# Women, men, sex and the brain



## Everness

In another thread, Artella stated (Sorry to put you on the spot!)



			
				Artrella said:
			
		

> I don't want men to change their minds, or any kind of behaviour... I like them the way they are...of course with many exceptions...



Then I stated,



			
				Everness said:
			
		

> See, men are less selective, way less selective! I wonder why?



Artella then responded, 



			
				Artrella said:
			
		

> I know why... but I cannot explain the reasons here... there is a saying in Argentina.... shhhh!!! Art behave yourself!!!



So I decided to seek an answer. I think I found it but the system doesn't allow me to post the link! 

Just google this article: "How the brain reacts to romance" published by the BBC News World Edition. 

In sum, *women's brains showed emotional responses, while men's showed activity linked to sexual arousal.* In this study, men and women displayed differences in their brain activity. Most of the women in the study showed more activity in areas associated with reward, emotion and attention, while most of the men showed more activity in visual processing areas, including the one associated with sexual arousal as thought. 

I find this interesting and it partially answers the above question. However, the study doesn't address the issue of what happens with these processes in the long run. What happens when these brain activities decrease in intensity? How do you keep them active to make sure that romanticism never dies? If attraction is the mammalian precursor of romantic love, what happens with romantic love when attraction wanes or dies. The authors state, "The brain circuitry for male-female attachment evolved to enable individuals to remain with a mate long enough to complete species-specific parenting duties." But how long is long enough?


----------



## Artrella

Everness said:
			
		

> So I decided to seek an answer. I think I found it but the system doesn't allow me to post the link!




Let me help you Everness...  
  *this is the link*


----------



## Everness

Thank you! I just realized that I mispelled your name. It's Artrella, not Artella. Sorry!


----------



## cuchuflete

Everness,

You left out a critical quote from the same article.  When the brain is aroused by romantic stimuli, the reactions you have described take place, and also,



> The researchers also found activity in other areas of the brain changed - including one that another study showed was active when people ate chocolate.



This gives a new dimension to the term, "to be sweet on someone."


saludos,
Cuchu


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Everness,
> 
> You left out a critical quote from the same article. When the brain is aroused by romantic stimuli, the reactions you have described take place, and also,
> 
> The researchers also found activity in other areas of the brain changed - including one that another study showed was active when people ate chocolate.
> 
> This gives a new dimension to the term, "to be sweet on someone."
> 
> 
> saludos,
> Cuchu



Oh, I learned something even more important: "Don't despair. There's always chocolate."


----------



## te gato

mmmmm..Chocolate...

No wonder we women like chocolate so much..or at least...most of the women I know... 

te gato


----------



## Artrella

If you don't like chocolate???? Do people need chocolate to get "active"... brain... of course


----------



## Everness

te gato said:
			
		

> mmmmm..Chocolate...
> 
> No wonder we women like chocolate so much..or at least...most of the women I know...
> 
> te gato



I have a feeling that the days of this thread are counted...   By the way, did anyone read the book or watch the movie "Like Water for Chocolate"?


----------



## lsp

Everness said:
			
		

> I have a feeling that the days of this thread are counted numbered...   By the way, did you read the book or watched the movie "Like Water for Chocolate"?


Then I have to post these small corrections quickly...


----------



## Artrella

Do you know why men are less selective than women?  Because they have BIGGER...brains!!!  

Related to monkeys??? Modern Sciences??


----------



## Everness

lsp said:
			
		

> Then I have to post these small corrections quickly...



Gracias! Se me castellanizo la cosa! Do you still count your blessings???


----------



## lsp

Everness said:
			
		

> Gracias! Se me castellanizo la cosa! Do you still count your blessings???


Oh, yes! I do _count_ my blessings!


----------



## Everness

Artrella said:
			
		

> Do you know why men are less selective than women?  Because they have BIGGER...brains!!!
> 
> Related to monkeys??? Modern Sciences??



I read the article. I found the following sentence very interesting.

Researchers now plan to test their working hypothesis - that the extra brain mass is used for visuospatial skills.

Visuospatial skills? This means that guys are good at checking out babes in the street?


----------



## Artrella

Everness said:
			
		

> I read the article. I found the following sentence very interesting.
> Visuospatial skills? This means that guys are good at checking out babes in the street?





aaaarrrggghhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!    Yes... the reasons why they are less selective....they check all the_ babes_ at one single glance!!!


