Manuel Uribe, a Mexican who weighs over 300Kg and hasn’t left his bed in six years, married his long-time girlfriend Claudia Solis in northern Mexico, on Sunday.

Mr Uribe (43), wed Hairdresser, Claudia Solis (38), fulfilling a birthday wish for the Mexican who has already managed to lose an enormous 230kg over the past 12 months, after gaining the Guinness World Record of “World’s heaviest man” back in 2007. Since then, he has refused gastric-band surgery and instead has been following the Zone diet (a strict formula of carbohydrates, proteins and fats), with the help of his girlfriend and Mexican nutritionists.

Despite his impressive weight loss, Mr Uribe remains confined to his bed, and so a flatbed truck was brought in to transport his specially-reinforced bed decorated with a canopy, flowers and gold-trimmed bows to the wedding at a local event hall.

Mr Uribe wore a white silk shirt with a sheet wrapped around his legs and Miss Solis wore a strapless ivory satin dress, a tiara and hot-pink lipstick. Both of them smiled and waved for a swarm of international photographers.

As the couple were declared husband and wife, at the civil ceremony attended by more than 400 guests, Mr Uribe broke into tears. Then, instead of the traditional first dance as newlyweds, the couple held hands and swayed to a romantic ballad.

A popular local band played accordion-heavy Norteño music at the reception, which featured a “low-calorie” banquet of meat, creamed mushrooms and buttered vegetables.

Mr Uribe’s mother, Orquedia Garza, told the Associated Press news agency that the groom did not eat any of the five-tiered wedding cake.

He didn’t break his diet, his doctors are here and they are watching him very closely.

After announcing his engagement, Mr Uribe had said it was his birthday wish to marry Miss Solis:

We are in love, and this year my birthday wish is to be able to stand when we get married.

We are a couple. We have sex, and in the eyes of God we are already married.

The wedding was filmed by the Discovery Channel for an upcoming documentary about the former car parts dealer.

Mr Uribe told reporters:

I’m very happy this is a really special day for me. God has permitted this day to arrive and for a beautiful woman like Claudia to marry me. We will start a new adventure together.

And Ms Solis has said of her new husband:

I bathe him every day, and we get along very well.

So guys, if ever you think you’re not good looking enough, or you feel jealous of guys with model looks or perfect physiques, then always remember that if the ‘World’s fattest man’ can find love, so can you.

Fortunately, for men, looks have little to do with seduction, and it doesn’t matter if you’re not an Adonis. You show your personality; because it’s not what you look like. It’s what you do – Always.

Posted by Jonathan as Miscellaneous, Philosophy at 2:16 AM GMT

No Comments »

Sleight of Mouth is a system of language patterns for persuasion, based on changing meaning, changing causes, comparisons and changing logical levels.

As with many other similar components of NLP, the idea is to formalise the study of influence. This allows people to understand the process and to be able to duplicate the skills, by applying one or more of the Sleight of Mouth patterns.

Sleight of Mouth can only really be used when reframing a statement that is in the form of cause and effect, or a complex equivalence statement – such as A causes B, A is B, A means B or A equals B etc.

If the statement you’re addressing is not in that form, then it needs to be rephrased; thus, if you can’t rephrase it into that form, you need to use a different strategy.

The easiest way to learn this system is by practise. So, here’s an example statement and a response set using each of the key patterns that could be used to counter (and obviously, some patterns work better in certain situations than others). After you’ve read through this article, you might want to try thinking up three of four other statements yourself, and then practise applying each of the key Sleight of Mouth patterns to them, to help you get the hang of it all.

Example statement:

“Your not listening to me means you don’t care about me.”

Meta-Frame: How is it possible that they could believe that?

• You’re only saying this because you are not considering our whole relationship.
• You’re just feeling that way because you build unrealistic expectations about other people, and then blame things on them when you get disappointed.

Reality Strategy: How do they represent this belief? How do they know if it is true?

• Has someone accused you of something similar in the past?
• How do you know that listening and caring are equivalents?
• Where did you learn that?

Model of the World: Switch referential index. Is this true of everyone’s model of the world?

• Does everyone think the only way to care is to listen?
• Most people I know judge caring on the basis of sensitivity to others feelings, not their listening skills.

Apply to Self (Apply A to A): Use the criterion A on itself.

