Marriage and the Power of Divorce

trex said:

Omg. That's frustrating to read. Please google "free market" before you post about why things are expensive. Or just know something about (gross) lobster.

Click to expand...

I was going to say that there's actually an over supply of lobster and that wholesale prices for it are actually quite low, but looks like that article was a couple years ago. Not sure how it is right now. In any case, it's an interesting read. Lobsters used to be poor man's food: Atlantic Canada's lobster glut - Macleans.ca

Deathwing said:

I'm wondering how Eomer even managed to try anal if he can't stand a whisper of butt from doggy.

Click to expand...

I've never tried anal. I've never really pushed the issue with any of the chicks I've been with. Last GF wouldn't let me get anywhere near her butt, especially after the accidental surprise anal sex incident. It's kind of weird, because as far as porn goes I like the anal. But in my own sex life, I'm probably too much of a neat freak to give it a try. Don't get me wrong, if a girl were to ask me, I'd give it my best shot, but unless she's done some extensive preparation, there's a good chance I'd abort the mission if things got stinky.

Most of the porn I had when I hit puberty was analogue porn so I grew a fondness for the bush. By the time I was old enough to get laid I was disappointed that all the girls were shaving them off. As long as it's not sprawling all into the thighs and up into a happy trail it doesn't really matter to me.

ZyyzYzzy said:

Seriously, does eomer only date chick with leaky buttholes?

Click to expand...

Nah. Like I said, I'm just super sensitive to odors during sex, for whatever reason. Any person's ass crack isn't going to smell like roses if they last showered 18 hours before, or whatever, no matter how good their hygiene is.

I don't get the shaved vag = pedo argument

Ideally I enjoy the landing strip the most because all the playboys I viewed in the 90s had them

Yeah dudes should have the same pubic maintenance. It's a mutual thing. Pubic hair just kinda sucks all around.

If you wanted a landing strip on my dick you could just ask, don't need to be passive aggressive

Eomer said:

There's pretty limited/shoddy evidence behind claims of health benefits from alcohol consumption, and that was only small quantities like 1 4-oz glass of red wine a day.

Click to expand...

No, you are wrong. The data are extraordinarily strong. Its not some new flash in the pan idea; its actually been documented for decades. It was first reported by Pearl in 1926.

The Kaiser Permanente program has conducted decades of studies on this topic.

Here is a relatively recent paper from one of the leading experts in the field.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1047279707000166
This study includes data from >120,000 subjects over decades. They find strong evidence for the famous J-curve: highest mortality in heavy drinkers (>3 drinks per day), next highest in abstainers and ex-drinkers, and lowest mortality in daily light drinkers.

article said:

The analysis reconfirms that the relation of alcohol drinking to total mortality is J-shaped, with reduced risk (mainly because of less cardiovascular disease) for lighter drinkers and increased risk for persons reporting more than 3 drinks per day. Infrequent (occasional) drinkers have risk similar to that of lifelong abstainers, while former drinkers are at increased risk, especially for noncardiac death.

Click to expand...

For white males, the data clearly show 1-2 drinks per day is the optimum. For women its 1, for non whites its 1. Its not zero for anyone. And dont quit drinking -- ex drinkers are the second worst off.

Further, the effect is probably greater than shown here:

article said:

Our data indicate further that the apparent magnitude of benefit of lighter drinking is probably reduced by systematic underreporting.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what the media are reporting on health effects of alcohol. The media get 100% of the details wrong in 100% of their scientific reporting, and should always be ignored. But I've sat and listened to keynote lectures on this topic at international research conferences. These lectures gave the same conclusion shown above. And a quick survey of Google scholar shows widespread support for this conclusion.\

Drink up: 1-2 drinks per day is literally the healthiest amount you can drink.

(PS, other studies from the same group have shown clearly that the kind of drink doesnt matter. It aint the resveretrol, its the ethanol)

PPS, without making any pedo arguments, bush is just way hotter than bald.

Aldarion said:

Here is a relatively recent paper from one of the leading experts in the field.

Click to expand...

2007 is not relatively recent. The article I linked is regarding a meta study reviewing 87 previous studies, published in March 2016, and encompasses an order of magnitude more deaths in total than the one you linked: http://www.jsad.com/doi/10.15288/jsad.2016.77.185

Estimates of mortality risk from alcohol are significantly altered by study design and characteristics. Meta-analyses adjusting for these factors find that low-volume alcohol consumption has no net mortality benefit compared with lifetime abstention or occasional drinking. These findings have implications for public policy, the formulation of low-risk drinking guidelines, and future research on alcohol and health.

Click to expand...

Yes, 2007 is relatively recent for a field that goes back to 1926. LOL.

Here is another thats not behind a paywall.
http://www.academia.edu/download/42...otal_Mortality_in_Me20160204-9573-11tszur.pdf

Believe what you like but the experts who study this for a living disagree with you.

Further, the study you cite doesnt show any downsides to moderate drinking, they just fail to reach the statistical threshold for significance. I hope you understand the difference between failing to show a significant benefit and proving there is no benefit.

For anyone locked behind a paywall, Eomers study conducted a meta analysis of a large number of primary studies. In the raw data they replicated exactly the j-curve I described above, which is the classic conclusion in this field. The authors then did some "adjusting" of the data to account for biases they think may be present. After these "adjustments", the same trend was present but wasnt significant anymore.

This meta analysis in no way refutes the j curve. It just failed to show a significant benefit of moderate drinking. But the trend clearly remains a j curve, and there is no suggestion that moderate drinking is bad for you.

You appear to have found one outlier study from some people with an axe to grind. I have no idea what search terms you used to find that study, any impartial combination of terms I tried found broad consensus for the j curve idea. What did you do, google "disprove the j curve" or something?

Eomer you're right and it still is. Theyre even saying $5-$10/lb. From a dock you could easily get it $2-$4/lb. We get non-organic ground beef from cost-co (sue me) and it's more expensive than that.

Lobster is so gross. I can't even deal/take one bite. They are the rats of the ocean. I'm convinced that everyone who says they like them are people who are lying, like to feel fancy, and don't know they're literally made of other animals poop. Sure, I like to feel fancy, but I'm not going to spend $50,000 on a crocodile Birkin just to have a crocodile Birkin. It's not worth it and it's really just not even cute. (Also I don't have $50,000 to spend on a crocodile Birkin, but you see what I'm saying).

I like some crab. It's fun thing to eat. Scallops are the only seafood I think is worth shelling out big bucks for. Hmm...I guess I'm forgetting sushi. I don't eat super high end sushi though. More like happy hour at a good restaurant. Salmon is good and the kids eat will eat it, but I don't consider it expensive for what it is, idk, could be wrong about that.