This explains why most of the Village People are dead..........

Im from the south and proud of it. Ya we got more macho guys, and your darn right about living in an honor state. This study is stupid. It's not accidents it's called stickin up for yourself and you beliefs. Life happens and you dont control anything, except for living with morals and honor. My cousin almost drowned when he was four and if it weren't for my uncle risked his life he'd be dead today, probably how your cousin would be if you lived in connecticut or new york because men don't act like men anymore. Make fun of the south but we like it here and ya'll can stay up north I do'nt care, enjoy your traffic and smog I'll go fishing thank you very much.

Well, duh!

People do stupid things all the time and they do them in all geographic regions, but as any regular viewer of Comedy Central’s "Tosh 2.0" can tell you, there does seem to be an uncanny correlation between certain regions of the country and the kind of risk-taking behavior that could get you seriously hurt or even killed.

Speaking of stupid... how about stupid studies?

BREAKING NEWS:

Recent study confirms standing in the rain will likely get you wet.

SH: you don't know the difference between "accidents" and "sticking up for your beliefs"? You think everyone of these "machos" was in the process of "saving someone" beofre they died?? Well that says a lot...

SH, I was born and raised in the south (Alabama). I currently live in New York.

If you don't think that New Yorkers would risk their lives to save others, you must not have watched the news on 9/11. You must not know about the firefighters that ran *INTO* the WTC on that tragic day to save the lives of perfect strangers.

SH you can't honestly believe that every one of these proud machomen were in the process of saving someone else or defending themselves...

And you can't honestly think that men from the south act more like men than men from the north... first off, what the hell does that even mean? and second, that has to be one of the dumbest things I've read on this site so far, no offense to you personally or antying.

Please educate yourself, because your interpretation of men is very warped.

Hey, SH123, hold my beer and watch this!

While some Southern men no doubt die in the attempt to protect someone or save someone, plenty die in stupid stunts. I know too many who died on the weekend, playing with their ATVs or motorcycles or boats or guns.

In fact, I saw one numbskull in a huge truck just yesterday tearing down the road and endangering everyone else--someone in front of him had slammed on his brakes and nearly caused numbskull in the truck to back-end him. Numbskull slammed on his brakes, then careened around him, sped up, and gunned it down the road. Yes, this kind of stupidity will get truck driver as well as everyone else (who didn't slam on their brakes right in front of him) killed.

Have a great day.

SH123 - I think your southern education has failed you, since your reading and comprehension skills are not so stellar.

and I don't know why it is, exactly, that your manner of speech (and type) make you sound even less educated than you possibly are...but by golly, it sho does.

The stupid Macho Man should never, ever define what men are. We want to smarten up the overall population, not dumb it down.

so, that girl who saved that boys life in the ocean before rescuers could reach him...going against what all adults were saying, and paddling into the rip tide...is she your idea of a REAL MAN? cuz she's my idea of a real hero...and a hero does not make a man, and a man does not make a hero - macho or otherwise.

but im sure her actions could never compare to some man crushing a beer can against his head...right? now thats what real men do, right?

SH123, how many times did you hear "Watch This" and things went south? Usually Budweiser is involved but I too will take the South anytime over a big northern city.

SH123? You're still fighting the civil war and I thought that the rednecks in the north were idiots- they're Rhodes scholars compared to the south. Constantly "defending" your "honor?' No. It's More like keeping a permanent chip on your shoulder while navigating through life with an IQ of about 79. "Yankees" are treated like second class citizens in the south and we all know why, don't we? Our brains work.

SH123, have you ever been accused of lying through your tooth?!

bonos_rama

My compliments on your choice of avatars. Quite apropos.

SH123.................................People like you just never cease to amaze me. I imagine I know what SH stands for, and I guess it is followed by 123 so it's easy to remember. You CAN count above 3, right?

if you lived in connecticut or new york because men don't act like men anymore.

Could be one of the most idiotic statements I've seen in a while. Especially the part that mentions "connecticut or new york" ( I quoted, please forgive the lack of capitalization's and his spelling). Wonder if SH witnessed the incredible heroics on 9-11. Sorry, he probably hasn't seen the news yet.

