Category Archives: Science

Apparently It Is Important to Chew Your Food Well

Here.

I never knew it was so important.

Leave a comment

Filed under Biology, Health, Nutrition, Science

A Girl in Every Woman, a Woman in Every Girl, and a Chicken in Every Pot

I have been meaning to write this post for some time now but I have been terrified to do it. But it is an excellent subject of discussion. The stages of biological life that all humans go through is an interesting subject and it is perfectly sensible and normal for any human to be interested in such a topic. If we put this topic anywhere, we should put it under Medicine, which is the study of the human body after all. Problem is anyone who broaches the subject is going to get bombarded with accusations of pedophilia and perhaps ever reported to the police. In that case, let the bombarding and reporting commence.

The vast majority of people flipping out about a post like this are going to be persons of the hysterical gender, that is females. This makes no sense because the stages of biological life development ought to be very interesting for any curious woman. After all, every woman was once a girl, though no doubt most would probably deny it.

I would actually go further and say that there’s a girl in every woman.

Based on what? Based on years of experiences with relationships with many females, some of them even long-term. After a while, a student of women starts to learn quite a bit about them. Who knows more about women? A man who has been married to one woman his entire life or a man who never married and dated 200 women? I put this question to the smartest woman on Earth, which is of course my mother. She instantly said it would be the guy who had had experiences with all sorts of women. I don’t think having sex with prostitutes 200 times is going to cut it, though I guarantee you will learn a bit.

Sure the other guy gets to look at one woman down through the years, but one woman does not say much about Womanhood as a whole. He has a blinkered perspective. Whereas a man with many experiences (especially deep, prolonged and long-term ones) is going to sample the a good cross-section of Womanhood. As they say in statistics, sample size is everything. The larger the sample, the more accurate the results. The married man above has a sample size of one. The other guy has a sample size of 200. Whose study is going to be more accurate?

Women are mysterious and confusing and often make no sense at all. My female friends tell me that women are weird and impossible to figure out. But get a nice sample size, get to know some of them long-term and deeply, and after a while, you are going to see some real patterns.

As I said, there’s a  Girl in every Woman. And if you can get that Girl to come out and play, you can have a lot of fun with women. Some women have apparently killed their Girl. They are too serious and no fun, stuck in the dull and drab monotony that we drearily call Maturity. Yawn. But only some women have killed their Girl. Most have a Girl in there romping around somewhere. The trick is luring it out. And here’s where your Game skills will come in extremely handy.

And another thing I noticed, though not from dating, is there’s a Woman in every Girl.

If you watch little girls long enough, you can actually the Woman coming out in a lot of vague ways. Watch little girls playing house and tell me those are not tiny Women. I think Girlhood is a trial run at Womanhood. Girls seem to be in the process of learning how to be a Woman.

Of course as girls get older, you see the Woman more and more. But even in teenage years, girls are trading Woman and Girl back and forth and mixing them up.

  • Teenage girls are not children.
  • Neither are they adults.
  • They are girl-women, something in between that is neither a child nor an adult. A transitional phase.

It would be nice if rational people would believe this obvious fact, but alas, common sense has run away from our fair land and has not been heard of in some time.

A 16 year old girl has a complete woman’s body and a full-blown sex drive to boot, I assure you. But observing one lately, I was stunned at how much of a girl a 16 year old girl still is. Sure, she’s partly a woman. But she’s still so much  of a girl.

My latest revelation came from observing one seriously hot 16 year old girl at a function I attended in the Fall. Why was I looking at her? Well for one  thing, the feminists haven’t made looking illegal. They’re working on it, but that’s still a ways into the future. For another thing, she was staring at me, checking me out, and giving me bedroom eyes and zombie stares all night long, so what was I to do?

What did she want? No idea. But obviously I was making her horny. I’ve been around enough females to know what a horny female looks like. I can almost spot one half a mile away, blindfolded, at night, by now.

