.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

War of the Genders

A confrontational soapbox for rants and politically incorrect manifestos regarding feminism, chauvinism, dating and gender issues.

Sunday, August 28, 2005

Venture Capitalism

Part I: Stereotypes

In the previous article, I explored a general psychological phenomenon amongst many modern women who seem to be desperately valuing themselves based on whimsical fashion and pedantic cosmetics. Instead of playing the blame game, I was analyzing the phenomenon. I was more interested in seeing how deep it goes, not where it comes from.

But looking at it again, I suddenly notice the obvious clues: Worthiness based only on looks, instant sexual attraction based on visual influence, sex as power, etc. Stereotypically, this would point at men as the ultimate source behind this phenomenon. Not that women necessarily do it for men, but that a man's way of thinking caused this to happen in the first place. But is this fair?

Think about most men's dating behaviour. It is true that a woman can attract them instantly, that they fall for looks, that it only takes a mini-skirt to distract them, that at first sight many men judge women by their looks, and that some even marry purely for looks. But the majority of men I know are only easy to get, not to keep. Look at the popular relationship self-help books out there for women; They all deal with how to keep or marry men, not how to attract them.

It's easy to get a man in your bed, it's slightly harder to make him stay until the morning, and quite a challenge to get a marriage vow out of him no matter how pretty you are. You may argue that this only proves men are interested in looks or in the excitement of conquest, but while this may be partially true, I believe that it's usually a case of not awakening the appropriate drives in the man. If all a man is interested in is beauty, then why bother getting married? And why does beauty by itself rapidly lose its power over time?

After the initial superficial attraction, there has to be much more to keep a man interested. I also argued that in many cases, unless the sugary power of instant attraction isn't rationed, the relationship loses its chance to develop naturally. The phenomenon that is ignored by these misandric stereotypes is that some men need to work and to be worked on in order to bring out the best in them and make a permanent relationship, the good news being that a healthy woman has just the right natural powers and character to do this. The bad news is, I think things are getting so twisted nowadays, most relationships are going to be weak and frail at best, or doomed from the start at worst.

I must emphasize that I'm not saying that women have to do all the work and men are just annoying, badly designed relationship-machines that have to be tinkered with constantly to get something good out of them. But I do think that part of a man's work is to choose a healthy woman that will bring out the best in him.

But all this finger-pointing begs a few questions: Were women really once less superficial than men? Or are they simply socially trained and better at hiding or controlling their urges? Or perhaps a woman's superficiality shows itself in other ways? And were men always this superficial or is this a stereotype projected onto the past? In fact, this blame game assumes that women and men don't have equal split personalities and superficial drives - which sounds like a stereotype to me.

One possible argument towards blaming men is that it's well known that they are much more influenced by visuals. But this doesn't mean visuals are the only superficial influence. What is the exact difference between a mini-skirt and a confident, virile charm? Do women bother to discover the man behind this manly, charming façade to see whether he is worth marrying or are they just as superficial when it comes to attraction as well? If he makes her feel sexy and safe, does the fact that he has a deeply disturbed personality or that he is a horrible father enter the equation before she goes to bed with him? When she focuses on how he makes her feel, how is this a deeper evaluation than a man's need for beauty?

Just because it takes more work or different tools to seduce a woman than it does to seduce a man, that doesn't mean men are more superficial. And just because men are more attracted to beauty, that doesn't mean women make better judgements. If this were true, women wouldn't be finding themselves stuck with jerks so often.

Besides, nowadays, not only do many women judge themselves based on looks, they are adopting the male need for instant attraction and are increasingly and exclusively judging men by the same standards. Which created, amongst other things, the metrosexual male.

These are somewhat moot points however so let's just assume that men always had two needs: a superficial, instant need, and a long-term, deeper need based on character, sometimes love, and perhaps even morals. Women, with their natural tendency to take things slower, tamed the wild beast in man and encouraged the better, deeper side of him to emerge and merge with his physical needs. This, as I will explain later, helps create a deeper relationship. Not because women are less superficial, but because of the effort involved.

So whereas it may be argued that men are the predominant source of this behaviour, there is still a missing mechanism that brought this phenomenon to the forefront. If a man's needs includes a healthy woman to build a family, and women have exchanged their superficial needs for a man's, then there is something we are missing that must have switched the emphasis onto instant attraction.

