There was a very interesting study in the subtlety of human behavior and our basic, prehistoric instincts that haven’t changed much over thousands of years, even with the evolution of both men and women to adopt to today’s modern world, having to do with the detection of subtle differences in a woman’s voice when she is ovulating, which we all know, is when a woman is most likely to conceive, or when she is most fertile. 

This is just another one of nature’s ways to propagate a species, by making it nearly impossible to avoid the instinct to mate and produce offspring by making the opposite of sex more alluring during peak times of fertility, and to make the male of the species want to “spread his seed”, so to speak, and unwittingly more attuned to these increasingly subtle changes in a woman’s voice, body, smell and appearance during olvulation to make her more attractive in a visual, olfactory and oral sense. 

Much like the pheromones men use to attract women, this is part of the woman’s instinctual ways of attracting men when they are most ready to mate and have offspring, whether they know it or not. 

The scientists who began the small study wanted to find out if men had evolved to the point where they could still pick up on the subtle difference in a woman’s voice during this time, because they say that women have evolved to better conceal the times when they are ovulating, so men had evolved to be more keenly attuned to these times by developing a higher awareness to the subtle nuances. 

Men could still detect a difference, and they identified women’s voices who were ovulating as being “sexier”, although to the naked ear, the woman’s voices sounded pretty much the same as they did any other time.  Supposedly the hormonal changes that occur during the ovulation period of the menstrual cycle in women has an effect on the voicebox, however subtle that men can pick up on.  It’s just nature’s way of making us virtually powerless against the will not to spawn! 

Monogamy has pretty much that same dictionary meaning anywhere you look such as “marriage to only one person at a time”, or “having only one sexual partner during a period of time”.  However, when you ask people individually what monogamy means to them, and how a violation of an agreeably monogomous relationship would be assessed, you get a bit of a different range of answers when it comes to what individuals consider monogamy, and what they also consider to be a violation of the inferred binding trust that monogamy entails. 

For example, to me personally, monogamy means that when you are someone’s sexual partner, and you have agreed you have entered into a monogomous relationship, then any sexual or intimate contact with another person is stricly off limits.  This means touching, fondling, kissing, dirty talk, and certainly oral sex and sexual intercourse. 

However, if you were to ask other couples, especially those that may be more open minded about what a monogomous relationship is and is not allowed to do for both partners, you may get a wide range of answers.  I was just reading an article about how some couples have laid down differennt rules for themselves and decided what lines they were allowed and were not allowed to cross when it came to having contact with anyone outside of their two person union.

Some people might be like me and say that any kissing, touching, and sexual contact is completely unacceptable.  Others might say that oral sex is acceptable while intercourse is strictly forbidden, or that both are acceptable as long as the person doesn’t feel emotionally attached to the person. 

Other crazy stipulations may be that they are allowed to kiss and flirt, but no other contact is allowed, and further contact with the person is not allowed after that one time contact, or that if one partner is away and out of state or the country, sex or other sexual contact is permitted, but when within state or country boundaries, it is not allowed.  I personally think this defeats the purpose of monogomy, and would hope my partner would agree with me, however, she may feel differently.

Chances are, if you’re matched well with a person to begin with, then these types of difference aren’t an issue.  If they are, it’s something you should probably get out on the table early on in the relationship of what your ideas of a relationship are and what your definition of monogomy is, to avoid disappointment and/or heartbreak. 

This was an interesting article I read about how fitness experts are tending more toward totally different types of workouts for men and women, which vary based on the person’s sex, rather than totally relying on the typical workout factors like current weight, fitness level, and muscle mass at time of beginning a regimen, they will base the type of workout, length of sets and so forth, on a person’s sex.

This isn’t that far off from how it is now though.  Right now, men usually do vary the way they workout from women in the amount of weight they use in lifting and leg presses or other types of bench presses, and the key different that many men practice that is not usual for women is that they work on body parts.  So for example men will work on arms and lats one day and then the next they may work on their abs and quadriceps, while women can tend to bunch all their workout into one.

Women usually will combine cardio exercise with muscle fitness for all of their workouts, so they might start off with a half hour or so of cardio, and then move onto their legs doing presses or squats, then maybe work out their abs for a bit, and then their arms.  Men chop theirs up more, working and focusing on one body part at a time, because supposedly men’s muscles respond a little differently to muscle resistance. 

Also, levels of testosterone have a lot to do with the difference between men’s and women’s workouts, because testosterone allows men to lift a lot more weight at a time and bear that weight more evenly and effectively than a woman, so testosterone definitely plays a big part too in the differences between the sexe’s workouts. 

Boy, I smelled this one coming when the news broke that the girl who calls herself Ashley Alexander Dupre (what a horrible name by the way, her real name is better), was supposedly bargaining with the creator of Girls Gone Wild’s Joe Francis, or at least with his people, to make an appearance for them as an obvious boost for their business since her name has been flashed allover the news now for a while. 

Since things have died down for the call girl after news of her being the prostitute who former governor Elliot Spitzer had trysts with every so often, she may be seeing a huge decline in her offers and opportunities, so it makes perfect sense that she is now suing Girls Gone Wild for ten million dollars. 

What happened is they originally offered her one million dollars to use her likeness to promote the videos they are so well known for, but when they were going through old video, they hit the jackpot so to speak and found that Dupre, then seventeen years old back in 2003, had already been filmed by the film crew partially nude and had signed a release. 

So the million bucks was off the table.  Maybe they should have been smart and just given her the million since technically now she could get ten million if she proves her case that her release was not a valid or equitable one and that she didn’t know what she was doing when she signed the release.  I even remember reading Joe Francis said that he just “saved himself a million” bucks or something to that affect and thought, wow, Ms. Dupre’s not gonna like that one bit, so this lawsuit doesn’t really shock me, needless to say!