Not that she necessarily wanted to act on that feeling. What females feel and what they actually want to do about that feeling is a major part of female psychology that is poorly understood by almost everyone, including most women. See that woman staring at you all night long? Well, obviously you’re making her horny. Duh. So that means she wants to have sex with you then, right? Ay, there’s the rub. That’s not necessarily true. Maybe she just likes to look. Females probably encounter 10,000 males who make them horny in a lifetime. They don’t exactly jump on all of them you know. Thoughts and actions are two different things, although every day tens of millions of idiots can never seem to figure that out.

That 16 year old girl? Yes, it’s a woman. But in so many ways,it’s still such a girl. You don’t notice this until you get older because only then can you see immaturity for what it is. A young man gets too caught up in thinking these are little women because he’s not old enough to see how immature they are. Plus he’s thinking with his dick, and your dick doesn’t have a lot of brain cells last time I checked.

But you get to be my age, and you can see that girl as clear as air.

A 17 year old girl, ok, now we are getting somewhere. Especially right before they turn 18, a lot of them are after older men aged 29-59. This like graduation from Girlhood and on to Womanhood on a fast track. A 17 year old girl can be surprisingly mature. Nearly a little Woman. She’s way beyond a 16 year old girl, half a world away and past the International Dateline. How do I know? Guess. I told you I understand women pretty well. And that includes those little women called girls too.

But if you are around 17 year old girls enough, you are going to see that the girl is still quite prominent. She’s just having a dueling match with the Woman is all.

A few years back, I dated an 18 year old girl at age 56. How I pulled off this impossible task, I have no idea, but somehow I did it. She was interesting. Maybe I can only see it with age, but while there was a little Woman in there for sure romping about, I was stunned at how much of a girl this young woman still was. Even at adulthood, legally adult with all that comes with that, she was still quite a bit of a girl.

Although it was hard to obtain this information and the only way I got it was from men confessing to crimes, as soon as that sex drive hits, the Real Sexual Woman is out and about. There is a lot more to female sexuality than just sex. It’s a whole huge area of study that they could probably offer PhD’s in. The fun house mirror maze of Female Sexuality is what those Game/PUA blogs are trying to figure out. And they are doing a good job of it.

I read on the Net about a couple of men who had had sex with 13 year old girls. The girls seduced the men. Happens more often than you think. And they really did. Grabbing a man’s penis out of nowhere is pretty much open seduction, no? Because that is what these girls did. 

One was the mother’s boyfriend, and the other was the stepdad. These men described the sex that followed, and I almost fell out of my chair.

Because some of the things those girls did, I thought, “You know, that’s exactly what a woman would have done.” Precisely. Something happens in the female brain with the onset of the sex drive. They somehow get attracted to other humans (How does that work?), and the whole weird ball of wax called Female Sexuality comes out in full-blown form. A lot of this is cognitive stuff. I assume that the rush of hormones causes changes not just in the female body via a sex drive but also in the female brain to create a whole new cognitive way of looking at the world. I’m not going to go into it too much because you guys should know:

  • Confusion of love and sex, mixing them together, and mistaking one for the other.
  • Suddenly feeling very vulnerable and even frightened.
  • A desire to be not just protected but dominated.
  • A desire for a strong masculine man for this purpose.
  • The allure of the mysterious bad boy.
  • A bit of masochism or often more than a bit.
  • A desire for pain of different kinds and an association of sexual arousal with this feeling.

This is all cognitive stuff, and apparently somehow the estrogen creates all these cognitive effects in the brain. Amazing or what?

A girl after the full-blown onset of the sex drive is indeed a Woman in some very important ways. Now at that age, the girl predominates obviously, but I am stunned at how mature 13 year old girls are. The difference between a 12 and 13 year old girl is like a light year. A 12 year old girl is still not just a girl but a little girl. A 13 year old girl is no longer a girl. She’s a girl-woman beginning her maturational curve. And a girl that age is way smarter than you think.