Also, I rarely resort to comments like this, but I really do wonder what SH stands for.

bmc.......I'm still laughing. Great post

SH123.........................Your post is self proving. The grammar and spelling says it all. You guys must be tough.

As tough as an ox, and almost as smart

westpoint............you got it correct.........SH does stand for S--t H--d

It would be nice if these kinds of studies weren't even necessary but until then I guess I'd rather live in an area where men who feel that their honor has been slighted go around killing each other than live in an area where men who feel that their honor has been slighted go around killing women.

This is the exact type of study that would be done by the people in the fictional movie Idiocracy. Brawndo the thirst mutilator. It's got electrolytes!

it's what plants crave!

Exactly, a/ka Darwin Awards recipients!

I wonder if Ryan Dunn is going to get the Darwin Award.

They're called JACKASSES (as in the movie and we know what happened there) so its not macho anything at all. its stupidity, plain and simple.

Well, I don't know if taking risks and playing macho sports like football, baseball and lacrosse make one a JACKASS or STUPID but it certainly is more risky than playing pocket pool or dress-up (although I knew a not so macho woman who fell backward into the tub and severly injured herself while putting on make-up)! ALso, somewhere I read that MACHO cheerleading is more dangerous that all traditional sports and activities combined!

The stunning part to this whole thing is that why do we need to pay for a study in which the outcome is already known!

Why don't we do a study on stupid things our government spends money doing studies on?

Where are these "macho men" from? It isn't where they die that counts it is where they are from. It would like saying a study showed people in mountainous states are more likely to die from ski accidents than people from the plains states and then assuming residents of those states are more risk taking. The problem is you are taking a correlation (the fact that people have to go to mountainous states to ski so those states have high rates of ski accidents) and making it into an unproven causation (residents of mountains states are risk takers). Of course they have lots of ski deaths, you have to go to the mountains to ski but lots of the people who die doing it are residents of other states.

As for the proposed Medal of Honor study, people in the mentioned states also join the military at higher rates than other states so it can be assumes they will have higher rates of valor medals.

Ben-1671313

Why don't we do a study on stupid things our government spends money doing studies on?

Well, Ben, here's a question for you:

Who should get to decide which studies are or are not worth funding? Currently, these decisions are made by independent panels of world class experts. In most cases, only a very small percentage of grants get funded (less than 10% in my field).

If you know of a better way, I'm all ears.

These studies are USELESS !! They do nothing for us and really are no benefit to anyone. If you live in the south, like me , you know how some people are. But to say the south and the west is the worst well I guess they didn't study very many people in the other states. We have alot of northerners down here and I can tell you some of them are worse than any southerner. People are people. You have the macho and stupid everywhere you go and I don't need some study to tell me that.

These studies get someone a degree. Novice researchers get money to learn how to do research. The research has to be novel, something no one has done before and something which fills a gap in research. One never really knows what will turn up in research like this--sometimes, one finds the opposite of what one expects and sometimes one finds what one expects.

Seriously--research is done to establish what the facts are. All research is valuable, and this particular bit of research probably did not cost very much. If it trained some researchers so that now they know how to do useful research (like figuring out if people from certain regions are more likely to be "heroes"--something which will help to inform who would be selected between two likely candidates for a tough military program--then it is useful).

And, TC, you just demonstrated the usefulness of the research. The research shows that you are wrong. Dangerous macho behavior is more likely in the West or South--that doesn't mean there are no people in the North who are macho and a danger to themselves (in fact, the study says that there are such people in the North--just fewer of them). Have a great day.

SSG - um, she's not president yet...so there's been no death threat against her, as president.

and it was a pretty safe threat to make, considering she'll never be president.

However, you can come here to michigan and do what you said you'd do to my coworker, bible becky - who prayed that the plane carrying Obama would crash as it came into Grand Rapids.

granted, she didnt say she'd kill him...but asking GOD to do it, isnt that sorta like hiring a hit man?

Junicon - a better way?

At this point, eliminating the world class experts would be a good start. They are likely, extremely smart...and yet, very likely horribly stupid when it comes to common sense.

