Housewives band together in Richmond to shut dowm MPs

[Kelly V]

Ironic headline SLH, "100 Things To Do in BC Before You Die"; at the top of my list, fuck one desperate Richmond houwife in a Richmond brothel...

 

[Kasey]

another question i have is "why only richmond?" majority of MPs, micros, and escorts are in vancouver. if those "housewives" were indeed on a noble crusade against MPs, why didn't they go to victoria and have all MPs, micros, and escorts in BC outlawed? let's say they get what they want (no MP in richmond). what makes them think that their husband won't go to vancouver, surrey, or burnaby? a monitoring device strapped to their ankle that beeps everytime he wanders out of richmond? even with this device, he still can bring in an escort out of vancouver. when there's a will, there's a way. so you see, it's not fair to lay the blame solely on richmond MPs for their husband's indiscretion. the problem is they ought to please their husband more in bed. cater to his needs even if it is sharing him with another girl(s). if they can't stand the idea, then why don't they just get a divorce?

until i read the article, i didn't know that richmond has the toughest regulations in the lower mainland for MPs. well i guess we'll have to change the bylaws then by replacing ALL city council members next election, eh? and who's this bill mcnulty anyway with his fucking holier-than-thou attitude? like he's never got a boner everytime he sees a young girl in a tight short skirt. by taking the letter seriously, mcnulty is siding with the "housewives" who threaten to expose the identities of PROMINENT RESIDENTS of richmond who have visited MPs here. either it's only a PR stunt or the guy has really big balls to change his name to Bill McNut. here's an advice, bill, if you want to keep your job. NEVER FUCK WITH THE RICH AND POWERFUL. don't be so naive to think that democracy gives you your job.

 

[BatMan]

As polygamy was brought up earlier. Quick fact..
There is still areas in (Tibet I think..may be off a bit geographically) where Polyandry is still practiced.

Polyandry is 1 girl and a set of men, typically brothers.
The practice exists to ensure that the family holdings (land) dont get chopped up.

It has been changing in recent years as numbers of the 'younger' brothers go find themselves their own woman, but it's still practiced today.

 

[Bobb]

We are looking at two different things here. My argument of Polygamy being what we evolved from goes way beyond our current civilization. Your argument seems to be still based on our "civilization" where historical records have been kept. I'm talking about how we evolved as a species, your talking about how we evolved as a society. The reason I brought up that article was to provide certain scientific facts about male/female anatomy and genetic heritage that most people don't think about. Since I am unsure you have read much of the article considering what you said above, I will point out some of the studies regarding male/female mating behaviours.

1: Anthropological studies of prehistoric cultures:

Nearly 1,000 of the 1,154 past or present human societies ever studied — and these include most of the world's "hunter-gatherer" societies, have permitted a man to have more than one wife. These are the closest examples of the actual "ancestral environment". In the social context of human evolution, these are the settings for which the mind was designed. The presumption is that people reared in such societies — the Kung San of Southern Africa, the Ache of Paraguay the l9th century Eskimo — behave fairly "naturally." More so, at least, than people reared amid influences that weren't part of the ancestral environment: TV’s, cars, colleges, jail time for bigamy.

There are vanishingly few anthropological examples of systematic female polygamy, or polyandry - women monopolizing sexual access to more than one man at once. So, while both sexes are prone under the right circumstances to infidelity, men seem much more deeply inclined to actually acquire a second or third mate — to keep a harem as it were.

2: Male and female's different reproductive strategies

Scientific studies confirm the more discriminating nature of women. In one study men and women were asked about the minimal level of intelligence they would accept in a person they were "dating." The average response for both male and female was as one might expect "average intelligence". Asked how smart a potential date have to be before they would consent to sex, women said markedly above average. The men said: Oh, well then below average would be fine.
There is no dispute among evolutionary psychologists over the basic source of this male broad-mindedness. A woman — regardless of how many sex partners she has, can generally have just one offspring per year. For a man, each new mate offers an excellent opportunity to place genes into the future. According to the Guinness Book of Records, the most prolific human parent in world history was Moulay ("The Bloodthirsty") Ismail, the last Sharifian Emperor of Morocco, who died in 1727. He fathered more than 1,000 children.