• Listening to what I am hearing now doesn’t make me want to listen any harder.
• I pay more attention when people say nice things to me.

Apply to Self (Apply B to B): Use the criterion B on itself.

• A really caring person would be able to overlook a little inattention now and then.
• Now you tell me… I wish you’d cared enough to say something earlier.
• I wonder how caring is it to say that?

Change Frame Size (Context): What is something they haven’t noticed? Use a different frame for the same behaviour. (Chunk up to a universal quantifier)

• Sorry, I was thinking about how much I love you, what did you say?
• With the warm caring reception I get from you, I should be taking notes at every conversation.

Hierarchy of Criteria/Values: What are higher criteria? Apply the higher criteria to the current statement.

• Having a satisfying relationship is what’s really important, isn’t it?
• Isn’t it more important to fulfil my responsibilities to people who are depending on me than to listen all the time?

Intent: Why are they saying this? What is the secondary gain?

• You’re only saying that because you’re just feeling unloved at the moment.
• I’m glad you care enough about me to be concerned about that.

Consequences: What will happen if they continue to think this way?

• If you continue to think that way, you’re going to find that nobody cares for you, because everybody will have not listened to you, at some point in time.
• If I only paid attention to you, I might not have finished thinking through problems at work, and then I might have lost my job. But I cared too much about you to risk it.

Redefine A not equal to B: What other meanings could this have? A is not equal to B. A is equal to C and that’s D.

• Listening is not caring. Listening is gathering information and that’s something even enemies can do.
• I wasn’t not listening; I was just distracted.

Redefine B not equal to A: What other meanings could this have? B is not equal to A. B is equal to C and that’s D.

• Caring is not listening. Caring is comforting someone and that’s part of love.
• It’s not that I don’t care; it’s just that I show my caring differently.

Counter Example: Invert the belief – Make it into a universal statement or question. (Was there ever a time when A was not equal to B?)

• Have you always listened to everything someone you cared for said?
• Isn’t it possible to not listen to everything someone says, and still care?
• Isn’t it possible to be uncaring and still listen to everything someone says?

Chunk Up (More Abstract): For what purpose? What is important to them about this? Exaggerate.

• Are you saying that the most fundamental aspect of out relationship is simply a matter of paying attention all the time?
• What is really important about listening? (Asking this question will cause the person to chunk up.)

Chunk Down (More Specific): Try the Meta model – What or who specifically? What are examples or parts of this?

• How specifically does listening mean that I care for you?
• I don’t care? – How, specifically?

Metaphor or Analogy: Tell a metaphor or make an analogy for the opposite of A is B.

• My heart speaks so loudly, can you hear it?
• Isn’t that like saying, when you come home late you don’t love me?

Another Outcome: What is another outcome that you could shift to? “Whether I am B or not is not the real issue but rather…”

• Whether I’m listening or not isn’t the real issue, but rather how much I love you.
• Whether I’m listening or not isn’t the issue, but whether we can meet each others needs in this relationship, without giving each other unnecessary guilt trips.

Take it to Threshold: Stretch the belief so far to the ridiculous that it breaks down.

• If you ever have a relationship with a deaf person, she’s never going to be able to care for you.
• I’ll buy a Dictaphone, so that I can review anything you say in the future.

Reversing Presuppositions: How is the opposite of what you thought actually true or helpful?

• How does my not listening actually mean that I care less than if I hear every word you say?
• How does my listening actually mean that I care more than if I occasionally miss a couple of things you say?

Good luck with the practise statements you make up yourself.

Posted by Jonathan as Philosophy, Psychology at 2:32 AM BST

No Comments »

To quote the Poet and Philosopher, George Santayana:

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

We agree; and there are often lessons to be learned from historic works. Thus, in the play ‘Love for Love’, by William Congreve (1670-1729), Miss Prue has yet to learn how to feign the indifference which allows more experienced practitioners of modern love a route to pleasure, whilst maintaining an appearance of honour.

So, in this short extract, you can see that Miss Prue’s high spirits inadvertently reveal the absurdity of the Seducer Tattle’s formulaic tuition in the art of seduction.

(Mrs Foresight and her friend have left the Seducer Tattle alone with the former’s ward, the country girl Miss Prue.)