I think most studies, especially of this nature - should be paid for by private funds. There is nothing beneficial to the scientific community that comes from studies like this. All that is happening is that people who dont want to do real jobs, get other people to give them money to "research" questions they've always had...to satisfy their own stupid curiousity.

and lately, it seems most studies are done so poorly that they even acknowledge at the end of the study all the ways they fell short (such as not having enough variables, or what have you). whats the point in doing a study, only to realize afterwards...you sorta forgot to take a lot of other things, very important things, into consideration?

But, I guess it keeps a few more people off of the unemployment doles huh?

If stupid women would stop desiring after these idiot men, they would be less likely to die in the passenger seat of their idiot boyfriend's car, or less likely to end up using the drugs their boyfriends leave out for them to use !!! Nevermind, let them all launch themselves go into the great oblivion!!!

Who should get to decide which studies are or are not worth funding?...

independent panels of world class experts

If this is an example of what "world class experts" think is worthwhile, then clearly they are the wrong people to decide these things. Since the taxpayers are the ones stuck with the tab, why not let the taxpayers (or a panel of taxpayers) decide. They obviously couldn't do any worse than the world class experts.

I'm the same way. Here is another 'DUH" result from a study. I wonder just who thought this was good information to know?

Agreed. What a waste of money.

Fully agree. What a waste of money. By the way, I bet the same counts for aggressive women. I've come across some that shouldn't be allowed to drive a car (especially not a truck).

Did it occur to any of you that the study might have shown the opposite? That aggressive men didn't have as many accidents? You don't know the outcome until you do the study. Many studies have overturned "obvious truths," which is why they are valuable.

One example would be children raised by gay couples. They are not more likely to be gay themselves. That overturns what most people would assume and has serious implications for adoption.

Another example would the availability of contraception. Teens with access to birth control aren't any more promiscuous than those who haven't. That is not an obvious conclusion. It also has implications for how we fund preventative programs and our attitudes towards them.

A study is only useless if it's done poorly and the results are not generalizable to a larger population.

Everything you said is only true to the extent that you are gullible and believe that what "studies reveal" is actually the truth.

To just believe that what the study claims to show is actually true, you have to know much more about the study, and you have to actually agree that it was done in a way that concludes what it says it concludes.

Both items you suggested are ridiculous and completely untrue. I'm sure there are studies done on both sides which claim to support you and claim to support me, which is why at the end of the day a healthy dose of common sense, willingness/guts to conclude your own belief regardless of the study's claims, and some belief in absolute truth will take you further/faster than waiting for a scientific study to be done on everything. It also marginalizes the value of studies in general, because they are only as good as the number of people who agree that they were done correctly.

Also, the actual truth demonstrated by a study is often slightly --just slightly--different than what anyone cares about.

Example, the gay/adoption issue. You may feel that study was valuable because after 20 years, children with gay parents weren't gay in higher percentages. But after all that time and energy, your study was useless, because people just turned around and said "I really don't care. I still don't want children to have gay parents, because I'm not comfortable with the message it sends the child."

Exact same thing with teens & promiscuity.

The point is, people often aren't very good at articulating exactly what makes them uncomfortable about something, and studies sponsored by people who disagree with them go to great length to disprove something, only to be a waste of time. At the end of the day people will go with their conscience even if the study, theoretically, disproved some random fact that wasn't really the central point of their worry anyway.

"generalizable" is not a word.

AG999 - You're right about some studies being useful; but the notions that children of gay couples will turn out gay and that teenagers who have access to birth control may be more promiscuous are not "obvious truths" in my book but merely preconceived notions by stupid people. These same people will probably not be convinced by any study that they are totally wrong. The word "macho" itself implies aggressiveness in my opinion, leading to aggressive driving, propensity for getting into fights, etc.

ike:

Both items you suggested are ridiculous and completely untrue.

What makes them ridiculous? Your study vs my study. It is true you need to know the methodolgy to evaluate the validity of the results, but that's what peer review is for. I put much more stock in a study that's published in a professional journal than one done by cable news channels to make an article.

At the end of the day people will go with their conscience

That can be a problem if their conscience is telling them to burn witches or stone adulterers. Or treat their cancer with melons instead of chemo.

"generalizable" is not a word.

Funny, it's in the dictionary and was used extensively in my statistics class. Or do you just not like it so it's "ridiculous" as well?

