit as selective in picking a potential mate as any female is.

Originally Posted by DarkVoyuer

Some people have even tried to contend that men's nature is to kill other men so they can sleep with more women. This makes no sense because there have been no studies that show men’s primary fantasy is about killing other men so they can get laid by more women. Secondly, when there are enough resources to spread around most men are not prone to kill one another. I simply do not understand why this theory is so popular in our society.

What constitutes “enough resources?” Is one available and willing monogamous sexual partner "enough?"

Current biological sexual research suggests that the biological drive in humans to be sexual is the result of a complex interaction of three separate hormones on certain pleasure receptors in the brain. In combination, these hormones create the need or desire for orgasm, desire for human physical contact (sometimes referred to as cuddling), and desire for an absence of sexual interaction.

The hormones released in orgasm are very powerful to the pleasure centers of the brain, particularly Dopamine. Scientists continue to work on developing an understanding of how these hormones drive human sexual desire. Under one theory, humans, particularly human males, are susceptible to sexual conditioning to a greater or lesser extent. Males who experience a great deal of sex will develop a biological desire for more sex so as to experience the resulting Dopamine hormonal “high” as much as possible. However, the hormonal high appears to diminish over time to the extent that the sex is had with a single sexual partner. Thus, the Coolidge Effect. Accordingly, highly sexually interested males are more likely to desire a variety of sexual partners.

In contrast, males who do not experience a great deal of sex will, over time, slowly lose interest in sex.

Social scientists have hypothesized that the above described genetic predisposition would be essential in a communal living structure comprised of both more and less dominant males. Less dominant males who are less likely to mate would, over time, have to biologically adapt to their position in the social order. Yet, what happens when dominant males are contesting for sexual primacy over a group. This is where the question of adequacy of resources comes in. An unstated assumption here is that males would naturally be inclined not to be cuckolded by another male within a social group. Within a group of dominant males each with a predisposition to not be cuckold, a battle for “resources” could develop even in circumstances where the group includes a number of available female mates.

Thus, it is conceivable that in a battle over dominance one male might fight another to death in an effort to control mating behavior within the group.

However, recent research suggests that sexually interested males, over time, become less concerned about cuckolding. Indeed, there is some research to suggest that cuckolding may actually heighten sexual pleasure in some human males, particularly with a recurring sexual mate. Thus, cuckolding and mate sharing may have formed an important role in early human development where a group might have benefited if it could hold together with multiple dominant males which, collectively, would have made the group stronger than one with a single dominant male.

Originally Posted by DarkVoyuer

1. Do you believe men are more promiscuous because of the spread the seed theory?

I think that humans, generally, are not monogamous by nature. Rather, monogamy is a learned behavior derived from societal rules which were adopted to lessen strife and include clear lines for passing wealth from generation to generation. Over time, these societal rules have enabled the societies which have adopted them to generally succeed over other societies. However, those social rules did not generally obligate males to remain strictly monogamous. Rather, those rules only imposed social monogamy.

Originally Posted by DarkVoyuer

2. How do you explain the spread the seed theory when it pertains to men who are monogamous but desire to have more sex with their one partner? These same men do not want to have sex with other women in reality or fantasy.

In general, human sexuality is governed by a combination of social and biological forces. Social forces can be very powerful. Moreover, sex serves purposes beyond procreation. Other hormones are released which tend to strengthen the pair bonding between lovers--the hormone associated with physical touch or cuddling--for example. Accordingly, it is not surprising that males and females desire sex in this form, too. Some males may categorically reject sex in any other form. Indeed, some humans reject sex in all forms. That some do these things does not mean that the thoughts and responses of others are unnatural.

Originally Posted by DarkVoyuer

3. Should men’s promiscuity be directly related to the male/female population ratio? If this is so, should women be more promiscuous in communities where men outnumber women?

I think that both males and females have some predisposition for polygamy. Current research suggests that women are initially most interested in strengthening and defending their primary pair bond. This makes sense as it was likely their primary source of physical security. However, later in life, women appear to develop more of an interest in sexual variety suggesting some desire to sire off spring with differing genetic partners, possibly to ensure a variety of off spring potentially willing to provide care and support later into life.

Since I don’t believe that relative percentages drive the inclination to polygamy, then I would not expect to find the converse.

Originally Posted by DarkVoyuer

4. Do you think sex drives could be related to a partners’ desire for a big family? If that is the case, do you believe every woman who wants a large family has a high sex drive?