Part II: Buying Love

Perhaps we can blame today's problems on an increasing focus on materialism. But materialism has been a goal in many cultures and periods and is too easy and generalized a target.

I believe the unique drive that is challenging our current society is the emphasis on instant gratification: Speed, fast-food, instant cellular communication, internet, ubiquitous porn, microwaves, express deliveries, nuclear bombs, catchy pop hits, real-time media feeds, revealing clothes, fast sex, social power based on fashion, and relationships based on looks. Thank goodness they haven't found a way to speed up education yet.

My theory is that patience was lost, speedy results became more important than quality, and women fell into the trap of gaining more attention with the instant power of sexual attraction. Why catch a single man in a crowd with seductive charm and personality when you can attract 100 men in seconds with a push-up bra? Men's superficial but faster drives for pleasure were accentuated and encouraged by the power of women, and before you know it, women are acquiring the superficial side of men themselves, and men, like women, are now under pressure to enhance their instant cosmetic allure.

You may say that men are now getting a taste of their own medicine but men have this specific duality in them by nature, whereas when most women get their nature twisted and adopt a man's behaviour, it's exactly that: twisted. Or as that quote said: "When a woman behaves like a man, why doesn't she behave like a nice man?".

Result: a topsy-turvy world with confused gender characteristics and gender strengths turned into weaknesses. I hear that in a puzzling recent sex survey in England, it was found that more men than women now think that some love or romance are necessary criteria before sex. This may or may not be true, but somehow it doesn't surprise me.

I'm not saying that a woman doesn't need some looks to at least get past first base, but somehow, the rest of the relationship stages and tools were mostly forgotten and abolished. It became all about looks to the extreme where women do it for self-confidence, hurt themselves to get that longer glance, and base their self-worth on what the fashion defines as attractive. And all this because looks supposedly get you instant results. Not that the effort is less, but the results are faster and the mechanisms it reaches are easier to access.

And I'm not basing this conclusion only on the emphasis on looks. There's speed-dating. There are also the techniques used in marriage counseling and advice columns: Typical relationship advice is conveyed in two lines or less and provide generic advice that, they hope, may start a slow change at best, or bring about some good but temporary results at worst. Who has time to dig into the core of the problem inside each of their personalities when you can pull out standard solution #47, declare Mondays as 'her orgasm' day, and hope it makes them happier? Why bother to understand the relationship when you can just say 'go tell him your problem and talk about it'? Or worse: why bother fixing the problem when you can just make the advice-seeker happier about themselves and their feelings, and thus justify the service they are getting?

But what exactly is the problem with instant gratification? Healthy women are instinctively very pleased when their dates say they want to take it slow. Why is this?

Taking things slow and having to work at something means an investment of time, effort, pain and thought in another being. This investment is what creates devotion, loyalty, belonging and even ownership. In Hebrew, the verb to buy is 'liknot' which comes from the root of 'lekanen' (to nest) or 'ken' (a nest). This is because ownership is defined as something you invest in and make a home in. When you spend your money, your time, your work, your nurturing, you have nested. A part of you is in it, or to be more precise, it becomes part of you.

Even the extreme of slavery is treated as a responsibility in the original bible, something you have to invest in in order to 'own'. If circumstances are so bad that somebody sells himself to you, you haven't acquired a slave, you've acquired a responsibility. You have to give him your best pillow, your good food, your attention. Ownership is not a matter of control and fun, it's a matter of attachment, bringing something new into your being, responsibility, dedication.

Given this definition then, it should come as no surprise that Judaism calls marriage a purchase (i.e. a nesting). In order to extract the proper devotion from man, he must invest something of himself in her and go on from there. Controversial wording aside, to 'buy' yourself a woman is indeed a serious matter and quite romantic. He nests a part of himself in her, she, in return, devotes herself to him.

It's also interesting to note that originally sex was considered enough of an investment or act of marriage, but rabbis later adjusted this so that he must do other things before marriage is considered consummated. There were several reasons for this but I wouldn't be surprised if one of them was because men forgot how to have sex in a way that would be considered a proper investment.

Part III: Boundaries and Dependencies

This investment of self often creates a dependency, a healthy one which is based on giving. Not all dependencies and submissions are bad, in fact a good dependency such as this creates a beneficial symbiosis which increases power and growth. This runs contrary to the modern admiration for pure independence and self-contained strength.