I'll give you the fact that you picked the 3 things I said which were more argumentative than having any intellectual value. So, strike those 3 things from the record and let's go with the refined version.

A lot of junk is in the dictionaries that include all lingo that people say. "Facebook me" is probably considered a subject-verb combination in some "dictionaries", too. But do you really want to write persuasive pieces in teeny bopper lingo? And probably most of what was in your statistics class is industry-specific lingo that shouldn't be considered general writing material for the general populace. I could talk about how sub-classing is a more robust method of creating universally-distributable VB objects too, but I'm not sure it would be appropriate to the general discussion.

Conscience - ok again, I didn't do a good job of making that point.

But again and again and again, I see study after study after study that PURPORTS to "debunk" some commonly held myth, only to leave me thinking, "I believe the study in its narrowly defined mission, but I still believe pretty much what I believed before - I just know now how to better articulate it."

My point is.......if people don't want people with values such as gay parents to raise a child, they aren't going to want that even if you spend 20 years and a lot of money to prove one specific tangible point: such as, the children aren't more likely to grow up gay.

I have come to believe, for instance, that perhaps I was wrong years ago in thinking that the fact that our society's moms were dressing their 12, 13 yr old girls in very sexually provocative outfits would turn all of them into sluts. It didn't. However, I'm still 110% against it. It's low class and provokes other bad behavior from every other male who sees them. See, a study may have done nothing more than slightly alter the way I describe my opinion.

Know what I mean?

And in fact, AG... the responses you're seeing on this comment board could be said to be some proof of what I'm trying to say here.

The people (and there are several on this board) who are miffed by the study, and apparently are "macho" themselves, are still defending their behavior.

It's not because they're stubborn, it's not because they don't believe the study, and it's not because they think the study was poorly done.

They are taking issue with the specific thing the study may or may not have proved. And they're saying, big deal - either I'm slightly different than they're describing "macho", or, I value the benefits of being macho more than the accident-prone problem, or a number of other responses to the study...

ike:

And probably most of what was in your statistics class is industry-specific lingo that shouldn't be considered general writing material for the general populace.

Not to belabor a trivial point (can't help myself), but it is in Webster's Tenth Edition (2002), a legitimate dictionary, and it's not like its meaning isn't pretty obvious (unlike VB objects). I'd put it above "teeny bopper lingo," but that's just me.

I see study after study after study that PURPORTS to "debunk" some commonly held myth

Sure, some of them are crap and many more draw unsupported conclusions based on a personal agenda, but that doesn't make the pursuit of knowledge useless, as commented earlier in this thread. And as you point out, one study is unlikely to change a prejudicial mind, but for those yet to form an opinion or those who are willing to change, (good) studies provide information from which to form an opinion. Otherwise you're left with "everyone knows," and we all know how valuable that is!

Know what I mean?

I do, really; I'm just unwilling to submit to what's considered common sense today because it might not be tomorrow.

Ok, then I think we've reached that happy place where we agree on quite a bit, anyway. I know what you mean - I can never let things go on these threads! Ok fine - you got me. Is it seriously an acceptable word? That's nuts. I'm very much of the opinion that dictionaries these days just include a bunch of junk, they seem to be made more to satisfy the "demand" so to speak, rather than to be the authority. Like I said, facebook is probably going to be a verb in a soon edition if it's not already. The dictionary makers worry that people will think they're behind the times......Instead of worrying about being the authority. Actually, that thread winds through a lot of our society, doesn't it. Worrying what people will think instead of being or referring to ANY authority. I'm all for debunking ideas that are complete lunacy or are truly harmful to others.......BUT... very against the overreaching theory of no authority. critical thinking that challenges ALL beliefs certainly has its place, but over-using it can lead as quickly to a shiftless, superficial society as it can anywhere else.

Willing to change is good, but coming to a decision after what could be considered open-minded thought and well rounded input...and sticking with it - at least for a while - also is good, if only for stability's sake.

Prejudicial mind.....Well, now you're coming with a bias to my whole notion. Believe me I was raised super conservative and have ditched about half of it.

But I've come sort of full circle and am now firmly convinced that the "ditching" of all absolute truth and the marriage of policy to scientific studies (alone) is just plain bad. :)

Oh and one more thing:

I do, really; I'm just unwilling to submit to what's considered common sense today because it might not be tomorrow.