The logic behind undiscerning male lust seems obvious now, but it wasn't always. Darwin had noted that in species after species the female is "less eager than the male," but he never figured out why. Only in the late 1960s and early 1970s did biologist George Williams and Robert Trivers attribute the raging libido of males to their nearly infinite potential rate of reproduction.

3: The evolution of love for reproductive success

Genes don't talk, but they affect behavior by creating feelings, emotions, desires and thoughts - by building and maintaining the brain and altering the ****ral spinal fluid (the chemical soup) with which it functions. Whenever evolutionary psychologists talk about some evolved behavioral tendency: for example a polygamous or monogamous inclination, or male parental investment - they are also talking about an underlying mental infrastructure.
The development of male parental investment, for example, required the construction of a compelling emotion: paternal love.

At some point the behaviour of love for offspring began to flourish at the expense of genes that promoted remoteness. The reason, presumably, is that changes in circumstance — an upsurge in predators, say made it more likely that the offspring of undevoted, unprotective fathers would simply perish.

Crossing this threshold meant love not only for the child; the first step toward becoming devoted parents consists of the man and woman developing a mutual attraction. The genetic payoff of having two parents committed to a child's welfare seems to be the central reason men and women can fall into swoons over one another.

Until recently, this claim was heresy. "Romantic love" was thought to be a relatively recent and unnatural invention of western culture. The Mangaians of Polynesia, for instance, were said to be "puzzled" by references to marital affection. But lately anthropologists have taken a second look at purportedly loveless cultures, including the Mangaians, and have discovered what non-anthropologists already knew: love between man and woman is a human universal.

In this sense the pair-bonding label is apt. Still, that term — and for that matter the term 'marriage' – convey a sense of permanence and symmetry that is wildly misleading. Evolution not only forced the creation of romantic love but from its beginning corrupted it. The corruption lies in conflicts of interest inherent in male parental investment. It is the goal of maximizing male investment, remember, that sometimes leads a woman to infidelity. Yet it is the preciousness of this investment that makes her infidelity lethal to her mate's interests. Not long for this world are the genes of a man who showers time and energy on children who are not his.

Meanwhile, male parental investment also makes the man's naturally polygynous bent inimical to his wife's reproductive interests. His quest for a new wife could lead him to withdraw, or at least dilute, investment in his first wife's children. This reallocation of resources may on balance help his genes — but certainly not hers.

The living legacy of these long-running genetic conflicts is human jealousy — or, rather, human jealousies.

In theory, there should be two very distinct kinds of jealousy – one male and one female. Statistics do seem to support this (I'm not going to bother importing the chart onto this post.)

A man's jealousy should focus on sexual infidelity, since cuckoldry is the greatest genetic threat he faces. A woman, though she'll hardly applaud a partner's strictly sexual infidelity (it does consume time and potentially may divert resources), should be more concerned with emotional infidelity — that sort of "magnetic" commitment to another woman, that could lead to a much larger shift in resources.

David Buss, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Michigan, has confirmed this prediction vividly. He placed electrodes on men and on women and had them envision their mates doing various disturbing things. When men imagined sexual infidelity, their heart rates took leaps of a magnitude typically induced by three cups of coffee. They sweated. Their brows wrinkled. When they imagined a budding emotional attachment, they calmed down, though not quite to their normal level. For women, things were exactly reversed: envisioning emotional infidelity – redirected love, not supplementary sex - brought the deeper distress.

That jealousy is so finely tuned to these forms of treachery is yet more evidence that they have a long evolutionary history. Still, the modern environment has carried them to new heights, making marriage dicier than ever. Men and women have always, in a sense, been designed to make each other miserable, but these days they are especially good at it.

 

[Lovelyn]

4: Obstacles to Monogamy

To begin with, infidelity is easier in an anonymous city than in a small hunter-gatherer village. Whereas paternity studies show that two percent of the children in a Kung San village result from cuckoldry, the rate runs higher than twenty percent in most modern neighborhoods. Contraceptive technology may also complicate marriage. During human evolution, there were no condoms or birth control pills. Thirty years ago effective contraception and abortion were uncommon, illegal or virtually unavailable.