We need to define “sex drive.” Females can procreate only in a short period each month. Thus, a female most interested in procreation would be sexual in that period. Further, to ensure sexual interest from their mate in that important period, the procreation minded female would abstain from sexual contact at any other time during the month.

Thus, the theoretically ideal “sex drive” for the completely procreation minded female would be once a month or twelve times a year. Against human averages, that would not constitute a “high sex drive” by most people’s definition.

Studies indicate that women are more likely to be sexually interested during their fertile periods (and may be biologically more prone to orgasm). However, women also are strongly affected by Dopamine release at orgasm. Thus, a woman without social conditioning to refrain from sexual contact, could be strongly motivated to have sex purely to experience the Dopamine release. Also, studies suggest that females do not experience the Coolidge Effect. Accordingly, women wanting Dopamine are more likely to want to have sex more and more often from their committed sexual partner.

However, the Coolidge Effect is likely to mean that their committed sexual partner, if that partner is monogamous, is unlikely to be able to fill the female's needs long-term.

Originally Posted by DarkVoyuer

5.Do you think men are prone to kill other men when there are adequate vital resources such as food and water?

Yep. Lots and lots of wars have been fought where food and water were never an issue for either society.

[VegasLee]

Originally Posted by DarkVoyuer

Some people have even tried to contend that men's nature is to kill other men so they can sleep with more women. This makes no sense because there have been no studies that show men’s primary fantasy is about killing other men so they can get laid by more women. Secondly, when there are enough resources to spread around most men are not prone to kill one another. I simply do not understand why this theory is so popular in our society.

I am really starting to think that you and I live on very different planets.

"I simply do not understand why this theory is so popular in our society. "

I have been alive more then a half century and got around a great deal and I have not found any place that theory is popular.

Not sure where you live but I am thinking, no, knowing it is not someplace I want to visit.

The 60's may have been good to me and my friends but what ever you are experimenting with today is something we would have never considered.

Very glad Chicup is leading the charge on this one. I am just not up to it any longer. Thanks Chicup!

[Chicup]

I made a mathematical typo.

New Pussy = Old Pussy should read New Pussy > Old Pussy

[DarkVoyuer]

Originally Posted by lookingfornow

What a complex topic. Humans have striven to understand the human sexual condition from before our earliest recorded history. Having spent a fair amount of time researching certain aspects of that condition in the last five years, I believe that individual human sexuality is the result of genetic predisposition modified by environment, social conditioning, and learned behavior. In that context, generalities are dangerously applied when discussing humans and sex.{/QUOTE]
Thank you! There is someone out there who does not subscribe to the simple and often sexist stereotypes of gender.

Suppose you had a community of 100 potent men and 101 women who are capable of having children. In order for each man to carry his genes without conflict, each man would mate one woman. In this case, every man would have the opportunity to carry his genes. Since there is one woman that would not have a mate, she would either have to be childless or share a male with another woman. Thus, 1 out of 100 or 1% of the male population would be polygamous. In that case, the alpha male is more likely to have two females.
I guess this dwarnin influenced theory would make more sense if some men are impotent or not interested in reproducing. Let's say you have 100 males and 101 females in a community. 50 of these males are impotent. Then it would make perfect sense for the remaining 50 males to desire multiple partners. Each of these males would have two sexual partners.
After thinking about it, I now think I understand why you do not understand. Correct me if I am wrong but I think you are referring to a theory that justifies “alpha males” having more of a genetic privilege to spread their genes. I reject this theory. I believe there is no such thing as some men having the genetic privilege to spread more of his genes than others. If a man is capable of producing sperm, he is socially and biologically equal to any other man. If nature wanted only the strong alpha males to spread their genes, they would make the “weaker” males impotent. Why would nature give weak males the ability to procreate if nature thought that so called alpha males were best way for the species to survive?

When you are referring to men are you referring to the common man or successful men? It seems to me that it just is impractical for every man to have extra mistresses, if the male/female ratio were equal. I would agree that these extra mistresses were only for the male elite which made 1% of the population.





I think your argument depends upon an assumption that all females are monogamously minded and, therefore, only 1% of women are available to the polygamous-ly minded males.

Recent research has confirmed that large percentages of woman are, by nature, polygamous-ly minded, too.[/QUOTE]
You are correct. It seems to me that there is a significant amount of research about this.

In mammals, it is well documented that males lose sexual interest in their monogamously available mates over time. However, when presented with a different potential mate, their sexual interest is reignited, both in the new mate and in the prior mate.