That's actually a great statement, and a reasonable guide, I would agree, to every day thinking.

AG999, unless studies are going to study more than 1000-2000 people then they are useless. Thats a very small percentage of our population and by no means does such a small percentage dictate what the other 98% of the population does. Polls, studies they are ridiculous and their intent is to get you to believe what they want you to believe. We are fast becoming a country in which we are told what to believe rather than use common sense and figure it out yourself. We wonder why the country is falling apart.

Ok, then I think we've reached that happy place where we agree on quite a bit, anyway.

I think most people can, once they really start talking to each other. Hard to get past the devisive rhetoric on this site though. And it's always been my instinct to take the other side. ;)

Is it seriously an acceptable word?

<shrug> Apparently. It was the word I needed to use, at any rate.

I'm very much of the opinion that dictionaries these days just include a bunch of junk

To my mind, they started losing it when they began including "bling" and "lol," but I can be a word stickler (use of "generalizable" notwithstanding).

Prejudicial mind.....Well, now you're coming with a bias to my whole notion.

Actually, I wasn't really referring to your need for stability, but more society's unwillingness to re-examine things they "know" to be true, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. Human nature, I guess. I do it, too.

But I've come sort of full circle and am now firmly convinced that the "ditching" of all absolute truth and the marriage of policy to scientific studies (alone) is just plain bad. :)

I have to admit, I don't believe in any absolute truth, but endless instability serves no one. Change is good, if it's gradual. I think I read somewhere it takes 20 yrs to change something because that's how long it takes for power to come to the next generation. Kind of implies we'd rather die first!

Good lord, this thread is active! It takes me a few mins to put my thoughts down, but by then there's more to respond to. Perhaps I need a life.

TC: Wnless studies are going to study more than 1000-2000 people then they are useless.

You'd think that, but there's a lot of science and math gone into research methods and how to make small samples applicable to larger populations. It's all about methodology and what degree of confidence you're willing to accept in the results. That's why you need to know a great deal about the study before you can evaluate it. If it's been published in a peer-reviewed journal, others have already done that evaluation for you, and the study itself is published with the amplifying details that tell you how good it is.

Of course, we have none of those details in this article, so who knows if macho men really are more accident prone?

ike--"generalizable" is a word. It is a normal, common word. The fact that you don't know it shows us a lot more about you than it does about anything else.

Dictionaries, however, follow usage. If a term is used, and used widely, and people might need to know what it means--it goes in a dictionary. Seriously, if you think that a dictionary is stipulative rather than descriptive, I think that maybe you need to go back to school.

One thing you will learn when you go back to school is that there is very little absolute truth. If you think there is a lot of absolute truth, and that you know it, again--you are telling us a lot more about yourself than you are about anything else.

"Absolute truth," for the most part, is based on faith. Scientific studies, for all their weaknesses, are at least based on (supposedly) rigorous scientific methodology which (usually) produces reliable data. While the people interpreting the data might muck up in determining what they have found--the data itself is usually valuable.

Well, anyway, when you get past your fifth-grade mentality and realize that "it's in the dictionary" only means that it's a word that people use, and that people can make up new words as they are necessary, and that all words now in the dictionary were at one point made up by someone who needed such a word and then used by others who needed it until the word became commonplace--well, please rejoin us in the adult world as perhaps you will have something of value to share.

Ike "My point is.......if people don't want people with values such as gay parents to raise a child, they aren't going to want that even if you spend 20 years and a lot of money to prove one specific tangible point: such as, the children aren't more likely to grow up gay."

for the overall populace, I agree. but when people with certain religious beliefs jump on their high horse and start attempting to legislate their religious beliefs...they always have to have "reasons" for why its ok. One of them was that gay parents would cause the adopted kids to become gay.

So, thats why these studies exist - to debunk that crap-tastic reasoning. Each reason they toss up to uphold their laws to uphold their hatred, needs a new study to debunk.

Sadly, its the only way our society seems to operate. We cant just live and let live...oh no.

By the way, i'm thinking that if we want to prevent SIN from being legally recognized, which is the final arguement of the religious....well...there's a whole host of sins we are going to have to start addressing.