So you see, the roles of Girl and Woman trade back and forth throughout the lifespan of a female. Girls are Little Women. Just ask Luisa Alcott. And women are big Girls. It’s a nice part of a woman, and it’s pleasure to see because usually woman are usually so happy when they let the Girl out. Happy, silly, joking, role-playing, nonsensical, absurd and even childish. But that’s a great thing to see in a woman, unless you’re all hard-faced and mature and all that. Plus she might be in love with you because women really let that Girl out when they fall in love. And she’s probably horny as Hell too, because you and I that know by a certain age, most girls are boy-crazy.

 

 

27 Comments

Filed under Biology, Feminism, Gender Studies, Girls, Man World, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Sane Pro-Woman, Women

Do Prepubertal Children Have a Sex Drive?

Spoiler: Answer is no. Explained below.

As part of my clinical work, I deal with folks who are dealing with pedophilic, homicidal and other disturbing thoughts. I listen to and read about thoughts like this every single day. After a while, it doesn’t bother you anymore. A differential diagnosis is always mandated in such a case, and indeed, I did discover two actual pedophiles so far. And they both presented in precisely the same way, and that presentation was completely different from the nonpedophiles.

In the course of this work, I had to learn a lot about pedophiles. I went to anti-pedophile sites where they have dossiers on all the Net pedophiles they have outed. I even went to pedophile and hebephile bulletin boards, though  they are not as bad as you think. It’s all legal or at least no-worries gray area, and there’s as many pedophile-haters in those rooms as pedophiles. It’s not exactly a crime scene. But you can learn a tremendous amount about these folks by reading what they write on those boards.

One thing I noticed over and over was that pedophiles both heterosexual and homosexual insist that little children have strong sex drives and seek out sex with kids and other adults. That hit me as quite off, as you think  of little kids as being pretty sexless. As a boy, I think I thought about sex maybe five minutes out of a year, and girls were sort of yucky. They were even contagious. They had cooties, and you had to be very careful not to get infected. This illness was a serious problem at school and even for a while at home for quite some time.

I have no idea what it’s like to be a little girl, so I asked some girlfriends. I was absolutely stunned that little girls are capable of orgasm. If you go on the Net, you can see a lot of women’s boards where they are discussing this very thing, which they often accidentally found out by doing  things like riding the top of the couch like a horse. One woman said at age seven, she was riding the couch horse, and she really got into it at one point. That couch mare had some speed. Then an earthquake occurred and she almost fell off the couch. “Mommy! What was that?!” Mom came into the room,  the girl explained what happened and I guess Mom said, “Honey, come with me. We have to have a little talk here.”

Of course all of these women are pedophiles for discussing  their experiences, right? Please report them all to the police.

I knew some women who were molested at an early age. In some cases it went on for years. These girls became highly sexualized and I was told that some masturbated to orgasm from age 5-on. Just because it felt good. But they also all told me that they had no interest in sex with other humans. They all said that started up at age 13.

I don’t know much about little boys, but they cannot ejaculate until age 13 or so, so orgasm is probably out of the question.

The general impression I got was that little children simply do not have any real sex drive at all. Which is all to the better or course. We have enough on our hands with the teenagers!

And I can confirm that.

Here.

Prepubertal children simply do not experience sexual arousal and drives comparable to adolescents or adults.

Myers, By John E. B. The APSAC Handbook on Child Maltreatment. American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children

Just as I suspected. By the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, and you would think they would know, right?

Yes, children do engage in sex play, and I hear about this stuff clinically all the time. Adults really need to butt out of this stuff. The kids should probably be told to knock it off, but involving law enforcement or even the therapeutic community seems like a terrible idea. They’re not child molesters for God’s sake! They’re children themselves! How on Earth could a child be a child molester? Nevertheless, this sex play is completely different from the sexual conduct engaged in by adolescents and adults. They do it for reasons, but not for the same reasons we do.