----------



## Everness

Artrella said:
			
		

> aaaarrrggghhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!    Yes... the reasons why they are less selective....they check all the_ babes_ at one single glance!!!



I read the article again: 

Researchers now plan to test their working hypothesis - that the extra brain mass is used for visuospatial skills.  

They point to evidence that men can read maps better than women and have a better awareness of their surroundings. 

 Now that second sentence makes no sense. When was the last time you met a guy who reads maps??? We don't need maps or directions to get to our destination!!! Maps are a chic thing...


----------



## Artrella

Everness said:
			
		

> [font=Arial, Helvetica]They point to evidence that men can read maps better than women and have a better awareness of their surroundings.
> 
> Now that second sentence makes no sense. When was the last time you met a guy who reads maps??? We don't need maps or directions to get to our destination!!! Maps are a chic thing...






Noooo my dear Everness!!! You are wrong!!! Maybe you don't need a map to find "chicks".... but I could never in my life read a map... I'd rather stop my car and ask a nice, kind man on the street.. "please sir could you tell me where am I"???????


----------



## Artrella

Everness said:
			
		

> I have a feeling that the days of this thread are counted...   By the way, did anyone read the book or watch the movie "Like Water for Chocolate"?




Yes!!! Well we have a very nice forero who is the specialist on that book!!!   And the movie was great!!   However, it seems that people would rather quit eating chocolate than ......using their cell phones!!!  Texting vs chocolate???


----------



## Sharon

I think I have heard it as "visual-spatial skills" and the hyphen might be in error.  A person who has good visual/spatial skills is more able to think three dimensionally, they can "build" things in their head, so to speak. These people are the ones that can _look_ at the space available and just _know_ that the bookcase will fit there, as opposed to the people that have to measure. These are the people that know almost instinctively how to tilt the couch so that it will fit in the door, as opposed to the ones who have to turn it, because it wouldn't fit the first time.   

I can read a map!  
(I'm not so good with couches.)


----------



## gaer

As always, if you take ALL women and ALL men, you will find differences. But when dealing with individuals, assuming that they are better or worse at things is going to get you in "deep doo-doo".

Case in point: my wife will do anything to avoid asking directions, even in a store. I immediately ask the first person I see, "Could you tell me where X is located?" 

Gaer


----------



## Sharon

Gaer, is that directed to me? I am a little confused that you quoted me in order to add that clarification. 

 I never assigned a gender to that skill.


----------



## gaer

Sharon said:
			
		

> Gaer, is that directed to me? I am a little confused that you quoted me in order to add that clarification.
> 
> I never assigned a gender to that skill.


Sharon, careless, careless. I don't remember who I was responding to, probably more to myself (thinking out loud).

I removed the quote. I THINK I saw something else and clicked on the wrong post, and I was making a rather light-hearted response anyway.

But I do think, in general, men tend to be more stubborn about asking directions or following them. 

G


----------



## te gato

Sharon said:
			
		

> I think I have heard it as "visual-spatial skills" and the hyphen might be in error. A person who has good visual/spatial skills is more able to think three dimensionally, they can "build" things in their head, so to speak. These people are the ones that can _look_ at the space available and just _know_ that the bookcase will fit there, as opposed to the people that have to measure. These are the people that know almost instinctively how to tilt the couch so that it will fit in the door, as opposed to the ones who have to turn it, because it wouldn't fit the first time.
> 
> I can read a map!
> (I'm not so good with couches.)


Hey Sharon;

I can look at a space and tell you if it is going to fit..I can read a map..and I can tell you how to tip the couch..all while eating chocolate..so what does that make me???  

te gato


----------



## gaer

te gato said:
			
		

> Hey Sharon;
> 
> I can look at a space and tell you if it is going to fit..I can read a map..and I can tell you how to tip the couch..all while eating chocolate..so what does that make me???
> 
> te gato


I can figure out why our system of using leap years takes several thousand years before it will cause an error of one day long before I can figure out if a couch will fit.


----------



## garryknight

Everness said:
			
		

> By the way, did anyone read the book or watch the movie "Like Water for Chocolate"?



As Art mentioned, one of our esteemed foreros (Masood, if I remember correctly) has been posting requests for help with translating parts of it. But was the title literally translated as 'Like Water For Chocolate'? I would have thought 'Boiling Mad' would have been a better translation.


