Well I'll be damned, Proof that a Fetus is a Parasite

[Phallic Wonderland]

Ratttking

agrab0ekim

Ratttking

agrab0ekim

Ratttking

agrab0ekim

conceded on "death" - though i don't know if ******** for the rest of your life is that bad of a thing
The male is living off of the female, yes, but it advantages her. This is a mutualistic relationship (IF SEPARATE SPECIES) - to us, we think of losing blood and being chewed as a painful experience - but to the fish, it isn't, and it is NEEDED.
that's the key

Remember: A parasite is not only a different species, but one where the generic parasite will HARM the generic host(merely using the host with no harm is not parasitic)
(note, generic because some parasites end up helping their host, but only in specific case-by-case basis, and sometimes good things end up bad)

*edit* i see the attempt to show same-species parasitism. Though I am loathe to redefine, I think we can play with that for now. As such, you still need to show the harm for gain exchange

Ah, I did not know you could sense whether a fish feels pain when her flesh is chewed into and dissolved. Are you Aquaman? No? Then you've no way to show that it is painless to the host. I'd hardly call external fertilization of eggs "********". Only "gain" is competition from any surviving offspring for food.

I could spout some credentials at you qualifying me as an expert in various northern Atlantic species, as well as most freshwater species in the c.us (yes, I really have that broad a field of experience), but I think it is easy to contend that, fish don't feel pain in the sense we do (some more recent studies have cast doubt on this position, yes, but I am of the opinion that they are flight responses, not memory responses, as we see no such positive associations formable)

I see, so you are spouting your personal opinions as facts. Gotcha.

you seem to ignore the entire first part of that, but, that's fine, we can play this game.
Prove to me that fish feel pain, find at least one credentialed study which indicates it is a pain response and, not as I stated above, also theoretically a flight instead). Good luck

First part where I should have dismissed the alleged expertise of someone who thought anglerfish reproduced via ******** ? You added another "first" paragraph long after I responded to you so stop pretending I ignored you. Odd that you ascribe a desire to all females; that is a gross generalization with little to no basis in fact.While some females do seem to desire reproduction and carefully choose a mate, the anglerfish - whether or not she has such a desire, has no choice of her mate and is taken advantage of by the parasitic male. It offers no benefit to her personally. You may argue that her offspring benefit, but she herself does not.
Fish do feel pain:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2983045.stm
]http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/LifeSciences/BioethicsSocialIssues/?view=usa&ci=9780199551200

Pain is not necessarily indicative of harm in the sense I think 'harm' is being used for this mutually beneficial parasitic fishy. Contractions suck, but they happen for a reason and if you don't feel them that is more indicative that something is wrong.

The male fish in the parasite example dissolves his own flesh; That's gotta be painful, right? But he benefits from it because his testicles/spermies will be absorbed and he gets to pass on his genes. That the female fish probably also feels pain, I don't think that the loss of blood or nutrients is inherently detrimental or they would have another way of mating, right?

Not to mention, fish aren't capable of feeling that they are being "taken advantage of" because it is instinct, pure and unadulterated. I'd go so far as "for the good of the species" but of course that doesn't matter when humans are being compared.

[agrab0ekim]

Tarako6

Desideraht

THIS is a parasite:



I am really tired of the "fetus is a parasite!" argument. Why? Because first of all, a parasite is a different SPECIES than its host. Go ahead, and try to find an exception. And second, a parasite provides NO benefit to the host (that is unless the host has adapted to a parasitic, symbiotic relationship). A fetus is the carrier of the mother's genes and livelihood. That is natural and progressive, not parasitic.

There was a rare case where a man gave birth to his own parasitic twin. xd ...or rather, babyception I guess? But um...anyhow, the guy somehow was born with a parasitic twin growing inside of him-as a literal fetus- and didn't find out or get it removed till waaay later. O_o Creepy weird case, but, fetus 'can' be abnormal, but, parasitic is only a technical standpoint imo, unless one includes those out of the ordinary cases.

This is the exception. ninja But, as to what the OP is trying to state...All fetus are not parasites, and generally only barely qualify as such on a very small technical level. Or if you're addressing a specific tidbit/special situations in general. Parasitic twins are a whole different category though, but, just pointing out that parasites are not necessarily "different race" as you insinuate.