In earlier times if an adult couple slept together for a year or so and produced no baby, the chances were good that one of them was not fertile. No way of telling which one, but from their genes' point of view, there was little to lose and much to gain by ending the partnership and finding a new mate. Some have speculated, natural selection favored genes inclining men and women to sour on a mate after extended periods of sex without issue. This would explain why low birth rates and small families would produce the highest divorce rates. It is also true that barren marriages are especially likely to break up.

Another possible challenge to monogamy in the modern world lies in movies, billboards and magazines. There was no photography in the no-so-long ago world that shaped the human male mind. So at some deep level, that mind may respond to glossy images of pinups and fashion models as if they were viable mates - alluring alternatives to dull, monogamous devotion. Evolutionary psychologist Douglas Kenrick has suggested as much. According to his research, men who are shown pictures of Playboy magazine models later describe themselves as less in love with their wives than do men shown other images. (Women shown pictures from Playgirl magazine felt no such attitude adjustment toward spouses.)

Perhaps the largest modern obstacle to lasting monogamy is economic inequality. To see why, it helps to grasp a subtle point made by Donald Symons, author of the 1979 classic The Evolution of Human Sexuality. Though men who leave their wives may be driven by "natural" impulses, that does not mean men have a natural impulse designed expressly to make them leave their wives. After all, in the ancestral environment, gaining a second wife did NOT mean leaving the first. So why leave her? Why not stay near existing offspring and keep giving some support? Symons believes men are designed less for opportune desertion than for opportune polygyny. It's just that when polygyny is illegal, a polygynous impulse will find other outlets — such as divorce.

Even in some "egalitarian' hunter-gatherer societies, men with slightly more status or power than average are slightly more likely to have multiple wives. In less egalitarian pre-industrial societies, the anthropologist Laura Betzig his shown, the pattern is dramatic. In Incan society, the four political offices from petty chief to chief were allotted ceilings of seven, eight, 15 and 30 women. Polygyny reaches its zenith under the most despotic regimes. Among the Zulu, where coughing or sneezing at the king's dinner table was punishable by death, his highness might monopolize more than 100 women.

To an evolutionary psychologist, such numbers are just extreme examples of a simple fact: the ultimate purpose of the wealth and power that men seek so ardently is genetic proliferation. It is only natural that the exquisitely flexible human mind should be so designed

Thus it is natural that a rising corporate star, upon getting a big promotion, should feel a strong attraction to women other than his wife. Testosterone — which expands a male's sexual appetite, has been shown to rise in non-human primates following social triumphs, and there is evidence that it does so in human males too. Certainly the world is full of triumphant men who conform to this model. The most sucessful leader of all time — Julius Caesar is an excellent example. It was said that the Roman Colosseums could have been filled with the wives with which he had sexual relations — but there are lots of examples: thousands of women ready and willing to sign on as contestants for Who wants to marry a Millionaire, the countless wealthy celebrity types (such as Johnny Carson and Donald Trump) who traded in aging wives for younger, more fertile models. The "multi-wived" tycoon J. Paul Getty once said, "A lasting relationship with a woman is only possible if you are a business failure."

I would say that these are very compelling arguments that in our most natural state, the human species were predominantly polygamous. Today, in most cultures the social norm has been changed to monogomy, however, judging by the statistics of divorce, infidelity, the very fact that we have a review board setup for predominantly cheating husbands/boyfriends to talk about which sp they slept with, seem to point to the fact that men were not meant to have one sexual partner for the rest of their lives.

 

[Christopher H]

Wow,,WTF was that??some one want to take the time to read it and give me the short/unabridged version?

 

[Vampyre Chan =]]

Impressive bit of writing; at least it was for Robert Wright, who penned it in August 1994. Time Magazine, later published it in 1995.

But we'll just give all the credit to DaviLin here on eforum.xxx, where anything goes...

Guess he was just trying to make a point, albeit not his...