I mean, we better get rolling...there's about as many bars as churches...and GOD doesnt like the drunks anymore than he likes the gays.

Of course a life lived without honor is a life poorly lived.

Somebody better alert the press

Apparently, someone already did..... ;)

Gneisenau:

that was good

"It's nature's way of thinning the herd".....Can I get a "Yee-Haw"?!!

Yeah, I really have to question their definition - if not the very coining of the term - "culture of honor."

Honor, to me, means respect. Respect for customs, traditions, others, and yourself. Not over-reaction to perceived slights.

I'd say what their terms suggests is more of a competition issue than an issue of honor.

I dont think it matters what YOUR definition of honor is, if those doing stupid things in the "name of honor" decide their idea is different.

obviously, stupid is as stupid does...so stupid isnt likely to use the right term when describing why they did what they did.

I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count.

If this was taxpayer funded, this has got to stop. They are studying things that everybody already knows.

Your "snakes" statistics has got to be one of the strangest arguments/statistics I have ever read on an MSNBC comment thread.

And I don't think that any men actually "wonder" that.

We know why women live longer. Same reason as car driving/citations.

If you're the one out driving the car twice as much, in twice as brutal traffic conditions, more consistently, you've got twice as much exposure to accidents/tickets.

I agree with the stupidity of machismo, but I take issue with your generalization of gender.

Very often, women avoid statistical appearance of risk by just never exposing themselves, period. Ya can't get speeding tickets if you hardly ever drive.

That's like saying old people don't get in accidents. Well, they drive half as much as everyone else. Of course they don't.

Women just avoid all the risky activities of life - instead having their husbands do it for them when necessary - then blame the men for getting into accidents.

Hold it hold it Ike. You are trying to combat one silly use of sexism with another. Women don't take risks? (try childbirth, for one...you might be shocked by the number of women today who still die during it.) And last I looked, we're not in Saudi Arabia....women here DRIVE...(how old are you anyway??)

It is still true that overwhelmingly, men are asked to do the tasks that involve more risk. And then blamed for the consequences. I realize I'm making a generalization (of course) and this won't apply to every household, marriage, etc.

But the men are the one asked to go climb the tree to trim branches, drive for the couple taking a cross country trip on the freeway, men statistically, still, (whether you like it or not!) constitute more work hours and commutnig than women by far, and in general are asked to absorb more of the brutality and danger (in small ways too) than women.

So no, I disagree with you. I realize my statement will not be popular, because it's non-PC these days to claim that there is any difference between the activities of men and women - even though there still is. But in general, men are more often tasked with risky activites in life than women are. And I do believe that that constitutes at least part of the reason why men more often get into pickles.

Of course women drive. Women fight, drive, get up off the sofa to kill a scorpion on the living room floor, carry that heavy end-table off the uhaul truck tiptoing on the ramp to the ground, hang christmas lights on the ege of the roof, drive the family SUV on the freeway while the husband sits on the passenger side, go see who's knocking on the door at 10 o'clock at night, confronts the guy starting down her and her husband's 13 yr old daughter somewhere, ETC.

the question is, do men in a relationship do these activites more often than the woman does? the answer is, (as much as feminists hate to admit it), YES....Of course.

Ike I disagree with you. According to you men should be living longer. i don't what roads you drive but obviously not the right ones. Women are behind the wheel just as much as men and in many cases are more reckless than men. I see everyday I get to travel across the country. Put a woman in a big vehicle and they think they are ling of the road in it. They dart in and out of traffic and cut people off just like men. I've had several women try to pass me in my GTO while doing 85 in a 70 and that was going with the flow. Now why do these women need to do that? Doing 90/95 is putting them more at risk that us men that are going with the flow. So I guess I have a problem with your opinion that somehow men are behind the wheel twice as much as women...30 years ago you are probably correct.

I know, but you're trying to prove a generalized statement untrue by stating one particular exception. I already know there are exceptions.

I will refer you back to this that I posted:

Women fight, drive, get up off the sofa to kill a scorpion on the living room floor, carry that heavy end-table off the uhaul truck tiptoing on the ramp to the ground, hang christmas lights on the ege of the roof, drive the family SUV on the freeway while the husband sits on the passenger side, go see who's knocking on the door at 10 o'clock at night, confronts the guy starting down her and her husband's 13 yr old daughter somewhere, ETC.

the question is, do men in a relationship do these activites more often than the woman does? the answer is, (as much as feminists hate to admit it), YES....Of course.