From my experience, human females lose interest in their male mates over time as well.

Extrapolating mammalian behavior to humans, a human male in a long-term monogamous relationship who is willing to consider polygamy is likely to find any available sex partner interesting. The “seed spreading” theory only explains the predisposition towards non-monogamous sexual behavior. A male in a non-monogamous relationship is likely to be every bit as selective in picking a potential mate as any female is.

I think I agree with you for the most part. I want to re-read it to make sure. I am very different than most people. Even though I have a desire for variety, I do not stereotype all men as men who share my desire for variety because based on my discussions with them they find polygamy absolutely disgusting. Many non-monogamists seem to have a hard time believing that there are communities who absolutely support monogamy and have a hatred for polyandry and polygamy. In Iran, casual sex, homosexuality and adultery is punishable by death. The people who write these laws come from a society who shares their hatred. The vast majority of the male and female populations in these communities share this hatred. Thus, I am always baffled on this notion that men do no have an instinct for monogamy. I do not believe monogamy should be seen as a moral absolute but I do accept the notion that many people including men absolutely believe in the ideal of monogamy.

[DocWill]

Originally Posted by DarkVoyuer

I have heard multiple times that men want more sexual partners than their female counterparts because men "can spread their seed." It may partially explain why some men want more sexual partners but it fails to explain the theory that most men are by nature polygamous. Has anyone bothered to examine the ratio of men to women? From what I have read there are approximately 1% more women in the worlds population. Therefore, when one applies this theory logically, men should be only 1% more promiscuous than women. Secondly, 99% of men and 100% of women should be monogamous. Based on my perception, the spread the seed theory is used to prove that most men (probably over 90%) will screw any woman who gives him the time of day. Some people have even tried to contend that men's nature is to kill other men so they can sleep with more women. This makes no sense because there have been no studies that show men’s primary fantasy is about killing other men so they can get laid by more women. Secondly, when there are enough resources to spread around most men are not prone to kill one another. I simply do not understand why this theory is so popular in our society.

IN order to encourage discussion please answer any of the following questions:
1. Do you believe men are more promiscuous because of the spread the seed theory?

2. How do you explain the spread the seed theory when it pertains to men who are monogamous but desire to have more sex with their one partner? These same men do not want to have sex with other women in reality or fantasy.

3. Should men’s promiscuity be directly related to the male/female population ratio? If this is so, should women be more promiscuous in communities where men outnumber women?

4. Do you think sex drives could be related to a partners’ desire for a big family? If that is the case, do you believe every woman who wants a large family has a high sex drive?

5.Do you think men are prone to kill other men when there are adequate vital resources such as food and water?

Just my $0.02 worth- and I’ll keep it as unscientific as I can, but before I answer your questions directly, let me add a little preface first.

Evolution dies hard- specifically with our emotional, physical, and mental development over the course of thousands of years. Some traits are preprogrammed and others are learned. Over time (lots of time) those traits, while animalistic in their origins, become domesticated and/or culturally acclimated. This “conflict” between nature and environment is the age old conundrum that we as human beings face on a daily basis. Before they were bastardized by religion, the first two Laws of Nature pretty much set the precedent for human beings- who are, in fact, part of the animal kingdom.

The First Law is “self preservation”- meaning that when a person is faced with a clear choice between life and death they will do everything they can to survive. This law is how we, as a species, were able to adapt our diets, make shelter, and develop the tools necessary to survive in a very harsh and unforgiving world. As we evolved, self preservation went from seeking a good shelter to buying a $200,000 home. From hunting for your meat and gathering for your fruits- to getting a job so you could buy the same things at Wal-Mart.

The Second law is “species preservation”- unlike the first law that has morphed itself into a myriad of options, the Second law has remained relatively the same. You fuck- your people grow… period. WAY back in the day, a man would just have to beat down a few competitors and then basically take a mate- or two, or three. However, it’s still pretty much the same today as it was then. Only now we have gyms, cologne, nice cars, and 150K a year jobs that we use to beat our competitors away, and we actually have to swoon the woman that notices us. Even though we don’t want to have babies after the first encounter… the reason you get wood is because your Neanderthal brain is telling you to “hit that” before you lose your chance. All the sexual “turn on” and foreplay was our own creation- to give the butterflies in our stomachs and the hard-ones in our pants an explanation.