----------



## mzsweeett

This little statement by one of my siblings sums up a lot I think.....

I am passing this on to you because it has definitely worked for me, and at this time of year we all could use a little calm.

By following the simple advice I read in an article, I have finally found inner peace. The article said: "The way to achieve inner peace is to finish all the things you've started." 
So I looked around the house to see all the things I started and hadn't finished....and before leaving the house this morning I finished off a bottle of red wine, a bottle of white wine, the Bailey's, Kahlua and Wild Turkey, the Prozac, some Valium, some cheesecake and a box of chocolates. You have no idea how good I feel...
Can you guess if it was my brother or my sister???  LOL!!!  Please all take this lightly!!!

Sweet T.


----------



## Everness

Let's see what we found out so far.

1. Chocolate is as good as sex (well, almost)
2. There's a relationship between the size of a man's brain and his ability to locate the love of his life.
3. When it comes to improving your sex life, some people think that messaging is more rewarding than chocolate. (But please don't eat your cellular phone.)
4. Both men and women can and cannot read maps.
5. Both men and women ask and don't ask for directions. (So much for the myth that guys keep driving and driving and never stop to ask for directions.)
6. Some of us multitask while eating chocolate.
7. Some of us would change titles of books and movies. Example: "Like (Boiling) Water for (Hot) Chocolate  (I paraphrased)
8. Some correlate inner peace with polyaddictions (Please take this lightly)
Did I miss anything?

I have a question based on the first post and the BBC's article. 
*
 Is romantic love overrated?  *

The article says,
_They found that feelings of intensive romantic love were linked to activity in the right caudate nucleus and right ventral tegmental areadopamine, which have high levels of dopamine activity. __Dopamine is a brain chemical which produces feelings of satisfaction and pleasure. __Elevated levels are linked to increased energy, motivation to win a reward and feeling elated. _
_
_What happened with the notion that feelings of intensive romantic love are linked to the *heart* (not necessarily to the right caudate nucleus and right ventral tegmental areadopamine) and depended on our *will to consciously love* *someone *(not on the fluctuating level of dopamine).


----------



## cuchuflete

What else have we learned?

1. couches can be used to measure affiliation with the male and/or female persuasion, as well as for such traditional activities as romantic "acting out".

2. If you need a map to find an attractive member of the sex that most appeals to you, you may be spatio-visually impaired, and should limit your romantic endeavors to mapping chocolate stash locations.

3. Scientific types use lots of big words, and maybe, just maybe, miss the point!


----------



## te gato

Everness;

To tell the truth..I don't think romantic love is overrated...and the heart plays a big part..I think..and it is always nice to have that romantic candle light dinner..that walk in the moonlight holding hands..the long gazing into the eyes of someone special..yadda, yadda...

I need some chocolate...

te gato


----------



## Artrella

te gato said:
			
		

> Everness;
> 
> To tell the truth..I don't think romantic love is overrated...and the heart plays a big part..I think..and it is always nice to have that romantic candle light dinner..that walk in the moonlight holding hands..the long gazing into the eyes of someone special..yadda, yadda...
> 
> I need some chocolate...
> 
> te gato




For a woman, to have romantic love is REALLY NECESSARY as a first step to have GREAT SEX!!  Men are different they don't need so much "erotic playing" before having sex.  So if we need some *chocolate*.... well... men...take that into account.....You are the ones with the bigger brain!!!!.....


----------



## Everness

te gato said:
			
		

> Everness;
> 
> To tell the truth..I don't think romantic love is overrated...and the heart plays a big part..I think..and it is always nice to have that romantic candle light dinner..that walk in the moonlight holding hands..the long gazing into the eyes of someone special..yadda, yadda...
> 
> I need some chocolate...
> 
> te gato



You are speaking like a woman because you are one! But how many guys would say what you just said? If we say it and/or plan it, it's because we want chocolate for dessert. (I'm not saying that women don't. I'm saying that men have no problem skipping the main course.) Men in the early, middle, and late stages of the process of falling in "love," even between relationships, approach things from a different yet consistent perspective. If you had a teenager boy and you hooked him up 24/7 to an MRI machine, you might think, looking at the scans, that your kid is a sexual predator! And because you never know if kids successfully resolve their Oedipus Complex, you would also tend to keep an eye on him! But one could argue: Teenagers eventually grow and become adults. Please allow me to invoke the Fifth Amendment on this one! What's my point? It's not that romantic love is overrated; it's that our biologically-based sexual drives are underrated.