TLDR Version: There are 'parasiteceptions', and parasitic twins. Doesn't have to be different species, although you can argue that it gets very technical and this information should be taken loosely rather than literally.

do you have a source? I bet it was some sort of chimera effect, but without full inclusion (so probably almost Siamese twins instead) - but I could be wrong

[Tarako6]

agrab0ekim

do you have a source? I bet it was some sort of chimera effect, but without full inclusion (so probably almost Siamese twins instead) - but I could be wrong

Babyception
FetusParasite
This is the exception of all exceptions. There are three discovery channel cases I know of, and it's extremely rare..but there's LITERALLY a fetus inside the person. gonk Which needs to be removed. Not chimeraism or extra limbs, but, an actual 'baby' (or incomplete formed fragments there of, technically.) inside a person feeding off of the person. Creepy as fawk. Couldn't find a complete vid of the first or third case, but the 2nd link has all the info there.

Or if you'd like more specific info, the phenomenon itself is known as "Fetus in fetu"..maybe you know about it but didn't know what I was trying to say.

[Desideraht]

Tarako6

Desideraht

THIS is a parasite:



I am really tired of the "fetus is a parasite!" argument. Why? Because first of all, a parasite is a different SPECIES than its host. Go ahead, and try to find an exception. And second, a parasite provides NO benefit to the host (that is unless the host has adapted to a parasitic, symbiotic relationship). A fetus is the carrier of the mother's genes and livelihood. That is natural and progressive, not parasitic.

There was a rare case where a man gave birth to his own parasitic twin. xd ...or rather, babyception I guess? But um...anyhow, the guy somehow was born with a parasitic twin growing inside of him-as a literal fetus- and didn't find out or get it removed till waaay later. O_o Creepy weird case, but, fetus 'can' be abnormal, but, parasitic is only a technical standpoint imo, unless one includes those out of the ordinary cases.

This is the exception. ninja But, as to what the OP is trying to state...All fetus are not parasites, and generally only barely qualify as such on a very small technical level. Or if you're addressing a specific tidbit/special situations in general. Parasitic twins are a whole different category though, but, just pointing out that parasites are not necessarily "different race" as you insinuate.


TLDR Version: There are 'parasiteceptions', and parasitic twins. Doesn't have to be different species, although you can argue that it gets very technical and this information should be taken loosely rather than literally.

I would argue that is not parasitic. Because a parasite is a species that evolves to do that to other species. This is like some weird medical fluke.

[Ratttking]

agrab0ekim

Ratttking

]First part where I should have dismissed the alleged expertise of someone who thought anglerfish reproduced via ******** ? You added another "first" paragraph long after I responded to you so stop pretending I ignored you. Odd that you ascribe a desire to all females; that is a gross generalization with little to no basis in fact.While some females do seem to desire reproduction and carefully choose a mate, the anglerfish - whether or not she has such a desire, has no choice of her mate and is taken advantage of by the parasitic male. It offers no benefit to her personally. You may argue that her offspring benefit, but she herself does not.
Fish do feel pain:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2983045.stm
]http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/LifeSciences/BioethicsSocialIssues/?view=usa&ci=9780199551200

I did no such thing, I do mark where I edit, no reason to try and 'cheat' on these things. Now, No need to go back and respond, I'll make the same argument here:
Again, assume they are separate species for purposes of analysis
Life is defined biologically by 7 specific processes, that last of which is reproduction (in my hierarchy I place it higher, for when I did research). That is, all life has these characteristics, and, since Angler Fish are not asexual, that means the female of the species has a drive to reproduce - even if she is not conscious or suppresses that drive. Thus, the drive (and need) is satisfied by this relationship.
She gets a benefit BIOLOGICALLY speaking (I don't care about anything else), with minimal (if any) pain (long term, compare to child birth for example)
Male, same deal
thus, there is a mutualistic symbiotic relationship (we observe relationships on a species level, so if the individual happens to carry, say a disease, it doesn't impact the net relationship)
Science - it doesn't care what you think, it works

Now, as for your two sources, have you read the studies backing either, or the book itself?