Tattle: I must make love to you, pretty Miss; will you let me make love to you?

Miss Prue: Yes, if you please.

Tattle: [Aside] Frank, egad, at least. What a pox does Mrs Foresight mean by this civility? Is it to make a fool of me? Or does she leave us together out of good morality, and do as she would be done by? Gad, I’ll understand it so.

Miss Prue: Well; and how will you make love to me? Come, I long to have you begin. Must I make love too? You must tell me how.

Tattle: You must let me speak, Miss, you must not speak first. I must ask you questions, and you must answer.

Miss Prue: What, is it like the catechism? Come then, ask me.

Tattle: D’ye think you can love me?

Miss Prue: Yes.

Tattle: Pooh, pox, you must not say yes already. I shan’t care a farthing for you then in a twinkling.

Miss Prue: What must I say then?

Tattle: Why you must say no, or you believe not, or you can’t tell.

Miss Prue: Why, must I tell a lie then?

Tattle: Yes, if you’d be well-bred. All well-bred persons lie. Besides, you are a woman, you must never speak what you think. Your words must contradict your thoughts, but your actions may contradict your words. So when I ask you if you can love me, you must say no, but you must love me too. If I tell you you are handsome, you must deny it, and say I flatter you. But you must think yourself more charming than I speak you, and like me, for the beauty which I say you have, as much as if I had it myself. If I ask you to kiss me, you must be angry, but you must not refuse me. If I ask you for more, you must be more angry, but more complying. And as soon as ever I make you say you’ll cry out, you must be sure to hold your tongue.

Miss Prue: O Lord, I swear this is pure. I like it better than our old-fashioned country way of speaking one’s mind. And must not you lie too?

Tattle: Hum – yes. But you must believe I speak truth.

Miss Prue: O Gemini! Well, I always had a great mind to tell lies; but they frightened me, and said it was a sin.

Tattle: Well, my pretty creature; will you make me happy by giving me a kiss?

Miss Prue: No, indeed; I’m angry at you. [Runs and kisses him.]

Tattle: Hold, hold, that’s pretty well, but you should not have given it me, but have suffered me to have taken it.

Miss Prue: Well, we’ll do it again.

Tattle: With all my heart. Now then, my little angel. [Kisses her.]

Miss Prue: Pish.

Tattle: That’s right. Again, my charmer. [Kisses again.]

Miss Prue: O fie, nay, now I can’t abide you.

Tattle: Admirable! That was as well as if you had been born and bred in Covent-Garden all the days of your life. And won’t you shew me, pretty miss, where your bed-chamber is?

Miss Prue: No, indeed won’t I. But I’ll run there, and hide myself from you behind the curtains.

Tattle: I’ll follow you.

Miss Prue: Ah, but I’ll hold the door with both hands and be angry – and you shall push me down before you come in.

Tattle: No, I’ll come in first, and push you down afterwards.

Miss Prue: Will you? Then I’ll be more angry and more complying.

Tattle: Then I’ll make you cry out.

Miss Prue: Oh, but you shan’t, for I’ll hold my tongue.

Tattle: O my dear apt scholar!

Miss Prue: Well, now I’ll run and make more haste than you.
(Exit Miss Prue.)

Tattle: You shall not fly so fast, as I’ll pursue.
(Exit after her.)

Posted by Jonathan as Art & Literature at 1:00 AM BST

No Comments »

It’s possible that occasionally you may want someone to agree with you. Sometimes, this can be very easily arranged by using a persuasion tactic known as a ‘Compound suggestion‘.

Put very simply, a compound suggestion is a statement that makes a suggestion that one would like to be accepted, and covertly covers this up, by making a second statement of fact.

Here are couple of examples:

• You’re drifting deeply into trance. It’s nice to feel comfortable in a comfortable place.
• We’ll go for a drink this evening. It’s always good to have company in the bar.
• Seduction Labs is the greatest website in the world. Learning communication skills is very important.

Establishing a ‘yes’ set is more or less the opposite of a compound suggestion, but gets similar results. Here you start with a statement of fact or two, then introduce a slightly less plausible sentence, and then the suggestion you want agreement with.

One of the best examples I can show you comes from an exchange between career Civil servant, Sir Humphrey Appleby and Principal Private Secretary, Bernard Woolley, in the classic sitcom series “Yes, Prime Minister“.