Can you say, P-L-A-G-I-A-R-I-S-M..?

 

[googly eyes]

A story about the anonymous fax letter was in the Richmond Review on Thursday,
http://www.eforum.xxx.ca/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=52472

although it did not mention the threat to expose MP customers. I don't know who sent the fax or why, but you guys don't think it really was sent by housewives, do you?



The fax was sent to some media, not just the mayor and councillors. I don't know why they thought it was important enough for a newspaper story -- must have been a slow news day. The fun part is the police and city officials making idiots of themselves trying to pretend that MPs aren't part of the sex trade. And the media who seem to naively believe them aren't much better.

 

[Brianna J]

There is a key phrase before I started to point out some of the key points of that article by Robert Wright. The most important one being:

"Since I am unsure you have read much of the article considering what you said above, I will point out some of the studies regarding male/female mating behaviours."

Yes, I didn't cite those paragraphs properly, so what, I never claimed any of those paragraphs were mine neither. I'm not writing a fuckin university paper here, this is a review board for eforum.xxxerts and sp's, your lucky I even bothered spacing them out so neatly with any form of punctuation at all. How bout you lay off the trolling and go F-U-C-K Y-O-U-R-S-E-L-F

 

[ishameluvu]

Being a single male in BC, I think it's time we unite and revolt. I am tiring of being singled out - no child payments, no supplemental family allowances, no tax breaks, etc.

First order of the day - pass a Richmond by-law permitting single men to to visit "Richmond Brothels".

Second order. pass a Richmond by-law to establish a single men/ married women zone for bars, coffee shops and Holiday Inn Expresses.

But I guess that would provide an opportunity for the married man to attend the "Richmond Brothels" .

Hmmm. Maybe I'll stick to pooning rather than politics.

 

[ourdukie]

Here's the Coles Notes version of the anthropological paper quoted by David Lin:
Men give love to get sex, women give sex to get love.

It's the selfish gene concept, ie, all humans are merely carriers of DNA. The DNA is what is in charge here, as it has been for about a billion years.

Women evolved to be attracted to men with resources (strength, money) to help further their genes, men evolved to be attracted to desirable females (healthy, nubile) to further theirs. Mammalian males broadcast genes (screw around) as much as possible to increase chances of genetic survival. Females try to hold on to desirable males to increase chances of success for their genes, but only temporarily, that is until the product of their liason is able to keep up the the rest of the primate group.

As you can see, a few million years of evolution is now butting up against an artificial creation - monogamy.

At best monogamy only works in series, that is, for at best 7 years (the famous seven year itch) which is about as long as a help mate is necessary for a mother because once an offspring reaches this age, he/she is pretty well able to keep up. Now both parents are free to seek out other mates because the selfish gene also needs new DNA in order to try out new combinations of genetic material - this is what we now understand as evolution.

In other words, screwing around is in our nature, men definitely more than women, but is nevertheless unavoidable. We can suppress it but it will come out in the end. Genes always win, the proof is in how successfully humans reproduce - actually probably too successfully, given the state of our poor planet.

 

[skanda or lord muruga]

What the heck is 'desperocity' ? Must be Latin, eh ?


You have to be really desperate to come up with such a word .

 

[boston]

My eforum.xxx forum spellcheck was off.

 

[MrNeutral]

Hey, trolling is what I do best... As for fucking myself, I've been trying to master that art since I was born, alas to no avail. I'll keep you posted on my progress though. Thank you for your kind reply!

 

[Ray L]

Good catch, Maury

 

[Andrra]

MPs are going downhill anyway! Most of us visit Micro or brothel such as Carmen fox den nowadays!

 

[Pompal 09.]

well, i think i should get a bunch of husband together and write a complain letter to the city of richmond and demans to shut down all the beauty salon.
our wifes spend our hard working money into those places, and break up our family.

 

[[email protected]]

The article says that there is 13 of a former 17 MP's in Richmond.
Can anybody list them all? I can only think of around 6 or so.

 

[choudhary_ajay1980]

Does this mean, if i go to Richmond AMP, i might get cops knocking on my door??