With the article (I asked for a source, we tend to assume that means study in science, but whatevs), READ THE LAST THREE LINES OF YOUR OWN SOURCE - THEY SUPPORT MY ENTIRE ARGUMENT

As for the latter, she does indeed conclude that she believes the response is similar enough to a vertebra pain reaction, and thus categorizes it as such - but she also admits that it is impossible to decode if this is indeed pain, or merely some innate flight reaction.
For example, in humans, those fleeing a disaster, while injured, often do not feel pain while in flight mode - our instincts kick in. The argument is the fist is merely fleeing without control, not fleeing in pain.

Now, as for your dismissal of my expertise, that is fine by me, no worries - hence why I just explained everything without resorting to it. Though I'm amused you did so because of a sarcastic joke, but, okay...

So, again, what I did was state my expertise level, then my position, acknowledged that some studies are starting to contradict that, but stated that I was in the camp of the status quo (with most people in the field).

Bullshit. I did not redact any part of your post; I responded to the only paragraph that was in your original reply, before you edited and added another paragraph, which I just saw today.

Sorry you do not like the studies that disagree with your opinion. I suggest you complain to the Royal Society. Meanwhile, explain how rubbing their lips on the gravel when they were injected with venom or acid is a flight response. There was no attempt to flee, merely an attempt to remove the painful stimulus, while the control groups either injected with saline or merely handled exhibited no change in behavior.

I find it sad that you will compare the fish's behavior to human behavior when you feel it suits you, yet dismiss any behavior that contradicts your preconceived notion that they do not react like humans do to pain when they obviously do.

You have not proved you have any level of expertise beyond that of a high school biology student.

[Tarako6]

Desideraht

I would argue that is not parasitic. Because a parasite is a species that evolves to do that to other species. This is like some weird medical fluke.

Ah, makes enough sense. So, you'd say that even the term "parasitic twin" uses more of a vernacular definition than one people should take literally? If so, I can agree with that, and as I tried to emphasize it's only on a technical level, in addition to this parasitic twins has its own category+subcategories as well, fetus in fetu being a special case within a special case.

The term itself is used because of its "parasite-like qualities" but most people don't actually recognize it as a parasite, so, you'd be right in a confusing sort of way.Was mostly wondering why it wasn't mentioned for the most part..and isn't there a micro-parasite exception of some sort? Like, viruses infecting other viruses or something along those lines, which, also makes parasite have a broader definition if I'm thinking correctly.

o.o Or is that not relevant since it's pretty obvious we're talking about macroparasites?

[Ratttking]

Phallic Wonderland

Ratttking

agrab0ekim

Ratttking

agrab0ekim

I could spout some credentials at you qualifying me as an expert in various northern Atlantic species, as well as most freshwater species in the c.us (yes, I really have that broad a field of experience), but I think it is easy to contend that, fish don't feel pain in the sense we do (some more recent studies have cast doubt on this position, yes, but I am of the opinion that they are flight responses, not memory responses, as we see no such positive associations formable)

I see, so you are spouting your personal opinions as facts. Gotcha.

you seem to ignore the entire first part of that, but, that's fine, we can play this game.
Prove to me that fish feel pain, find at least one credentialed study which indicates it is a pain response and, not as I stated above, also theoretically a flight instead). Good luck

First part where I should have dismissed the alleged expertise of someone who thought anglerfish reproduced via ******** ? You added another "first" paragraph long after I responded to you so stop pretending I ignored you. Odd that you ascribe a desire to all females; that is a gross generalization with little to no basis in fact.While some females do seem to desire reproduction and carefully choose a mate, the anglerfish - whether or not she has such a desire, has no choice of her mate and is taken advantage of by the parasitic male. It offers no benefit to her personally. You may argue that her offspring benefit, but she herself does not.
Fish do feel pain:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2983045.stm
]http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/LifeSciences/BioethicsSocialIssues/?view=usa&ci=9780199551200

Pain is not necessarily indicative of harm in the sense I think 'harm' is being used for this mutually beneficial parasitic fishy. Contractions suck, but they happen for a reason and if you don't feel them that is more indicative that something is wrong.

The male fish in the parasite example dissolves his own flesh; That's gotta be painful, right? But he benefits from it because his testicles/spermies will be absorbed and he gets to pass on his genes. That the female fish probably also feels pain, I don't think that the loss of blood or nutrients is inherently detrimental or they would have another way of mating, right?