Now, out of all those things (and others similar, that might pertain to your home), if you are a woman, ask yourself - who does that type of job most often?

Obviously the answer, with at least 60-90% of all women, woudl be "my husband, of course". When that statement is no longer true of the general public, then we can re-visit whether men are disproportionately getting into more accidents.

I'm thinking the APA.

"a yankee"

no one has used that word since 1876. I think you might be a foreigner learning english.

you laughed so hard you cried - goodness, I hope you never read somethign actually funny. You might die.

I got called a Yankee a few years ago when I was down south because I'm from Massachusetts. People still use that word.

They do and northerners still use the word redneck even though there are very few rednecks left today, at least what a true redneck is.

That was my first reaction, too. Chalk up another victory for Capt. Obvious and his team of Psychology Majors.

cocaine, ooowwww.......yeeeehhhhhaaaaa

who the heck is randy savage, and why do you want to rip him?

Who is Randy Savage, well he's the rock n' roll clown and he does cocaine. Sorry did, to soon?

Your guys are braindead, Randy Savage was the wrestler nicknamed "Macho Man". He died in a FL auto accident with coke in his system at I think 57.

Tarheel:

You're a "people who used to be a wrestlers but are now dead"-buff, and we're braindead? Just curious...

Ike, I would respond but you obviously cannot write a coherent sentence. Get a GED...

I'm adding one more thing to my list of, "you know you're stupid if"

8. You have a bumper sticker saying "RIP" about anyone, or even use that phrase in a serious way.

Can we move past the age-phase where we're listening to Tupac Shake-'Er whine about having people's name "tatted on my arm" i mean c'mon people.

while we're at it, I believe all of those stickers about that one tatoo parlor shoudl be outlawed, they are so stupid....what is it again? someone help me, i can't remember.

ummmm .. good luck with those type of women.

truly attractive women always prefer smart guys to dumb ones, for long term relationships.

If you wanna die by the hands of another macho man (truly a grotesque death!) for the prize of having been near a gigantic-fake-nasty-looking-b()()bs, dry-frizzy-fake blonde hair woman........go for it. One less macho man is good stuff.

Ike you really need to get out. Attractive beautiful women are, for some reason lured, to thugs and those that will never be anything except a number come census time. I see it everyday, beautiful, intelligent women with some thug looking wannabe who has no job and sponging off of her. I absolutely don't understand it but it is becoming more common.

TC - I do get out, just not to the ghetto places, unless I want a tour of something like you would tour an ugly museum just to remain well-informed.

Most of the beautiful, alluring, well put-together women I see/know/ run into are involved in environments of business or at least in a very general sense, 'class' (meaning, they may not have a job or may be soccer moms in the lexus SUV, but they're part of a working, professional or semi-professional couple/family/neighborhood, etc. I disagree with you.

Obviously there are exceptions, I certainly do also see thuggish guys picking up some pretty good looking girls - but 75% of the time, that's an issue of AGE. Of course, once you factor in the "given" that young girls (just like young guys) are stupid, and are attracted to red corvettes, well sure. thuggish 22 yr old guys pick up super hot 19 yr old girls (or super hot 16 yr old ones) all the time.

But I'm referring to the adult population - sorry, should've clarified.

what they don't understand (which is fine - the rest of the world I don't think even bothers to try to explain it to them!) is, sure they attract attention from women, but only certain types. The really pretty women wouldn't touch the macho, I-drive-a-Ford-F450-That-I-can't-pay-for, and I-dangle-plastic-nutz-from-the-back-of-my-pickup guys with a 10 foot pole. the really pretty women always prefer smarter men, and smarter goes with not-macho.

But if you're referring to ugly, fake-dry-frizzy-blonde hair and gigantic-fake-nasty-looking you-know-what's...then sure, they attract them. Let them breed together, it keeps the gene pools more or less separate.

Wow, your entire post made zero sense.

Suggestion: Write the post in your native language, then use Google Translate and copy/paste in the results in English. It will probably come out better than what you wrote.