Re: Callouses and Kings

From: Bill Spight (
Date: Fri Aug 17 2001 - 17:06:34 BST

  • Next message: Bill Spight: "Re: Logic"

    Received: by id RAA12928 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 17:08:39 +0100
    Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 09:06:34 -0700
    From: Bill Spight <>
    Subject: Re: Callouses and Kings
    Message-id: <>
    Organization: Saybrook Graduate School
    X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en]C-CCK-MCD {Yahoo;YIP052400}  (Win95; U)
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
    X-Accept-Language: en
    References: <>
    Precedence: bulk

    Dear Vincent,

    > Because of selection. Those whose tenednecy for callouses better
    > fit the environmental demands that the organism is living in, persist more
    > than those that do not, which is why I'd put good money on Joe being
    > absolutely right about sex workers not getting callouses on their sexual
    > organs as they might make sex painful, too difficult, or make them less
    > desirable to potential mates. These would all limit the chances of people
    > with calloused genitalia- in comparison to other forms of callous.

    Well, there are a fair number of callous pricks in the world. ;-)


    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 17 2001 - 17:13:03 BST