It can be scary to invest a part of yourself inside a volatile human who can now hurt you using this attachment. But unless one is expecting something in return, to beneficially give of oneself should never be a bad investment, even when unrequited.

For the sake of precision, I shall define two diametric forms of healthy attachment which I won't explore here: An Inclusive Attachment that depends on the other for specific development and anchorage, and a Dedicative Attachment that depends on the other for navigation and inspiration.

But what about giving to the wrong person or attaching yourself too strongly to someone you shouldn't? What about giving something that's bad for the other person, even though they may want it? What about other, more extreme forms of submission and giving? There are also plenty of issues with attaching yourself to someone who becomes unhealthily attached to you.

To clarify further using an educational extreme, let's explore the Domination/submission world. This should provide some ingredients to adequately define healthy boundaries in each specific case. I will use the female gender as the submissive because this covers the majority of cases:

The D/s scene claims that the submissive is the ultimate giver. In fact, there are many variations in this world that cover a wide spectrum, and much like the 'vanilla' world, there are ideals, variations, distortions and deviations.

On the one side of the spectrum we have an ideal where a supposedly healthy woman is extremely sensitive and needs to fulfill the needs of others to be complete. She is not a victim or a weak person, but feels the needs and emotional tones of others, and this empathy creates consant impulses to satisfy them. As a solution, she partners with what is called a nurturing Dominant who understands this and uses this need to make her happy, without doing anything to harm her because he is responsible for her. Also, all healthy D/s relationships are based on a consensual submission. Sounds great doesn't it? I will point out the flaw in this scenario soon however.

On the other extreme of this spectrum we have victim submissives who are so insecure or neurotic, they only feel worthy when being abused or when they are making other people happy, or empty people who have no passion and only feel when they are being hurt. We also have control-freaks, perverts that only get off on violence, histrionics, narcissists, and healthy submissives that are pushed over the edge into guilt, insecurity and despair. There are also plenty of victims who aren't even submissive, and controlling sex addicts who aren't dominant.

If both are unhealthy for example, it's like a vampiric society: The submissive is empty and desperately clings to any superficial passion she may get out of him, and he just uses her as a toy.

In between there are various combinations. Say he is normal but coddles a leech: He has concern for her and tries to help, she leeches on his life-force by letting him do whatever he wants and getting passion out of it that she doesn't have. He has to invest so much to figure out what she needs and feed her black hole that he becomes very dependent. In an ironic twist, she is in fact the dominant. Another close variation is when she is so boring that she merely calls herself a submissive to get off and make him do the work and contribute his imagination. Again, it looks like he is dominating her but the reverse is true. Or say the submissive is healthy but he isn't. This creates a classic abusive relationship: She has submissive needs but tries to submit herself to someone who really doesn't care and just uses her. She becomes unhealthily dependent on his abuse because that's all she will get from him.

Speaking to people in the scene on the internet brings up all kinds of variations such as these that are quite distant from the aforementioned ideal.

When submission is based on being taken or on constant yielding, there is no active choice or investment involved respectively, and therefore no love. To submit by cancelling one's self and letting the other take whatever they want is not giving, and it both cancels the investment of the submissive (because they are not actually giving anything actively) and it is not allowing the taker to invest because the submissive is cancelling his or her needs.

The key issue in D/s is that the Dominant's needs are paramount. Although the D/s crowd claim that the submissive is the ultimate giver and the Dominant gives by satisfying the need of the submissive to give of herself without harm, the real dynamic in this kind of relationship is that the Dominant is not forced to get out of his skin to understand her needs and the submissive is coddling him, not giving.

In order to give there must be something to give, something that exchanges hands. A healthy submissive may actively give of her body and services at best, but why not also give of her wisdom, experience, instincts, advice, viewpoints, and specialities? And why not give by allowing him to give in return? How can a submissive be the ultimate giver if she cancels all these things and sticks to giving only her body and services? What kind of benefit is it to him if she coddles his every weakness and whim instead of helping him grow?

In a D/s relationship, the status quo is worshipped and whims are tyrants. In a normal relationship, people grow in a mutual and dynamic submission to appropriate authority.