Sir Humphrey: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?
Bernard: Yes
Sir Humphrey: Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?
Bernard: Yes
Sir Humphrey: Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?
Bernard: Yes
Sir Humphrey: Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?
Bernard: Yes
Sir Humphrey: Do you think they respond to a challenge?
Bernard: Yes
Sir Humphrey: Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?
Bernard: Oh… well, I suppose I might be.
Sir Humphrey: Yes or no?
Bernard: Yes

Or if you want the opposite answer:

Sir Humphrey: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?
Bernard: Yes
Sir Humphrey: Are you worried about the growth of armaments?
Bernard: Yes
Sir Humphrey: Do you think there’s a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?
Bernard: Yes
Sir Humphrey: Do you think it’s wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?
Bernard: Yes
Sir Humphrey: Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?
Bernard: Yes

Posted by Jonathan as Philosophy, Psychology at 12:05 AM BST

No Comments »

The “quality” of New Zealand men’s ejaculate has halved over the past two decades – The most dramatic drop of any western country.

This worrying news was presented to a gathering of international fertility researchers in Brisbane, Australia, who were told that the sperm volume carried by the average New Zealand man decreased from about 110 million to 50 million wigglers per millilitre, between 1987 and 2007.

Lead researcher Dr John Peek of Fertility Associates, Auckland, commenting on the relegation of NZ men’s sperm from very good to good quality, said:

It’s rather dramatic indeed, and one of the largest seen in studies in other parts of the world.

So large, in fact, that Dr. Peek suggested that if the downward trend continued towards the 20 million sperm per millilitre “danger mark”, New Zealand would “definitely be running into trouble“. However, the biggest drop was seen in the first decade, with a slower decline in more recent years.

The findings, to be published in the New Zealand Medical Journal, are based on sperm quality data from men volunteering as mystery sperm donors. This contrasts with Australia and the United States, where no decline has been seen; and studies from Scotland and France, which show only marginal declines.

The reasons for the sperm crisis are unclear, but Dr Peek suggested that there were two broad theories on sperm quality decline; one being that semen was affected by environmental toxins, diet and modern changes in lifestyle. The other being a consequence of something that happened when the man was a foetus, i.e. what his mother was exposed to, but both theories are still unclear.

Professor Michael Chapman, from IVF Australia, in Sydney, said the trend was “worrying” for New Zealanders, noting that it was to such a degree that the decline was unlikely to be pure chance. Professor Chapman suggested: “Maybe they have something else going on over the Tasman.”

However, Professor Rob McLachlan, director of Andrology Australia, in Melbourne, said any trend was likely to be global, and the jury was still out as several studies were contradictory. He commented:

Global trends are differing so we don’t have a clear picture on this yet.

And then joking:

New Zealand is unlikely to have a different situation unless you consider all the fertile New Zealand men may be heading over here.

Posted by Jonathan as Biology at 12:09 AM BST

No Comments »

A new survey of China’s first generation born under the one-child policy has found they are more open but still conflicted about sex, and don’t approve of one-night stands.

With the world’s biggest population straining scarce land, water and energy, China has enforced rules limiting family size since the 1970s; generally limiting couples to having just one child, although there are exceptions.

The survey, carried out by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences on people born between 1976 and 1986, found that their average age for first sexual experience was 22.8 years, the China Youth Daily said.

But more than 96 percent of the surveyed first had sex with their partner, rather than just a one-night stand. Nearly 20 percent first had sex before the age of 20.

The newspaper said:

The survey found that on the one hand they had sex earlier but on the other it was in a stable relationship, this shows the contradictions felt in the first generation of single children towards sex.

Most youths did not approve of one-night stands, and almost three-quarters said they would never try homosexuality, the report added.

Premarital sex and cohabitation were not generally felt to be problems, the survey found.

Still, more than 97 percent wanted children of their own, and 61 percent said that in an ideal world they would like to have two children.

Posted by Jonathan as Anthropology, Sociology at 4:01 PM BST

No Comments »

One of the findings of a study carried out by Biologists and a Psychologist, at The University of Nottingham, is that displays of altruism towards others can be sexually attractive in a partner.

