<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Topi or not Topi &#8230;	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://gregladen.com/blog/2007/12/04/topi-or-not-topi/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2007/12/04/topi-or-not-topi/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:46:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.8</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: the real cmf		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2007/12/04/topi-or-not-topi/#comment-1319</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[the real cmf]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:46:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2007/12/04/topi-or-not-topi/#comment-1319</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Am I the only guy who read this post? Over here at pure pedantry, there is a post hypothesizing the opposite, sort of..http://scienceblogs.com/purepedantry/2008/03/men_misperceive_sexual_interes.php]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Am I the only guy who read this post? Over here at pure pedantry, there is a post hypothesizing the opposite, sort of..<a href="http://scienceblogs.com/purepedantry/2008/03/men_misperceive_sexual_interes.php" rel="nofollow ugc">http://scienceblogs.com/purepedantry/2008/03/men_misperceive_sexual_interes.php</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: the real Ted Tosterone		</title>
		<link>https://gregladen.com/blog/2007/12/04/topi-or-not-topi/#comment-1318</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[the real Ted Tosterone]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:32:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2007/12/04/topi-or-not-topi/#comment-1318</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I love this post! Variety *is* the spice of life, backed up only by the necessity of...um...novelty!  You score big layperson points with this one...Yet only if you accept the fact that women are choosy for &#039;quality&#039; of sperm, or quality of mate ( will/won&#039;t  he invest in offspring...) would statistics of human kind bear that out? If the ultimate goal of females is to merely reproduce, then any sperm really, will do,because the &quot;distinct possibility that they[men in bar] are very inconspicuously resisting mating opportunities,&quot; is accurate to a fault with young males, while also keeping the novelty door slung wide open for the wiser older bucks...generally, it is the most mature, well heeled, and wizened bar patrons that do not make a show of mating--having a mate elsewhere, or waiting for the right novelty--as opposed to competitive sperm charged males--who do more drinking, yakking, and fighting, as well as eventually get nailed to the multiple partner mating female because the young bucks are too drunk and avoidant to keep their eyes open and see the real mating opportunities ( equally hooved and wizened does)or recreationally satisfying mate--moreover, the true lekker ( lekkist? lekkreational matist?) realizes the constancy of the years, and the length of time it takes to recognize who the queens are amongst the topi...it seems to me that any sperm will do in these conditions, but the &#039;strong&#039; sperm is a bit more selective, and careful--never desperate.However, it seems a little like subverted PC rhetoric creeping in to science, to call male avoidance &quot;reverse aggression&quot; don&#039;t you think?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love this post! Variety *is* the spice of life, backed up only by the necessity of&#8230;um&#8230;novelty!  You score big layperson points with this one&#8230;Yet only if you accept the fact that women are choosy for &#8216;quality&#8217; of sperm, or quality of mate ( will/won&#8217;t  he invest in offspring&#8230;) would statistics of human kind bear that out? If the ultimate goal of females is to merely reproduce, then any sperm really, will do,because the &#8220;distinct possibility that they[men in bar] are very inconspicuously resisting mating opportunities,&#8221; is accurate to a fault with young males, while also keeping the novelty door slung wide open for the wiser older bucks&#8230;generally, it is the most mature, well heeled, and wizened bar patrons that do not make a show of mating&#8211;having a mate elsewhere, or waiting for the right novelty&#8211;as opposed to competitive sperm charged males&#8211;who do more drinking, yakking, and fighting, as well as eventually get nailed to the multiple partner mating female because the young bucks are too drunk and avoidant to keep their eyes open and see the real mating opportunities ( equally hooved and wizened does)or recreationally satisfying mate&#8211;moreover, the true lekker ( lekkist? lekkreational matist?) realizes the constancy of the years, and the length of time it takes to recognize who the queens are amongst the topi&#8230;it seems to me that any sperm will do in these conditions, but the &#8216;strong&#8217; sperm is a bit more selective, and careful&#8211;never desperate.However, it seems a little like subverted PC rhetoric creeping in to science, to call male avoidance &#8220;reverse aggression&#8221; don&#8217;t you think?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