Not to mention, fish aren't capable of feeling that they are being "taken advantage of" because it is instinct, pure and unadulterated. I'd go so far as "for the good of the species" but of course that doesn't matter when humans are being compared.Are you arguing with me or agreeing? confused Yes, it is probably painful to the male, too. Mating is painful for many species (poor cats!) The male is so small I doubt there is much blood loss, but it makes him no less of a parasite.The testicle remaining after the anglerfish male mostly atrophies is not absorbed, and fertilization takes place outside the females body, basically she releases eggs and her hormones signal the testis to release sperm.

[Phallic Wonderland]

Ratttking

Phallic Wonderland

Ratttking

agrab0ekim

Ratttking

agrab0ekim

I could spout some credentials at you qualifying me as an expert in various northern Atlantic species, as well as most freshwater species in the c.us (yes, I really have that broad a field of experience), but I think it is easy to contend that, fish don't feel pain in the sense we do (some more recent studies have cast doubt on this position, yes, but I am of the opinion that they are flight responses, not memory responses, as we see no such positive associations formable)

I see, so you are spouting your personal opinions as facts. Gotcha.

you seem to ignore the entire first part of that, but, that's fine, we can play this game.
Prove to me that fish feel pain, find at least one credentialed study which indicates it is a pain response and, not as I stated above, also theoretically a flight instead). Good luck

First part where I should have dismissed the alleged expertise of someone who thought anglerfish reproduced via ******** ? You added another "first" paragraph long after I responded to you so stop pretending I ignored you. Odd that you ascribe a desire to all females; that is a gross generalization with little to no basis in fact.While some females do seem to desire reproduction and carefully choose a mate, the anglerfish - whether or not she has such a desire, has no choice of her mate and is taken advantage of by the parasitic male. It offers no benefit to her personally. You may argue that her offspring benefit, but she herself does not.
Fish do feel pain:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2983045.stm
]http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/LifeSciences/BioethicsSocialIssues/?view=usa&ci=9780199551200

Pain is not necessarily indicative of harm in the sense I think 'harm' is being used for this mutually beneficial parasitic fishy. Contractions suck, but they happen for a reason and if you don't feel them that is more indicative that something is wrong.

The male fish in the parasite example dissolves his own flesh; That's gotta be painful, right? But he benefits from it because his testicles/spermies will be absorbed and he gets to pass on his genes. That the female fish probably also feels pain, I don't think that the loss of blood or nutrients is inherently detrimental or they would have another way of mating, right?

Not to mention, fish aren't capable of feeling that they are being "taken advantage of" because it is instinct, pure and unadulterated. I'd go so far as "for the good of the species" but of course that doesn't matter when humans are being compared.

Are you arguing with me or agreeing? confused Yes, it is probably painful to the male, too. Mating is painful for many species (poor cats!) The male is so small I doubt there is much blood loss, but it makes him no less of a parasite.The testicle remaining after the anglerfish male mostly atrophies is not absorbed, and fertilization takes place outside the females body, basically she releases eggs and her hormones signal the testis to release sperm.

I thought I was refuting the notion that neither fish benefit personally. Since they clearly have different mating habits and no sense of independent purpose other than the three instincts to eat, mate and poo, it is beneficial to both fish, even if the male dies and even if the female fish didn't get to pick her mate.

[Ratttking]

Phallic Wonderland

Ratttking

Phallic Wonderland

Ratttking

agrab0ekim

you seem to ignore the entire first part of that, but, that's fine, we can play this game.
Prove to me that fish feel pain, find at least one credentialed study which indicates it is a pain response and, not as I stated above, also theoretically a flight instead). Good luck

First part where I should have dismissed the alleged expertise of someone who thought anglerfish reproduced via ******** ? You added another "first" paragraph long after I responded to you so stop pretending I ignored you. Odd that you ascribe a desire to all females; that is a gross generalization with little to no basis in fact.While some females do seem to desire reproduction and carefully choose a mate, the anglerfish - whether or not she has such a desire, has no choice of her mate and is taken advantage of by the parasitic male. It offers no benefit to her personally. You may argue that her offspring benefit, but she herself does not.
Fish do feel pain:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2983045.stm
]http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/LifeSciences/BioethicsSocialIssues/?view=usa&ci=9780199551200

Pain is not necessarily indicative of harm in the sense I think 'harm' is being used for this mutually beneficial parasitic fishy. Contractions suck, but they happen for a reason and if you don't feel them that is more indicative that something is wrong.