----------



## Artrella

Everness said:
			
		

> It's not that romantic love is overrated; it's that our biologically-based sexual drives are underrated.




Why do you say that Everness?  What do you think causes this?


----------



## Everness

Let's go back to Dr. Fisher:

_Dr Helen Fisher, of Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, who led the research, said: "We believe romantic love is a developed form of one of three primary brain networks that evolved to direct mammalian reproduction. _

_"The sex drive evolved to motivate individuals to seek sex with any appropriate partner.  _

_"Attraction, the mammalian precursor of romantic love, evolved to enable individuals to pursue preferred mating partners, thereby conserving courtship time and energy. _

_"The brain circuitry for male-female attachment evolved to enable individuals to remain with a mate long enough to complete species-specific parenting duties." _

 You can't override the brain circuity. Maybe romantic love is a development of attraction, a force that was created by God or evolution to make sure that our species didn't become extinct. However, attraction, with all its rawness and force, is always operating. See, I don't have problems when women say that men are pigs. Why? Women are good at keeping in touch with their feelings and men are good at keeping in touch with their "animal" side!


----------



## Artrella

Everness said:
			
		

> Let's go back to Dr. Fisher:
> 
> _Dr Helen Fisher, of Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, who led the research, said: "We believe romantic love is a developed form of one of three primary brain networks that evolved to direct mammalian reproduction. _
> 
> _"The sex drive evolved to motivate individuals to seek sex with any appropriate partner.  _
> 
> _"Attraction, the mammalian precursor of romantic love, evolved to enable individuals to pursue preferred mating partners, thereby conserving courtship time and energy. _
> 
> _"The brain circuitry for male-female attachment evolved to enable individuals to remain with a mate long enough to complete species-specific parenting duties." _
> 
> You can't override the brain circuity. Maybe romantic love is a development of attraction, a force that was created by God or evolution to make sure that our species didn't become extinct. However, attraction, with all its rawness and force, is always operating. See, I don't have problems when women say that men are pigs. Why? Women are good at keeping in touch with their feelings and men are good at keeping in touch with their "animal" side!




Yes Everness, that's why I posted my previous post... it is like that... men are more connected to pure sex, as you said the "animal" part, and women are more connected with feelings and romanticism... although once that part has been fulfilled... well... we are "little animals"... but first... feelings...men don't need that... they go straight to it without problems...


----------



## mzsweeett

Artrella said:
			
		

> Yes Everness, that's why I posted my previous post... it is like that... men are more connected to pure sex, as you said the "animal" part, and women are more connected with feelings and romanticism... although once that part has been fulfilled... well... we are "little animals"... but first... feelings...men don't need that... they go straight to it without problems...


Yes I quite agree with that Artrella. I have found through different relationshps that most men just simply do not have that romantic part that we need so badly. We can be erotic, tantric even, it still is nullified by a man's appetite. I have a more specific animal in mind.....
Also to note that I do know several women who are an hundred fold more physically based than their men when it comes to relationships. They actually view a relationship completely separate from the sex. Sex is physical pleasure, be it erotic, sensual, kinky whatever. But the relationship is mental and emotional. I personally think they were jaded by men and so their present thinking.

Sweet T.


----------



## Artrella

_"The chalice of romantic love is an illusion. It’s impossible to heal your own emotional brokenness through the body of another person as mortal and broken as you are."_

"Most persons don’t realize this, but the common, or popular, view of love involves an element of receiving something. “I love chocolate” really means that “I enjoy getting the experience of the taste of chocolate.” Similarly, “I love you” commonly implies “I enjoy touching your body,” or “I enjoy believing that you will give me security or protection,” or “I enjoy having sex with you” (or “I want to have sex with you.” As a result,*Lacan* , in his teachings about love, described the typical act of love as “polymorphous perversion.” 

