Women’s Longer Lifespans Explained: Men Are ‘Genetically Disposable’

01/11/10 4 COMMENTS

By Katie Drummond
(Nov. 1) — Women can credit their longer lifespans to genetic resiliency, says a new study that deems men to be “genetically more disposable” than the fairer sex.

Us ladies tend to live five or six years longer than our male peers. In the United States, that means a woman’s life expectancy is around 80 years, while that of a man is closer to 75. But surprisingly, the divergence between men’s and women’s relative life expectancy actually holds true in myriad locales around the world — industrialized or not.

Why? Experts still aren’t sure, but an idea dubbed “disposable soma theory” is picking up steam, with newly published research adding more evidence to the concept.

Professor Thomas Kirkwood first established the theory in the 1970s, based on the idea that aging and death are largely products of gradual cell damage and disrepair.

Evolutionarily speaking, an organism’s primary role is to pass genes on to the next generation. So it follows that the human body’s repair mechanisms slow down and become less effective as we reach old — i.e., nonreproductive — age.

But in a new paper published in Scientific American, Kirkwood hypothesizes that women’s cell repair mechanisms are more resilient than those of men.

“Under the pressure of natural selection to make the best use of scarce energy supplies, our species gave higher priority to growing and reproducing than to living forever,” Kirkwood writes.

Studies on mice reinforce the idea. For example, female mice can repair cellular damage more effectively than males — at least until their ovaries are removed.

Kirkwood notes that it is “difficult to say things with absolute assurance,” but his idea is a natural fit where evolution is concerned. Females not only rear offspring, but also nurture them into adulthood. Males, in contrast, are little more than reproductive partners.

“The fetus needs to grow inside the mother’s womb, and the infant needs to suckle at her breast,” he writes. “So if the female animal’s body is too much weakened by damage, there is a real threat to her chances of making healthy offspring.”


Happy Halloween and Samhain! Let your Freak out!

30/10/10 0 COMMENTS

I wanted to wish a Happy Halloween and Samhain to all my friends and submissives! This is when the veils between the dead and living are the thinnest! Now is a good time to honor your dearly departed. Every Samhain, I prepare a dish for my dead relatives and place it outside for them. I also light a candle in their honor. Its a kind gesture to give them energy as they journey here.

I will be giving out Candy for Trick and Treaters! I love doing it! It brings back memories of my Halloween adventures as a kid. Nine times out of ten, I was a Princess! lol

I am a Wiccan Witch. I have been studying Wicca since I was seventeen years old. I plan on doing a Ritual to honor my Goddess. Also Samhain is the ideal time for divination and using crystal balls. I own a beautiful quartz crystal ball that I will be scrying with. Should be a powerful night!

So what are you doing for Halloween? This is the only time of the year that you can dress up as a Hooker and get away with it! lol So go ahead, get your freak on! Go into the night and celebrate your perv side!

If you run into a sexy blond dressed as a Witch, watch out! It could be me! 😉

I will be taking some calls on Halloween but I am not sure exactly when. Look for me!

Call Button

Calling Mr. Mom

26/10/10 0 COMMENTS


October 21, 2010
Calling Mr. Mom?


You could easily compile statistics to make the case that women — at
least Western women — are already empowered. In the United States, we
are 50 percent of the workplace (and 51.4 percent of managerial and
professional jobs). We receive three college degrees for every two
earned by men (along with 60 percent of all master’s degrees, about
half of all law and medical degrees and 43 percent of M.B.A.’s).
Working wives are coming close to bringing in nearly half the
household income. Single, childless urban women under 30 actually earn
8 percent more than their male peers.

But all this evidence isn’t particularly persuasive to the one group
that should know: women. After all, you could compile a whole other
set of figures that show just how far from empowered we are. Start
with the Government Accountability Office study last month, which
found that professional women still make 81 cents for every dollar a
man makes in a similar job. Then count the women in the corner suites
and the highest-paying professions. (It won’t take you long: women
currently make up only 3 percent of Fortune 500 C.E.O.’s.) And women
still perform twice the housework and three times the child care that
men do, even in homes where women are the primary breadwinners.