Previous research has shown that many factors top the list of desirable mate characteristics, including intelligence, physical attractiveness and wealth. The new study, which will be published in the November issue of the British Journal of Psychology, suggests another trait could be a person’s unselfish tendencies.

In three studies of more than 1,000 people Dr Tim Phillips and his fellow researchers discovered that women placed significantly greater importance on altruistic traits, in all three studies.

Dr Phillips stated:

Evolutionary theory predicts competition between individuals and yet we see many examples in nature of individuals disadvantaging themselves to help others.

In humans, particularly, we see individuals prepared to put themselves at considerable risk to help individuals they do not know for no obvious reward.

Participants in the studies answered questions about a range of qualities they look for in a mate, including examples of altruistic behaviour such as ‘donates blood regularly’ and ‘volunteered to help out in a local hospital’. Women placed significantly greater importance on altruistic traits in all three studies.

Furthermore, both sexes may consider altruistic traits when choosing a partner. One hundred and seventy couples (340 individuals), with an average age of 58, who reported being married or in a long-term relationship, were asked to rate how much they preferred altruistic traits in a mate and report their own level of altruistic behaviour.

The strength of preference in one partner was found to correlate with the level of altruistic behaviour typically displayed in the other partner, suggesting that altruistic traits may well be a factor both men and women take into account when choosing a mate.

Dr Phillips said:

For many years the standard explanation for altruistic behaviour towards non-relatives has been based on reciprocity and reputation - a version of “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”. I believe we need to look elsewhere to understand the roots of human altruism.

The expansion of the human brain would have greatly increased the cost of raising children so it would have been important for our ancestors to choose mates both willing and able to be good, long-term parents. Displays of altruism could well have provided accurate clues to this and genes linked to altruism would have been favoured as a result.

Sexual selection could well come to be seen as exerting a major influence on what made humans human.

Dr Tom Reader, in the School of Biology, said:

Sexual preferences have enormous potential to shape the evolution of animal behaviour. Humans are clearly not an exception: sex may have a crucial role in explaining what are our most biologically interesting and unusual habits.

Posted by Jonathan as Biology, Psychology at 11:18 PM BST

No Comments »

Women looking for both a quick fling and a long-term relationship pick brains over brawn, according to a new study.

Instead of asking women to rate qualities they seek in men, as other studies had done, Mark Prokosch at Elon University in North Carolina, and his team, filmed fifteen college men performing a series of tasks on camera.

The volunteers performed a series of tasks, such as reading news reports, saying why they would be a good date, and explaining what would be the consequences of discovering life on Mars, as well as throwing and catching a Frisbee. Each potential suitor also took a quantitative test of verbal intelligence.

More than 200 women watched a series of these videos before rating each man’s intelligence, attractiveness, creativity and appeal for a short-term or long-term relationship. The team found the smarter the man, the higher his appeal.

Whilst the difference between one-night stands and a long-term relationship may amount to a boozy decision people make each weekend, it does have some evolutionary significance.

Mark Prokosch, who led the study, said:

Women want the best of both worlds. Not only a physically attractive man, but somebody in the long term who can provide for them.

To many women, a smart man will appeal because he is likely to be clever enough to keep his family afloat. But he may also pass on “good” genes to his children.

In potential husbands, women look for signs that a man might be a good provider and father. In one-night stands, women are on the prowl for little more than “good” genes, not to mention a good time.

Interestingly, women proved to be decent judges of intelligence, with their scores generally matching each man’s intelligence test results.

As for choosing a sex-partner, the men’s actual intelligence rating proved a reliable indicator of their appeal for both brief hook-ups and serious relationships, which was something of a surprise, since previous studies had suggested that, for women anticipating short-term relationships, a man’s intellect isn’t foremost in their minds.

This disparity in results could be due to women’s lack of awareness that intelligence also affects the attractiveness of candidates for quick flings – how intelligent women perceived a man to be, influenced his desirability as a long-term mate much more than his appeal for a one-night stand.

Although women are good judges of intelligence, they aren’t perfect. In many cases, women have rated good hook-ups as dunces, even though their intelligence scores indicated otherwise; noted Martie Haselton, an Evolutionary Psychologist at the University of California in Los Angeles.

However, looks were still a more powerful predictor of sex appeal than brains, and Prokosch says:

If you had an option to pick from five different people, you would pick the most attractive one.