In a sense, the submissive relationship is also based on instant gratification because instead of getting an investment by working hard at it, it's an attempt at a shortcut by saying that the submissive gives all and the Dominant gives by taking. But, as shown, this is a troubled imitation. Giving is much more than just 'take me' or 'use me'.


It's all up to us. How much quality do we need and how hard are we willing to work for it?



While I know that this isn't exactly the whole point of your article, you mentioned something about Judaism that made me want to ask a question. I hope you don't mind the slightly off topic-ness of if.

You said, "It's also interesting to note that originally sex was considered enough of an investment or act of marriage, but rabbis later adjusted this so that he must do other things before marriage is considered consummated." What are those "other things" that rabbis have decided that a man needs to do in order to consumate his marriage?

August 28, 2005 5:04 pm  

“It's easy to get a man in your bed, it's slightly harder to make him stay until the morning, and quite a challenge to get a marriage vow out of him no matter how pretty you are”.

This is a stereotype. In many cases the guy is the one pushing for a relationship and even marriage.

“Some men need to work and to be worked on in order to bring out the best in them and make a permanent relationship, the good news being that a healthy woman has just the right natural powers and character to do this… Women, with their natural tendency to take things slower, tamed the wild beast in man and encouraged the better, deeper side of him to emerge and merge with his physical needs…I do think that part of a man's work is to choose a healthy woman that will bring out the best in him”.

I hate this way of thinking. I hate the stereotype of the neanderthal male and the manipulative woman. Woman aren’t here to catch men then tame them work on them and buy books to learn tricks on how to make them stick around. Women who think like that are the ones who get stuck with jerks and then it’s no surprise. When a man loves a woman it shows and she doesn’t have to work on him/manipulate him/tame the wild beast. He just loves her. And her wild beast just loves him. It's simple.

“Do women bother to discover the man behind this manly, charming façade to see whether he is worth marrying or are they just as superficial when it comes to attraction as well? If he makes her feel sexy and safe, does the fact that he has a deeply disturbed personality or that he is a horrible father enter the equation before she goes to bed with him? When she focuses on how he makes her feel, how is this a deeper evaluation than a man's need for beauty?”

a.Attraction and Love are irrational not superficial.

b.Getting to know the man/woman will either make you love them more or less but aren’t the main trigger.

c.How someone makes you feel is a million times less superficial then looks.

d.However, women are attracted to beauty no less then men. (Regarding this specific issue, they aren’t adopting male behavior, this was always there).

This is getting to long so I’ll stop quoting and just add a few more comments:

1.You make a good point about our speedy society.

2.Monday as ‘her orgasm day’ sounds like good advice.

3.Stop saying ‘healthy women’: A. It sounds to animal like (as for breading purposes or something) and B. There is no such thing.

4.I liked what you said about taking things slowly, investing time creating devotion and ownership. But from that to jump to how ‘Liknot’ is a legitimate term for getting married? Give me a break. You can’t use the same term for the act of marrying and buying toilet paper!

You gave a very romantic explanation (enough to get any woman in bed instantly) but I’m afraid it probably had little to do with the actual meaning of the word in the context of marriage.

All in all I really enjoyed the post and you really covered a lot of interesting points!


August 30, 2005 12:59 am  

To peacefulwoman:

The new key act was the exchange of something of value, which has been generally accepted in the form of a ring (which he must own before giving to her)... but in theory it could be anything. This he must give to her in front of witnesses and declare the new status in front of them for it to work.

Regarding the consummation by sex act, immediately after the wedding, the couple have to spend time alone together in a room long enough for them to have sex. This is called Yichud.

In addition, the rabbis made a legal document (ketubah) mandatory which lists the husband's obligations to his wife. This was added for the protection of women who were being somewhat misused at the time.

August 30, 2005 7:41 am  

To (Tired) T-bear:

You're half right about the male neanderthal stereotype. I mean, the part about men in general not wanting marriage and women manipulating them is indeed a stereotype and I thank you for pointing it out. This strengthens my point about not blaming men exclusively.

But still, there are plenty of men who are after sex and beauty and who try to avoid marriage as long as possible for various reasons. And there are plenty of women who wonder when their relationship will become more serious or whether they made a mistake of putting out too early. Don't tell me you haven't seen this widespread behaviour. The stereotype does exist, as do the books and columns giving advice to these women.