Telling women they have reached parity is like telling an unemployed
worker the recession is over. It isn’t true until it feels true.
That’s because measuring women’s power by looking only at women — and
by looking mostly at the workplace — paints a false picture.

Men today are at the turning point women reached several decades ago,
when the joint demands of work and home first intensified. In her new
book, “Reshaping the Work-Family Debate: Why Men and Class Matter,”
Joan C. Williams describes how men find themselves caught between
meeting cultural expectations and a growing dissatisfaction with the
constricted roles shaped by those expectations. “You have to ask why,
if women are asking men to change, and if men say they want change, it
hasn’t happened,” she says. “Either they are all lazy, or they are
under tremendous gender pressures of their own.”

The life-work dilemma for women has long been that “the workplace has
changed in their favor, but home hasn’t,” she says. Men, however,
“have the opposite problem. More is expected of them at home, but
expectations have not shifted at work.” Which explains why the
percentage of fathers in dual-income households who say they suffer
work-family conflict has risen to 59 percent from 35 percent since 1977.

Younger couples say they want and expect parity in their
relationships. But many women still carry a chip on their shoulders,
chiseled in part by years of keeping all those to-do lists in their
heads. And if men can find no relief from the pressures of work, they
are not going to be able to fit into the revamped economy of home.

How then to inch toward change? Can we make it “manly” (or even
better, “gender neutral”) to spend a day with a child, or earn less
money but have more family time, or be the only parent at a parent-
teacher conference because your wife has a meeting? “If long hours are
really about proving ‘whose is bigger,’ you can have flex policies
until the sun sets and men won’t use them,” Williams says.

Indeed, where flex policies are offered, American men don’t use them
as much as American women do. In California, one of two states in the
country to provide paid parental leave (or “bonding leave”) for both
parents, 74 percent of new mothers took the new benefit compared with
26 percent of new fathers. This is, to be sure, an improvement over
the 17 percent who took it when the program was first introduced in
2004-2005. (It is also significantly higher than the percentage of
French men who take time off. French law allows both parents to take a
leave or to work reduced hours until their child is 3, but 97 percent
of those who do so are women.) It’s better than it used to be, but
it’s far from equal.

There are some practical reasons for these discrepancies. Biology
dictates that many women will take pauses during the prime career-
building years that men don’t need to take. Similarly, breast-feeding
during the first month to year of life means a child necessarily
spends more time with the mother. Often, though, what look like causes
are really effects — we make assumptions about sex roles and then
reinforce them with our behavior. If you challenge those assumptions,
it follows that you can change behavior. Which explains what happened
in Sweden.

Today the Swedes have one of the world’s most forward-thinking
parental leave policies, but it took years of tweaking before men took
substantial time off to care for children. Starting in 1974, couples
were given six months of paid leave to divide in any way they chose.
Women consistently used more of the time than men; in fact, only 4
percent of fathers took any leave at all. In 1995, however, a month of
fathers-only leave was introduced, and in 2002, another month of
“daddy leave” was added, bringing the total to 480 days. If men don’t
take the leave before their child turns 8, they lose the days. Now
about 80 percent of Swedish dads take at least some time off.

By steering men toward a particular path, Sweden redefined the nature
of choice. Parental leave was transformed from a way to escape the
world of work into a way to maximize the benefits available to
families; from an emotional decision to a financial one; from
something mothers do to something every parent does. Would that same
kind of redefinition — of the relationship between work and home, of
the roles of men and women — work on this side of the Atlantic? In at
least one case, it already has.

Four years ago, the now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers wanted a flextime
policy but worried about the mommy-track stigma attached. They looked
for a way to make flextime gender neutral by giving it a clear
business purpose. Workers were asked to participate in a pilot program
to create a telecommuting infrastructure in case a terrorist attack or
natural disaster crippled its Manhattan headquarters. Men who didn’t
stay home to take care of children began to do so when it became a
matter of national security.

Empowering American women can no longer focus only on women — on
leveling playing fields or offering mothers “on-ramps” and “offramps”
or shattering ceilings one at a time. All those efforts must continue,
yes. But none will succeed if we don’t change our expectations for
men. Or, more accurately, men’s expectations for themselves.