 "  Sexuality  and Love through history


----------



## Everness

Artrella said:
			
		

> _"The chalice of romantic love is an illusion. It’s impossible to heal your own emotional brokenness through the body of another person as mortal and broken as you are."_
> 
> "Most persons don’t realize this, but the common, or popular, view of love involves an element of receiving something. “I love chocolate” really means that “I enjoy getting the experience of the taste of chocolate.” Similarly, “I love you” commonly implies “I enjoy touching your body,” or “I enjoy believing that you will give me security or protection,” or “I enjoy having sex with you” (or “I want to have sex with you.” As a result,*Lacan* , in his teachings about love, described the typical act of love as “polymorphous perversion.”
> 
> "  Sexuality  and Love through history



I just want to thank you for the link. You have given us food for thought. While on the topic of polymorphous perversions,   I would like to say that I believe that love has to do with *mutually satisfying our needs*. In a committed relationship a man *uses * a woman and a woman *uses * a man to satisfy emotional and sexual needs. Use? Isn't that a bit strong? I don't think so. I choose not to make direct reference to the act of making love to illustrate my point (self-censorship), although it would be easier. But think about this. You don't go out on a Saturday night to a nightclub because you want to help some lonely soul. You go out because you want to do something that will make YOU happy. When you get there, you need to make sure that you achieve your happiness but not at the expense of the other person. Love is a complicated endeavor; casual sex, a bit easier.   

You quoted Lacan and I quote Freud from my old school notes. He's talking about the dominance of the pleasure principle: "What decides the purpose of life is simply the program of the pleasure principle. What do people demand of life and wish to achieve in it? The answer to this can hardly be in doubt. They want to become happy and to remain so."


----------



## te gato

Everness said:
			
		

> You are speaking like a woman because you are one! But how many guys would say what you just said? If we say it and/or plan it, it's because we want chocolate for dessert. (I'm not saying that women don't. I'm saying that men have no problem skipping the main course.) Men in the early, middle, and late stages of the process of falling in "love," even between relationships, approach things from a different yet consistent perspective. If you had a teenager boy and you hooked him up 24/7 to an MRI machine, you might think, looking at the scans, that your kid is a sexual predator! And because you never know if kids successfully resolve their Oedipus Complex, you would also tend to keep an eye on him! But one could argue: Teenagers eventually grow and become adults. Please allow me to invoke the Fifth Amendment on this one! What's my point? It's not that romantic love is overrated; it's that our biologically-based sexual drives are underrated.


 
Hey Everness;

First of all..yes...at least the last time I checked I was a woman..hang on..yup! still a woman...

OH PLEASSSSE...I find nothing wrong with a man planning a romantic dinner..or asking me to go for a romantic walk...and do I think that a tumble in the hay afterwards is all he wants..no!...and to have him do that for me..makes me think that he realy thinks of me as a person not just a body for a quick romp...and to tell the truth...when this is done..the dessert menu selections double.. (over time)   and maybe..just maybe..if men would start thinking with the heads they have Above their shoulders..in regards to romance...they might find out that they just might like it...
And if you are saying that you do not plan romance in any way... shape or form..because your brains are not wired for this..or that you just do it to get the dessert in the  end...then why bother at all? 
Then keep it real..tell the woman..I'm sorry..I have no heart..I am incapable of feeling romance...I feel nothing for you..so therefore...I'm not going to wine and dine you because all I want is sex...
Mmmmm..that might eliminate a few things in our world..Marrage..Divorce..Children...the greeting card companies would go broke...

te gato


----------



## Everness

te gato said:
			
		

> Mmmmm..that might eliminate a few things in our world..Marrage..Divorce..Children...the greeting card companies would go broke...
> 
> te gato



Your reference to the elimination of certain traditional institutions like marriage is interesting and warrants another reference to Freud. (I'm glad I didn't throw away my notes from school!) Because society won't allow us to go running around enacting the fantasies of our pleasure principles, it invents something called "civilization," that enforces all kind of prohibitions to keep the beasts at bay. Institutions like family, religion and etiquette are good examples. 

By the way, am I saying that men can't develop intimacy that isn't of a sexual nature? No. I'm saying that men and women approach things differently. I'm saying that men and women have two different biological, physiological, psychological and sociological makeups, and that you can't simply toss that away. We are in the process of evolving. Civilization might have an impact on biology in the long term but I don't forsee any significant changes in the next couple of million of years. 

In the meantime, we need to develop and practice strategies that will allow men and women to meet in the middle. And maybe the pigs will learn to sit patiently at the table, use forks and knives, enjoy a four course candlelight dinner with romantic music, enjoy just holding hands, and have such a great time that they might even refuse to take you to bed. Who knows?


----------



## Everness

I've been thinking. (That's not good). 

Men and women have different biological makeups thus different ways of feeling and relating to each other. People make two wrong assumptions about this. 