In any case, this kind of behaviour is not what I was describing at all and you missed my whole point:

1. I was trying to point out the fact that men may be seduced easily for sex but not for the rest. I wasn't trying to say that women are the ones chasing men for marriage.

2. I emphasized specifically in the article that women don't have to do all the work. You missed that whole paragraph somehow. And in the quote you pasted I said 'men have TO WORK and be worked on'.

3. I wasn't saying that women have to manipulate men into marriage. I was saying that a woman can naturally bring out the best in a man unless she's twisted. No trickery involved, and sometimes there's not even hard work involved.

4. I disagree that they just love each other and it's that simple. If things were that static then what would be the goal of marriage? Things must change and be improved/worked on otherwise there is no point to it all.

Regarding your other points:

a) I don't understand what you're trying to say with this comment. When did I say that love is superficial? I was talking about superficial attractions and the specific types of superficial attractions that afflict women. Surely you must agree that those exist. I was also trying to compare men's superficial attractions with women's.

And why can't an attraction be both superficial AND irrational?

'Love is irrational' - this can mean one of two things: Either that love makes you do irrational things, or that love is not based on logical things.

I don't agree that love is irrational in the sense that it makes you irrational. I think love makes people do things they normally wouldn't (e.g. ignore their other needs and other carefully laid plans), but this only means a change of priorities and doesn't make them irrational. If someone becomes irrational then it's because they let their strong feelings overcome their rationality. People let love make them irrational, but love isn't irrational.

Regarding love being based on non-rational decisions: This is partially true - I think love isn't rooted in a logical decision, but I also think love can be worked on, switched on and rationally maintained, and behaviour based on love can be controlled.

Either way, I was talking about superficial attractions, not love so this whole discussion is irrelevant.

b) Again the main point is whether many women are attracted to men and go to bed with them due to superficial reasons or not. Given this, I do not understand what you are trying to say. I wasn't even talking about love!

c) I hope you aren't talking about love as a 'feeling'. As described in the article I was talking about feelings like 'sexy and safe'. These feelings that a seductive man can evoke may even be based on lies or acts and are therefore extremely superficial. If a woman goes to bed with a man because she feels happy with him, how is this not superficial?

Why are selfish emotions a 'deeper' reason to have sex than out of admiration of beauty? I challenge this worship of emotions and I want to hear one explanation why chemically induced hormones due to someone's charm are any more meaningful than an aesthetic appreciation of beauty.

The only exception that isn't superficial is love. But just because a woman feels happy with someone, that isn't love. Women can be seduced by playing with their emotions. This is superficial QED.

d) This is a moot point and I questioned it the same as you, but you may be right.

And your other comments:

2) Yes it may work for a month or two but my point was to show that they use canned solutions instead of trying to go deeper and work at the specific core problems. This takes too much time and work.

3) I meant healthy mentally. I thought that was obvious. If you prefer I can use 'relatively healthy'.

4) Why not? It may be controversial wording but the root of the word is the same and therefore applicable. If anyone researched into the mechanisms of Jewish marriage then they would see that the context and usage of the word are used carefully and appropriately.

If anyone looked into the meaning of the original Hebrew word, he would understand what he is doing when he buys and marries a woman. In the context of marriage the investment has EVERYTHING to do with it and any research would point this out. Just because people today are unaware of what it means that doesn't disqualify the truth.

By the way, I just did some more research and in minutes I found another complementary definition: The word kinyan also comes from 'to build' and the explanation is that the effort he put into making his item or money is exchanged for the effort the other person put it into his property and thus the item is purchased. In other words ownership is all about effort and building...and investing.

August 30, 2005 9:32 am  

‘Being worked on’: I didn’t have a problem with who does the work, I had a problem with the actual need for being ‘worked on’ in the first place.

‘When love exists it’s simple’: Because when love exists its not hard to be loyal, to want a committed relationship etc. My advice to women who meet a guy that has to be ‘worked on’ is to move on (may be give it a little time but if things don’t change in the first couple of months- they’ll never change and no marriage vow / child or anything else will change it. It will most likely only make matters worse. When it is love, on the other hand, it’s simple. I never said things were static or that there is no place for growth. But there is a big difference between love that grows, and two people that are in totally different emotional states of mind and one has to work and be ‘worked on’ to be in a permanent relationship.