Lisa Belkin is a contributing writer and the author of the Motherlode

Sex.com Sells: $13 Million Deal Expected to Spark New Domain Gold Rush

22/10/10 0 COMMENTS

Sex! Got your attention? Apparently it worked for Clover Holdings, which recently offered $13 million for the Sex.com domain name, according to documents filed this week.

If its approved next week, the sale will keep the domain at the top of the list of highest-priced names. Escom, the current owner, paid $14 million for Sex.com in 2006 before filing for bankruptcy earlier this year.

Sex.com’s sales price took many by surprise, given the beating the porn publishing industry has taken in recently years from all the free pornographic photos and videos available on the Internet. Some industry watchers expected to see a sales price of between $5 million to $10 million.

Domain name sales that fetch hundreds of dollars are a dime a dozen and sales in the low six-figures are fairly common too, with at least one happening every week, says Ron Jackson, editor and publisher of Domain Name Journal. But domain sales of $250,000 and up are rare — especially those that hit $1 million or more.

Industry experts say this mega-deal is likely to lead to a feeding frenzy among buyers looking to jump into the domain-name market and existing players looking to sell. “Every time there’s a big sale, we see a huge uptick in domain [name] registrations and after-market sales,” Jackson says. “This is just one big sale, but big numbers get people interested.”

Jeff Kupietzky, CEO of Oversee.net, was less surprised by the deal. Kupietzky’s company, which registers, sells and develops domain names, operates a massive portfolio of more than 1 million domains. He says generic names carry a premium value: Look at the $1.75 million sale of Dating.com, which his company handled earlier this year.

“We have seen a 50% increase in the sale of domain names this year over last year, and its primarily being driven by these higher-priced names,” Kupietzky says.

The Growth of the Generics

What’s driving this growth? For one thing, Kupietzky is seeing more buyers who actually want to build sites. These buyers are making strategic investments into domains, rather than simply buying the names — and letting them languish as largely vacant Internet real estate with ads — on the speculation that they will later be able to flip them for a profit.

In addition, the domain-name investors who, like real-estate speculators, are betting that the value will go up after purchase are seeing more value in generic names, which benefit from accidental search traffic.

For example, a domain name like dog.com would likely generate a ton of traffic on its own, even without any content on the site. If millions of users stumble onto the site, the owner will likely be able to strike an advertising deal directly with folks like Google, who will pay a higher amount every time a prospective customer clicks on an online ad.

But domain names that keyword searches may not as easily pick up, like dogpawpointer.com, are unlikely to generate as much accidental search-traffic volume. Domain names that pull in little traffic are left to rely on “parking” companies, which aggregate many disparate web sites and sell the bulk traffic volume to Google.

As a result, those domain owners have a middle man to contend with, and it’s much harder to figure out how much revenue they should get and to make sure they’re getting what they’re owed, Jackson says.

“Domain owners are retaking control of their domain name as an asset,” Jackson says. “The problem is zero transparency with the parking companies. They never get to see the revenue figures from the parking company and are only told this is how much you are getting. But they wonder how come Google can have a record quarter for advertising and see a surge in [industry] traffic in reports, but … they’re losing 50% of their revenues and I’ve even heard 80%.”

The Hottest Names in Domains

Sex.com isn’t the first generic site to attract big money, of course. Here’s a list of the top 10 publicly announced domain-name sales that involved all-cash transactions and resulted in the domain names passing onto the buyers, according to DN Journal:

•*Sex.com – $13 million (2010)
•Porn.com – $9.5 million (2007)
•Diamond.com – $7.5 million (2006)
•Slots.com – $5.5 million (2010)
•Toys.com – $5.1 million (2009)
•Clothes.com – $4.9 million (2009)
•Vodka.com – $3 million (2006)
•Candy.com – $3 million (2008)
•Shopping.de – $2.8 million (2008)
•Creditcards.com – $2.7 million (2004)
*Sex.com’s sale is expected to be approved by the bankruptcy court later this month

See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/dyqyS1

I want YOU to call ME!

22/10/10 0 COMMENTS

I am home, bored and looking for some intense Phone Domination Sessions with my subs! Call me! I want to get Filthy this weekend.

Just 99 Cents per minute!

Call Button

Extension: 9439-577

Mistress Eva


 Page 5 of 17  « First  ... « 3  4  5  6  7 » ...  Last »