1. Some people believe that we are prisoners of our own biological makeups and that there's nothing we can do about it. “You can’t fight Nature.” Some rapists think this way. My response to this position: “We can’t fight Nature but we can negotiate.” 

2. The other extreme would be to think that we are in absolute control of our lives, and especially of our love lives. “We are free and self-directed agents.”  My response to this position: "Get real!" When we feel attracted to someone, irrational psychological processes take place that in turn are influenced by the limbic system, that among other things, controls our drives of hunger, thirst, and sex. 

My point? Let’s go back to the result of those damn cat scans on these young women who fell in love. Women's brains showed emotional responses, while men's showed activity linked to sexual arousal. 

_Women’s response didn’t come from the frontal lobe of the cerebral cortex (associated with higher brain functions like reasoning and planning) but from the limbic system. Women and men’s responses came from the same place!   _ 

It's true that women's emotional response could be categorized as more promising in terms of reaching a more meaningful relationship than the sexual arousal response displayed by the oink-oink, but it is primarily induced by the same old deep limbic system that has tarnished forever guys' reputation.

We are all on the same boat!  

Ah, for those who are interested in reading about the scientific foundation of Te gato's sensible thoughts as well as in finding out about the advantages and disadvantages women face due to having a larger deep limbic system than males (especially if you are having an affair), please check out this article.

http://www.brainplace.com/bp/brainsystem/limbic.asp


----------



## te gato

Hey Everness;

After reading that...very interesting by the way...thank you..

I don't know if I should stick with eating chocolate..and in-between bites..sniff some perfume... 

te gato


----------



## gaer

Everness said:
			
		

> I've been thinking. (That's not good).
> 
> Men and women have different biological makeups thus different ways of feeling and relating to each other. People make two wrong assumptions about this.
> 
> 1. Some people believe that we are prisoners of our own biological makeups and that there's nothing we can do about it. “You can’t fight Nature.” Some rapists think this way. My response to this position: “We can’t fight Nature but we can negotiate.”


I particularly like that last line:

“We can’t fight Nature but we can negotiate.” 

I wish many more people would do more "negotiation"!

Gaer


----------



## Artrella

Everness, that article is really interesting!
I've learnt why our different moods before our cycle and during it.  I knew that women tend to be sad before their menstrual cycles (even some of them attempt suicide), but I didn't know that it was connected to the inflamation of that part of the brain.  
It also explains the reasons why we have certain reactions in everyday life with our partners and some facts connected to depression.  
I liked reading it a lot.  Thx for sharing it with us.


----------



## Everness

I reread the article. I’m glad that some of you liked it. I had second thoughts about having posted it. The author vividly describes the disadvantages that women face just for having a large limbic system, even when having an affair! (Life is unfair.) It would appear that women are shortchanged by society AND biology! The only bad news for men (maybe I missed something) is that even if women attempt suicide three times more than men, men kill themselves three times more than women. Suckers! I like women the way they are but this article taught me to be more understanding and sensitive to everything that happens in their very beautiful but highly, highly complex bodies.


----------



## Artrella

Everness said:
			
		

> I reread the article. I’m glad that some of you liked it. I had second thoughts about having posted it. The author vividly describes the disadvantages that women face just for having a large limbic system, even when having an affair! (Life is unfair.) It would appear that women are shortchanged by society AND biology! The only bad news for men (maybe I missed something) is that even if women attempt suicide three times more than men, men kill themselves three times more than women. Suckers! I like women the way they are but this article taught me to be more understanding and sensitive to everything that happens in their very beautiful but highly, highly complex bodies.




Good!!! Now we both have learnt something... about the affairs....mmmhhh!!
I think he said that just to keep his wife at home....


----------



## leenico

> Good!!! Now we both have learnt something... about the affairs....mmmhhh!!
> I think he said that just to keep his wife at home....


How true. I'll bet he was one of the 71%.    



> DOPO L'AMORE...
> 
> Cosa fanno gli uomini italiani dopo aver fatto l'amore? Il 5% si gira dall'altra parte e dorme; il 9% si alza e va in cucina a bere; il 15% fuma una sigaretta. Il restante 71% si alza, si veste e torna a casa dalla moglie.


----------



## mzsweeett

leenico said:
			
		

> How true. I'll bet he was one of the 71%.


Hmmm, Lee...and which percentile do you fall into??  LOL 

Sweet T.


----------