Kids are trying to figure out what they are, and childhood sex play is part of that.

Once again to our source:

Although we refer to these behaviors as sexual, it is important to note that the intentions and motivations for these behaviors may be unrelated to sexual gratification or drives as we adults understand them.

Myers, By John E. B. The APSAC Handbook on Child Maltreatment. American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children

Well, of course. Little kids have no sex drive, so obviously they are not doing this stuff for the same reasons we adults are. Why are they doing this? Curiosity, discovering who they are, simple play, fooling around, no particular reason, etc.

Now despite the lack of a sex drive, some children do have sexual behavioral problems, and they do need some intervention. There’s normal childhood sex play, and there’s activity far beyond the norm. These are the outliers, and you need to call in professional help form the therapeutic community.

All this research led me to the conclusion that little kids have no sex drive at all, despite the fact that the pedophiles insist that they do. Well, guess what? The pedophiles are lying. Surprise, surprise. The pedophiles probably have their reasons for wanting to believe this. If we posit that children have full-blown sex drives like adults, then this suggests that children have sexual wants and needs, and the pedophiles are simply coming to the rescue and supplying these kids with what they need.

The pedophiles’ sex with the children then is fully justified, and if this were true, logically, children should probably be encouraged to have sex with the pedophiles to take care of their sexual desires and drives. This belief lets the pedophiles off the hook and makes their behavior seem not bad, but good. They’re not hurting kids, they’re helping kids. I am sure this is comforting for the pedophiles to use this defense mechanism, but that doesn’t mean it’s true.

This discovery happened to lead me on to my next quest. Well, if kids have no sex drive as I assumed, when exactly does the sex drive come on? I decided to research females because I only like females. Girls and women. They’re all great. God bless em all and thank you Lord for creating these creatures.

I know nothing about boys. Perhaps a gay man can go do that research for us.

31 Comments

Filed under Biology, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Mental Illness, Pedophilia, Psychology, Psychopathology, Science, Sex

Stages of Puberty and Onset of the Sex Drive in American Females 2010-2017

Fancy title,  eh? I’m sure most journals would not touch it with a 10 foot pole and an 11 foot extension, but here at Beyond Highbrow, frankly Margaret, we don’t give a damn.

I went on the Net and cruised around to various forums where young teenage girls were discussing this very subject. The girls were asking each other at what age various sexually related events had taken place. It was often in the form of a quiz. I am sure all these girls are pedophiles for talking about this topic. Please call the police.

I went through enough posts to where I had a sample size of ~100, which ought to be good enough.

Results for Age of Puberty in Girls in the US, 2013-2016

Onset of pubic hair: Age 12.

Well, who needs that anymore anyway! Nevertheless, nature continues to at least provide us with something to be shaven off, though we men who came of age in the bushwhacking 1970’s and 1980’s have never understood this obsession of women to look like little girls. It feels almost creepy and pedo to us. We older men are used to hiking in the deep forests, not the barren deserts.

This answer was quite unanimous. Almost all girls reported onset of pubic hair at age 12. I did not think that the female sex drive came on with pubic hair onset. Instead, sex drive onset seemed to come on one year later at age ~13. Pubic hair if not shaved off takes about two years to reach its maximum growth, so adult-like pubic hair should be apparently in girls by age 14. At first it is rather sparse, but in no time at all there is a mountain or mons of thick chaparral down there.

Onset of breasts: Apparently age 10.

This was never asked, but it is generally about two years before the onset of pubic hair, so the answer must be age 10. I do not think that girls with breast onset necessarily have much of a sex drive. We have a few around the complex here. The 10 and 11 year olds are just little girls with no drive at all, and the 12 year olds, now quite shy and suspicious of men, don’t seem to have much of one either.

Age at first masturbation: Age 13, a few at age 12 and a couple at age 14.