Creativity also proved to be another sought-after trait, and Prokosch’s team is currently working on an objective measure of creativity, similar to the intelligence test they used.

Posted by Jonathan as Psychology, Sociobiology at 1:09 AM BST

1 Comment »

I really don’t understand why many people give so much emphasis to covert hypnosis in seduction; especially since their focus usually seems to be around trying to rote memorise some form of script.

Whilst I can imagine covert hypnosis being something interesting to incorporate into a relationship, I’m baffled as to why anyone would believe that rehearsing and memorising a page of notes should give them any more power over the opposite sex than they might already have.

Of course, there are some common process language sentence fragments that get used a lot: you don’t need to use them all at once, but when you begin, the more you use them, the more skill as a hypnotist you’ll find – Then you reach the point where you notice that it’s just a natural way of speaking.

Now, it should be pretty obvious that anything rehearsed is going to sound as unnatural as a Newsreader or a Sportscaster. So, everything you say should really be spontaneous rather than an attempt to repeat what seemed like good ideas on paper.

If you just want to do a few hypnotic demonstrations, then a couple of hypnotic suggestibility tests, such as the hand clasp test, the dictionary and balloon, or maybe even a postural sway test can provide hours of fun.

On the other hand, if you want to try a real covert induction, just to make someone feel good, then here are some themes – try to stick with either the first person or third person narrative form, since this is less direct.

• Ask the person about trance-like experiences they will have had, such as watching TeeVee, driving, reading a good book, or day dreaming etc.

• Ask questions to get more sensory based information about there experience, and slow the pace of your speech. – The tone of voice you want should be the same as when you talk about something interesting and meaningful to you, while keeping to casual conversational topics.

• As your conversation progresses, remember to gather information such as:
  • What modalities is the person using? (do they switch from one modality to another as they enter trance?)
  • What personal trance words does the person use?
  • Other sensory rich information – images, sounds and feelings that they associate with going into the trance.

• Incorporate the information you’ve been gathering into your conversation.

• Slow your rate of speech, make eye contact with the person more often, and for longer periods, speak in a serious manner, as though whatever you’re saying is really important.

• Begin a metaphor; and include pieces of the information you’ve been gathering, deepen the trance and remember to include the outcome you’d like to achieve.

• Bonus step: If you’re really clever, you can create nested loops that include states of mind, solutions for future problems and a general feel-good factor.

This is all pretty basic stuff that shouldn’t cause problems – unfortunately, it’s just not a great deal of use until you’ve gotten to know someone reasonably well, and thus it’s pretty much ineffectual for the initial steps of a seduction.

Posted by Jonathan as Psychology at 1:23 AM BST

No Comments »

A survey of the sexual habits of Asian Pacific people has revealed that discussions about sex are a concern for couples in India, where it ranks seventh in the list of priorities for men; and near the bottom for women.

According to Australian sexologist, Rosie King:

Although India was among the top for sexual satisfaction (73 percent of those studied claimed they were satisfied) discussion about sexual experience are still a major concern among couples.

The study – titled Asia Pacific Sexual Health and Overall Wellness (APSHOW) was conducted in 13 countries by Pfizer International, and unveiled by King, Micro-surgeon and Andrologist Rupin Shah, and Director of Medical and Regulatory Affairs Chandrashekhar Potkar.

In India, both men and women ranked family life, overall physical health, being a spouse or partner, financial wellbeing, being a parent and their career higher than issues of sex.

The study also notes that at least 57 percent of men and 64 percent of women in the Asia-Pacific region are unsatisfied with their sex lives, and many of them prioritise sex only after family life, career and financial well-being.

According to Potkar, the study aims at encouraging people to seek help for issues regarding sexual health.

In ten countries, including Australia, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia and Hong Kong internet-based questionnaires were used for the survey. But in India, China and Thailand face-to-face interviews were carried out with subjects.

Japan had the lowest level of sexual satisfaction, with only 10 percent being sexually satisfied, compared to The Philippines at 52 percent, Taiwan at 51 percent and New Zealand 40 percent.

The APSHOW survey also shows that sex plays a more important role for men than for women. Aspects such as orgasm were more important to men, whilst in general, women put greater importance on physical foreplay.

Posted by Jonathan as Anthropology, Sociology at 11:16 PM BST

No Comments »