The male fish in the parasite example dissolves his own flesh; That's gotta be painful, right? But he benefits from it because his testicles/spermies will be absorbed and he gets to pass on his genes. That the female fish probably also feels pain, I don't think that the loss of blood or nutrients is inherently detrimental or they would have another way of mating, right?

Not to mention, fish aren't capable of feeling that they are being "taken advantage of" because it is instinct, pure and unadulterated. I'd go so far as "for the good of the species" but of course that doesn't matter when humans are being compared.

Are you arguing with me or agreeing? confused Yes, it is probably painful to the male, too. Mating is painful for many species (poor cats!) The male is so small I doubt there is much blood loss, but it makes him no less of a parasite.The testicle remaining after the anglerfish male mostly atrophies is not absorbed, and fertilization takes place outside the females body, basically she releases eggs and her hormones signal the testis to release sperm.

I thought I was refuting the notion that neither fish benefit personally. Since they clearly have different mating habits and no sense of independent purpose other than the three instincts to eat, mate and poo, it is beneficial to both fish, even if the male dies and even if the female fish didn't get to pick her mate.

I never said the male did not benefit personally. I still do not think that the female herself does. If the male dies before fertilizing her eggs, there is not even a benefit for the species, so I'm not sure why you mentioned it. Did you perhaps misunderstand the word "atrophies" like the last poster?

[Phallic Wonderland]

Ratttking

Phallic Wonderland

Ratttking

Phallic Wonderland

Ratttking

agrab0ekim

you seem to ignore the entire first part of that, but, that's fine, we can play this game.
Prove to me that fish feel pain, find at least one credentialed study which indicates it is a pain response and, not as I stated above, also theoretically a flight instead). Good luck

First part where I should have dismissed the alleged expertise of someone who thought anglerfish reproduced via ******** ? You added another "first" paragraph long after I responded to you so stop pretending I ignored you. Odd that you ascribe a desire to all females; that is a gross generalization with little to no basis in fact.While some females do seem to desire reproduction and carefully choose a mate, the anglerfish - whether or not she has such a desire, has no choice of her mate and is taken advantage of by the parasitic male. It offers no benefit to her personally. You may argue that her offspring benefit, but she herself does not.
Fish do feel pain:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2983045.stm
]http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/LifeSciences/BioethicsSocialIssues/?view=usa&ci=9780199551200

Pain is not necessarily indicative of harm in the sense I think 'harm' is being used for this mutually beneficial parasitic fishy. Contractions suck, but they happen for a reason and if you don't feel them that is more indicative that something is wrong.

The male fish in the parasite example dissolves his own flesh; That's gotta be painful, right? But he benefits from it because his testicles/spermies will be absorbed and he gets to pass on his genes. That the female fish probably also feels pain, I don't think that the loss of blood or nutrients is inherently detrimental or they would have another way of mating, right?

Not to mention, fish aren't capable of feeling that they are being "taken advantage of" because it is instinct, pure and unadulterated. I'd go so far as "for the good of the species" but of course that doesn't matter when humans are being compared.

Are you arguing with me or agreeing? confused Yes, it is probably painful to the male, too. Mating is painful for many species (poor cats!) The male is so small I doubt there is much blood loss, but it makes him no less of a parasite.The testicle remaining after the anglerfish male mostly atrophies is not absorbed, and fertilization takes place outside the females body, basically she releases eggs and her hormones signal the testis to release sperm.

I thought I was refuting the notion that neither fish benefit personally. Since they clearly have different mating habits and no sense of independent purpose other than the three instincts to eat, mate and poo, it is beneficial to both fish, even if the male dies and even if the female fish didn't get to pick her mate.

I never said the male did not benefit personally. I still do not think that the female herself does. If the male dies before fertilizing her eggs, there is not even a benefit for the species, so I'm not sure why you mentioned it. Did you perhaps misunderstand the word "atrophies" like the last poster?