Your questions:

1. My belief is that men are more promiscuous than women for two reasons. For the first reason just see the first two Laws. “I’m going to take care of myself, do what feels good, and see what I can get out of it- self preservation. “Next I’m going to hump the first ass I see because I want to get laid”- Second law. The second reason is a little more culturally driven in the respect that men are still the power players in society. The best example would be how a “whore/slut” is defined by how many men she sleeps with… while a “stud/lady’s man” is defined by how many women he has slept with. Even when we try to remove the “pleasant” words describing the man- we use the ugly woman words like “Manwhore.” So it boils down to the societal perception that it’s okay for men to sleep around and it’s not okay for women to sleep around. It’s called the “Male Privilege” and it is alive and well… and a major reason men are more promiscuous.

2. Sorry to say this, but the only men who don’t want to have sex with other people are REAL devout religious fruitcakes or they are socially brainwashed lemmings living in the “Moral Matrix.” Really, it’s that simple. To think that a man who has been devoted and loyal to his wife for 45 years hasn’t had at least one thought about some new piece ass is a complete myth. Some people are more socially responsible than others. Think of it as a scale from 1 to 10. 1 being the guy who sits in his room, prays to God, and pays penance for “impure thoughts. 10 being the guy who wakes up after an orgy, gets cleaned up, and starts planning for the next orgy. Your socialization process will tend to dictate your rank between one and ten. I know Mormons who have sex twice a day- every day with their partner, yet cringe at the thought of “doing it” with someone else. To each his or her own. Just know this- If we stripped away religion, social norms, and cultural beliefs… just about ALL men would be looking to do the “funky monkey” with anyone they could. Humans, by natural law, are simply not monogamous. We can teach a dog to bark, but is it really “speaking?”

3. No, there hasn’t been enough of a gap between the numbers to support that- and then you’d have to go through hundreds, if not thousands, of years of evolution for that to be true. Again, this is a society/socialization thing. Also, a community level study group would never change the promiscuity ratios unless you brainwashed all the men and women into believing that they were truly equal, equally entitled, got rid of gender stereotypes and roles, and then isolated the community from the rest of the world. Even then I doubt you could determine the difference between gender and personality as being the root of the promiscuity unless you had about three or four complete generations to study.

4. Again no. There’s too much information out there that suggests large families are a result of religious beliefs, cultural norms, and wealth. In a lot of those cases the husband and wife rarely have sex to just have sex. That lifestyle is based on a need to conceive as many children as possible- and it’s treated like a duty and a job rather than sexual enjoyment. The only exception to this would be promiscuous fathers who have 30 kids from 30 different women- but they rarely, if ever, end up being a family outside of its most general definition.

5. For adequate food and water- no. For power, ownership, and control of that food and water- yes. There is more than enough food and water here to take care of every man, woman, and child on the planet. There’s enough money to see it happen- but it never will because of power and greed. All it takes in one dude with a tough group of followers to surround the water and demand goods and services for “their” water. We do it today in almost every aspect of our life. From Microsoft to Wal-Mart- someone has something you want and need to meet that First Law- and unfortunately there will always be men willing to pay, as well as kill, to get a piece off that pie.

[Trace Ekies]

I don't see any difficulty in understanding and accepting that men are hard-wired to mate with many females to ensure continutation of their bloodline and women are hard-wired to mate with their idea of the "strongest-of-the-breed" to increase the chances of survival of their off-spring.

I have found, based on our swinging experiences and life in general, that women tend to be a bit more selective than men...

While there are exceptions to every rule, it seems that my strikezone is a bit wider than Mrs. Ekies and most of the men we party with have wider zones than the women.

Few female swingers have the attitude about sex that Mrs. Ekies has but it was not always so. She had the same monogamous tendencies that most women have while I looked at every skirt that passed by...but remained monogamous.

Pardon my crudeness, but if you have a village of 100 women and 50 men the best looking, most successful hunter will get the most pussy. If you turn the tables, the best looking, most successful hunter will get the most pussy...and the poor bastards in the bottom 20 percent won't get any.

It's human nature...like pro sports...it's one village vs the next...we get to root for our village as it pillages the one in the next valley over without all the death and destruction.

At this point in life, Mrs. Ekies has had her children and the hunter she picked has been fairly successful...now it's time to get her rocks off for the pure pleasure of it...with her definition of "the best looking, most successful hunter" as she sees it today (read 35ish, 6' tall, 8" cock with boyish looks...surfer stuff gets to her everytime).

Of course, I could be wrong...

Trace

[Coupleerotic22]

Maybe the admins should ad a sociology section for the academics in the house.