Girls nowadays are quite different than from when I was growing up when female masturbation was a shameful and often-denied activity. I was absolutely stunned to find out that most of the girls on the boards not only started masturbating at age 13, but they also quickly figured out how to have an orgasm. If you know women, you know once they figure out how to get that orgasm, most are addicted for life. Most women I date masturbate regularly, often every single day. And this goes form age 18 all the way up to age 50 – they keep rubbing and rocking the whole way. Most modern American women figure that if there’s no man around, you let your fingers do the walking. I guess that reward is just too tempting to pass up.

Even more stunning was my discovery that not only were almost all 13 year old girls masturbating but they had taken it up with a shocking gusto. Most of the 13 years on those boards were masturbating to orgasm every day. A few several times a week. A few “any chance I get” or “whenever I can.”

So your average 13 year old girl in the US in this era is masturbating to orgasm every day or nearly every day.

I don’t know about you, but I find that finding shocking.

Onset of the sex drive:

Age 13. This was not discussed, but if girls go from masturbating to orgasm zero times a year to 365 times a year, there’s some explaining to do. The onset of frenetic masturbation nowadays seems logically to be the onset of the sex drive in American females.

Onset of menstruation or menarche: Apparently age 13.

This was not discussed for some reason but face it it’s not the most pleasant topic. I have known quite a few women who dread this time of the month and would be glad to get rid of the whole process. Onset of menarche is usually about 1-2 years after the onset of pubic hair. With pubic hair onset at age 12 nowadays and the explosive sex drive coming merely one year later, it is logical to assume that the onset of the female sex drive and menarche are pretty much the same thing.

That makes sense. Menarche means the female is ready to have babies. 13 is quite a bit too young for that, but Nature has other ideas. Babies are created not by storks but by sexual intercourse or penis in vagina (PIV) sex. If the body is ready to make babies, you would think that the body would turn on the baby making process and the act that leads to it at pretty much the same time, no?

It is interesting but rather disturbing that there is almost no research or even talk about this sort of thing on the Net. I guess Onset of the Female Sex Drive in Modern American Females just sounds way too pedo and creepy for most folks. But it’s a legitimate question, as all medical questions are. We all live in our bodies (some of us regretfully) so it’s perfectly legitimate to find out how our bodies work. We reside here temporarily in something called a lifespan, so it’s rational to learn about the body changes that occur in that time frame, including the development ones before we mature.

1 Comment

Filed under Biology, Gender Studies, Girls, Health, Heterosexuality, Medicine, North America, Regional, Science, Sex, USA

Repost: Historical Linguistics Mired in Stick in the Mud Conservatism

I have some folks in the field of Linguistics who are apparently my out and out enemies. Why they want to play like this is not known. I don’t want to fight with them. I’m not sure I want to be friends with them either since they are such total pricks and anonymous cowards, but jerks are better than enemies. They started it.

Here they profess to take this paper apart, but they do no such thing which is as usual for these pitiful jokers. Even the title is false. I’m not a STEMLord you boneheads. I’m  terrible at physical sciences. I got my degree in the same hokey social science that they did.

I am simply a social sciences dissident like Steven Pinker. Many of our fields are mired in all sorts of unproven or out and out false politically correct nonsense which passes as dogma simply because it is a political proper belief. This is because they believe what they want to believe. On the other hand, they get social science nihilistic on other things and insist that this or that is not proven, endlessly moving goalposts so it can never be proven. Or they state that many things are unprovable and unmeasurable. I can’t even begin to list the number of things in this field that are apparently unmeasurable. It’s hard to imagine that there is any question in science that is unprovable or unmeasurable. It just sounds like more goalposts-moving.

Historical Linguistics is one of the more brutal subfields in Linguistics, probably because you can hardly prove much of anything.

It involves looking at languages and arranging them into families and then arranging them in the families in a proper fashion. So an essential aspect of Historical Linguistics is the discovery of new language families and the elaboration of existing ones. The former is pretty much over in this field because this silly discipline has decided that there will be no more large or old language families discovered. Nonsensically, this has resulted in an utterly idiotic proliferation of insipid “isolates” which are languages that cannot be proven to be related to others. But actually, long-rangers have already stacked most all of the world’s languages into decent families and in their view there are no isolates left.