‘bringing out the best and not the beast': Some people have a personality that will bring out the best in another person and some have a personality that may do just the opposite… It’s up to both women and men to find a life partner that will bring out the best in them. I don’t think that a man’s job is to find a healthy woman so she can help him forget his natural beastly characteristics in order to have a long-term relationship… I give most men more credit then that.

‘Superficial attractions’: I don’t know if I agree with the termination. The reasons for being attracted to someone or even something are probably mostly “superficial” – the way they look, smell, feel…with attraction I guess almost everything is legitimate. If you want to label some reasons for attraction superficial, fine, but then what is truly a non-superficial attraction? (You claim that even a way a person makes you feel is a superficial attraction…).

‘Irrational love’: I meant that love is usually not based on logical things…just as its trigger-attraction.

‘Me missing the point’: I sometimes comment on things you say on the way to your point... Sorry they just shout at me: Please comment…If it bothers you I can try to stick to the main arguments, but that is less fun!

‘Going to bed with a beautiful bitch’: If you can go to bed with a beautiful woman that makes you feel horrible emotionally to me it would seem as the most superficial sex ever. If women are bad judges and can’t tell a lie from a true feeling it doesn’t make the reason superficial for going to bed with someone superficial it just means they are naive.

‘Orgasm day’: That I mentioned for fun. I totally agree with you about the problematic canned solutions.

‘A healthy woman’: what you meant was obvious just didn’t sound good… (and relatively healthy is even worse)…

‘Buying a wife’: You are right the wording is controversial… I just find it hard to believe that something that sounds like that could have ever been considered romantic to the wife that was being bought.

(Slightly less tired) T-bear

August 30, 2005 9:55 pm  

Perhaps 'worked on' in the context of making him want a permanent relationship is not the most precise wording. What I meant was that if a woman shows him cleavage, talks with him about parties then takes him home after knowing him for three days, it will not inspire a typical man to think of permanent relationships. The slower kind of development where the woman tells him to slow down and let things grow properly (which will get him to put in more effort and romance into it) is what I meant by 'work', and is what may tame the wild beast.

I agree that if he isn't interested in anything but sex in the first place, it would be a waste of time to work to change him. So I think we agree, it's just a matter of how much work, not whether there should be any work.

I also referred to a more general 'bring out the best in man' kind of work. I.e. not to make a permanent relationship, but to become more sensitive, etc. This many women do naturally as well.

But if a woman wears see-through clothing and attracts him for a more instant kind of connection, this is all not going to happen.

Regarding superficial attractions: Indeed my argument was that except for love, I suppose almost any kind of attraction is superficial. I was challenging this idea that feelings made it meaningful. I don't see why people think like this. Why are emotions (not love - emotions that he makes you feel) less superficial? They are just chemicals.. just like lust and attraction to beauty. In fact I can argue that beauty makes a man happy and feel sexy - which are the same emotions. Don't just say feelings are not superficial - explain why.

August 30, 2005 10:31 pm  

This time I pretty much agree with everything you say. Regarding Love emotions, however, isn’t love also just a chemical cocktail? And if it is just chemicals, does that make it superficial?


August 31, 2005 2:34 pm  

Well I previously defined love in the Utopia series as something much more than just chemicals. Of course there are many cases where people think it's love and it isn't but that's a different problem. Some people may think there isn't anything else above chemicals and that's their opinion.

August 31, 2005 9:32 pm  

How can you claim that all emotions are just chemicals and love is different?
(P.S- just for the record I don’t believe everything is just chemicals - I’m just trying to argue the point).


August 31, 2005 11:03 pm  

Because love by my definition (which I worked out logically in previous posts) is something more than chemicals. If someone doesn't agree with this definition then obviously it won't be. It's as simple as that.

If I were asked whether emotions are just chemicals I think my answer would be that it's not the emotions that count, but the goal and context involved. I.e. what is the happiness about and what is it for? Emotions can only transcend their materialistic roots if they are associated with a non-materialistic source.

But of course almost everything people do is materialistic, which brings me back to my original point that dating and having sex based on emotions is superficial.

September 08, 2005 12:13 pm  

A worked out logical definition for love sounds almost like an oxymoron. But never mind. I like your love definition (even if it came from a logical source:). As for emotions and chemicals- you gave an interesting way of looking at it… I’ll still have to think about it but I guess there will never be a way of knowing how much really is just chemicals.


September 11, 2005 12:55 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home