Jenna Jameson?

Fvolfrine · Post by **Fvolfrine** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 7:34 pm

Fellas (and ladies, if you swing that way) -

If Jenna Jameson was in your room RIGHT NOW, would you have sexual intercourse with her?

NOTE: The voting is completely confidential, so no one, especially your girlfriend, will know that you voted "yes"

Post by **Buzzman25** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 7:57 pm

That's kind of an insane question; it's like asking would you have sex with the hottest person in the world if they were in your room asking you for it. The only time that may not apply is if you're married or getting married...or it has some serious repercussions.

You should add more options like, self-pleasure, porn movies, asexual, etc.

Make it more of a question of what type of guy are you, rather then, are you male?

BigGunna · Post by **BigGunna** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 8:57 pm

If there was a piece of pie in front of you right now would you eat it?

Fvolfrine · Post by **Fvolfrine** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 9:15 pm

If there was a poll in front of you right now would you vote on it?

Obviously not, since you forgot to...

Fvolfrine · Post by **Fvolfrine** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 10:21 am

That's better. I can't wait for more people to see this post and keep on voting.

I think later, I'll add some more pictures of the lovely Ms. Jameson, as well as send private messages to EVERYONE to vote on this one.

And Gunna, you're quote sums it all up: "If there was a piece of pie in front of you right now would you eat it?"

Brilliant.

Andrea · Post by **Andrea** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 11:46 am

Uhhh. she's dirty and loose. She is a well known porn star meaning she's been around and yeah she's attractive and all but it would feel like doing a big brown grocery bag. You won't feel anything except maybe her genital warts touching you every once in a while. I voted no, not because i am a chick but if i were a guy i'd want something clean and well something that doesn't feel it's been used 100000 times. Sloppy seconds anyone?

BigGunna · Post by **BigGunna** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 9:55 pm

Andrea wrote: I voted no, not because i am a chick but if i were a guy i'd want something clean and well something that doesn't feel it's been used 100000 times. Sloppy seconds anyone?

If you were a guy, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. To be honest if any guy says no he's either gay, or just saying no to try to sleep with you. And it wouldn't just be her, almost any other hot girl. D
on't test my thoery though.

Fvolfrine · Post by **Fvolfrine** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 8:42 am

i'm glad someone said it, because Gunna put it perfectly. and that about sums it up to, if he says "no," he's either gay or lying to you. thanks gunna

BigGunna · Post by **BigGunna** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 8:18 pm

Like I said it's not just her, it can be any cute girl that gives off the right vibe. Years of caveman DNA has been written into our libido that says "Women, arrrgh must conquest" We think with the wrong head sometimes and it gets us screwed up.

Venus de Tahoe · Post by **Venus de Tahoe** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:00 am

Did you know, theoretically, a man get get over 100 women pregnant in 1 year, but a woman can only have 1 baby a year?

There had to be an anthropological explanation why men will have sex with anything that moves, while women are naturally more choosy.

Fvolfrine · Post by **Fvolfrine** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:02 am

so let's play the numbers game here. There are 365 days in a year. Say your typical male, any male, can have intercourse at least one daily. Let's further say that we have an endless upply of females to fit his fancy, line up so that he can just go right down the line. I know that that sounds crude, but for the sake of argument, let's just go with that.

So that male has sex with all 365 females, while also attached to an IV unit to keep the water and blood flowing. Now say that some of those women don't get pregnant, you're still looking at over 300 pregnant ladies. And that's just one woman a day for that alpha male.

So theoretically, a male could easily impregnate hundreds of women a year.

So if all of the men suddenly disappeared, except for one man, it wouldn't take long to repopulate the earth. But if every woman diseappear save one woman, it would take an insanely long time to bring the numbers back up. In fact, it would darn near impossible.

An extreme example for sure, but it definitely raises some good questions...

BigGunna · Post by **BigGunna** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:43 am

Hey Matty... Screw you and your chaos theory bro! Your numbers are all wrong

If Gunna was hypothetically "The last male on earth" and his fluids and what not were in check and he had a steeak after every meal to to save the human race, there would be closer to 900 babies made in a year... hell round that up to an even thousand.

Post by **Buzzman25** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 1:21 pm

OK, lets do some extreme calculations here...

365 days in a year.
A man needs 2.5 hours of rest to be ready for round 2, that's including 30 minutes to get the job done. (FACT INFO)

http://www.wholefamily.com/aboutyourmarriage/columns/drtobin/sexual_mythology.html wrote:The average time of a real manâ€™s erection during intercourse is approximately ten minutes. The average man needs at least two hours of recovery time following orgasm in order to achieve a second orgasm.

Sleep is required, and they say you can survive on 6 hours though 8 is recommended. So...
24 hours - 6 hours of sleep = 18 hours of play
18 hours / 2.5 hours = 7.2 times a day but lets round to 7 to give the poor man an extra 30 min break

7 times a day, with 7 women = 7 possible pregnancies.
So...
365 days * 7 times a day = 2555

however, if we're repopulating the earth, don't forget to take into account leap year!

365.25 days * 7 days a day = 2556.75

So lets round to 2556 just for argument.

Now, not all will get pregnant for whatever reason, so lets use the good 80 / 20 rule.

80% * 2556 = 2044.8

So lets assume that means 2044 pregnancies.

Now, just in case, lets say only 80% come to term.

80% * 2044 = 1635.2

So we only have 1635 babies.

On average the typical male lives to be 75.37 years old. (75 for argument). (FACT INFO)

So lets use the 80% rule because of hard horizontal labor.

75 years old * 80% = 60 years old.

The average male starts to be sexually active between 15 - 17, so lets say 16.

At 16 years old, if this male was to start the reproductive cycle we have 44 years of activity (60 - 16 = 44).

So 44 years of activity * 1635 babies / year = 71,940 children per lifetime.

Now, if all males but one were wiped out, and that one was 16 years old, and assuming there were enough women around to be able to keep him active he could keep this theory intact.

How many women per year would you need you ask?

2044 females per year, as above, but to keep him active you need twice that so that while one set is pregnant, the other is getting pregnant. So you need 4088 females to keep a male 100% active over the course of 2 years.

Ok, so, the common ratio for today, by doing some research, is 8 females to every 10 males born, so that's 10 males for every 18 children, and that's 8 females per every 18. So...

1635 babies per year * (10/18) = 908 males
1635 babies per year * (8/18) = 726 females.

Now, 80% again you will have 726 males and 581 females per year.

After 16 years of maturity these males can reproduce so after the 16th year, the production can increase exponentially.

When X > 15
15 years * 726 males = 10,890 males after 15 years

When X < 15
726 * ((726 new 16 year old males) * each new year) = A whole lot of people.

Any who, to conclude what I have to say is....

FIND SOMETHING BETTER TO DO ON YOUR SATURDAY THEN DO DAMN CALCULATIONS LIKE ME!

That is all.

:p

Fvolfrine · Post by **Fvolfrine** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 3:07 pm

"2044 females per year"

Yes, I have a new goal in life!

MaudDib125 · Post by **MaudDib125** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 8:46 pm

Does a threesome count as 2 chicks though you could only impregnate one?