No, I know the word. I didn't realize that the mating process wasn't 100% since the male fish basically becomes part of the female fish. I think the female benefits in the same way as the male by continuation of the species (if it works out, of course) and honestly in nature animals pretty much only have that goal as part of survival.

[agrab0ekim]

Ratttking

Sorry you do not like the studies that disagree with your opinion. I suggest you complain to the Royal Society. Meanwhile, explain how rubbing their lips on the gravel when they were injected with venom or acid is a flight response. There was no attempt to flee, merely an attempt to remove the painful stimulus, while the control groups either injected with saline or merely handled exhibited no change in behavior.

What did I claim, and what do your studies say? I rest my entire case on your article and book now, as they both support my claim 100%.

Quote:

I find it sad that you will compare the fish's behavior to human behavior when you feel it suits you, yet dismiss any behavior that contradicts your preconceived notion that they do not react like humans do to pain when they obviously do.

By defining things with biology?

Quote:

You have not proved you have any level of expertise beyond that of a high school biology student.

That's because i'm not trying to, rather, I'm resting on your evidence. Read your own sources, they support my claim

[agrab0ekim]

Ratttking, all other things aside, you seem tied up by two issues:
1) We look at "benefit" and "harm" as a species wide impact, not per fish, and thus we generally can use the 7 as a basis;
2) Science allows for multiple opinions, as I expressed quite clearly, and the current main-stream concept is that fish do not feel pain (again, see your own sources, they are arguing against the stream, and they allow for my position on the reasoning) - if you actually read the studies (yes, the data), you'd notice things are not so simple - notice the focus on even the capability of a fish brain to comprehend pain, let alone prove it in this case

[Ratttking]

agrab0ekim

...

I'm afraid agreeing with the scientist who disagreed with those who wrote the Royal Society article does not mean that the writers of the article are on your side; nor does the book support your stance that they feel no pain. You switched goalposts earlier when you said that the female's personal benefit does not matter, but only the benefit of the species, and failed to explain how having offspring might benefit her in any way. You fail to answer the question I posed regarding a non-flight response to pain.

[agrab0ekim]

Ratttking

agrab0ekim

...

I'm afraid agreeing with the scientist who disagreed with those who wrote the Royal Society article does not mean that the writers of the article are on your side

My orig. argument: I contend that it is safe to assume that fish (generally, note that) don't, but I recognize studies indicating otherwise and stating my reasons for not crediting that basis.
Articles: Contend they do, but recognize that most studies indicate otherwise and have those (as well as other fields) state their reasons for not agreeing with the study
Thus, they support my contention that, while there is some evidence to the contrary, we can safely assume fish feel no pain

The kicker, of course, is that it is irrelevant if there is pain involved, as:

Quote:

You switched goalposts earlier when you said that the female's personal benefit does not matter, but only the benefit of the species, and failed to explain how having offspring might benefit her in any way.

No, the female and the species are one and the same, that's something you are not understanding. While something might harm the female specifically (say, a diseased mate), if the overall relationship helps the species, it is considered beneficial. Since the female is alive, and one of the characteristics of life is a drive to reproduce (#7), then, by definition, meeting that benefits her. period.
These relationships are not Fish X vs Fish Y, these are Fish Population X vs Fish Population Y, so you need to keep that in mind

Quote:

You fail to answer the question I posed regarding a non-flight response to pain.

Sorry, was it related to the saline injections in the mouth? If so, the answer is as follows, and, if not, please repost:
You have something under you skin, say a rock, but it isn't piercing it. That doesn't hurt, but you scratch, you dig, you want the damn thing out. Why, because it feels different, odds, not scary or painful, but not something you want to feel there. Eventually, of course, you get use to it, and no longer pay attention (read the book, interesting ending to the experiment references this concepts). My contention, plain and simple, is that the fish is responding to the feeling, but it isn't enough to trigger a flight response, rather a "what is this, get it off get it off get it off" scratching episode

[Ratttking]

agrab0ekim

...

You may assume they feel no pain, I will not until you prove that they do not, which is not possible for you.

The female is a part of the species, but the species does not consist solely of the female. Perhaps you do not understand the term "personal benefit."

And if I have a substance under my skin that is painful and I scratch and rub to remove it, what does that mean?