In addition, there are all sorts of idiotic small families with a couple to separate members, and said family is not related to anything else. I guess nothing’s related to anything then! The bizarre fact is that this preposterous fake science takes great pride in this silly nihilism. Obviously every language is related to every other language ultimately because surely language arose only once in mankind’s history.

Nevertheless, Linguistics insists that this obvious fact is not proven, so I guess it’s not even a fact. Instead the dead solid truth is that somehow there scores of isolates and silly small language families that have no relations. Surely that is a false conclusion. The only way it could be true is if language arose scores of times all the way down to a few thousand years ago.

There were scores of bands of humans who had no language whatsoever except grunts and sign language, and they all independently developed language scores of times in the last ~50,000 years. It was an incredible case of parallel development, the most amazing the world has ever seen. Because this is the only  way that Linguistics’ crazy conclusion could be true. So Linguistics is now stating essentially is that this is what happened – language being independently developed all over the world down to the last several thousand years. Dumb, huh?

Historical Linguistics also involves the reconstruction of dead languages or earlier aspects of existing languages. The dead languages have left no record and are often 7-10,000 years old. The earlier phases of existing tongues also have often left no record.

So it is unprovable guesswork guessing at what ancient languages looked like, with no real way to prove if anyone is right or wrong because the languages no longer exist.

On top of that, the field has become mired in stick in the mud conservatism such that I doubt if any new ancient language families are going to proven in my lifetime. The conservatives keep moving the goalposts, and no evidence is ever good enough. Linguistics is ecstatic about this because endlessly moving the goalposts so you can never prove anything anymore means that Linguistics is now really groovy and scientific and this cures their physics envy.

Really it’s just another fake science in the social sciences, although a lot of the more basic work is indeed factually and empirically based. So the field encompasses a lot of excellent empirical based work. In addition, there are a number of preposterous leftwing shibboleths that everyone in the field has agreed are settled truth. Linguistics has adopted these silly ideas because they are leftwing and PC, and the field is at the heart of SJW Central Command. Mixed in with these silly politically based agreed upon facts (for which there is typically no evidence whatsoever) there is this prideful stubbornness and ultra-conservative attitude in Historical Linguistics because the way to be all sciency is to deny forever more any new language families. Because that cures our physics envy and makes us feel all sciency.

Actually many of the long-rangers have gathered excellent evidence for their work, all of which is rejected. For instance, Altaic now has a 1,000 page etymological dictionary of all things and there are many reconstructed forms and a great deal of commonality in basic morphology, core vocabulary, pronouns and language structure. We also have quite a few actual paradigms which are impossible to derive in unrelated languages. The long-rangers churn out many papers and here is where the real science is. They are doing dramatic work and proving  a lot of new things.

On the other hand, the fake science folks on the other end chant over and over in Gregorian fashion, “You didn’t prove it. You didn’t prove it. You didn’t prove it.” No matter what evidence is assembled and presented, the response is always this autistic nihilism of “You didn’t prove it.” The arguments of many of the deniers have been destroyed already. The deniers now take the preposterous position that there has been mass borrowing of personal pronouns in Asia and the Americas in particular. Such mass borrowing of personal pronouns would have had to have taken place on a scale almost never seen on Earth. In fact, personal pronouns are borrowed only very rarely. In Altaic we have pronoun paradigms cascading down through person and number, all lined up like the Marines in perfect formation.

This is waved away with “You didn’t prove it.” In fact, the standard line in Linguistics as voiced with complete seriousness by one of the top linguists in the field is that the stunning pronoun paradigms in Altaic were all borrowings. That statement is insipid on its face. It doesn’t even qualify as theory because it’s not even possible. They might as well say, “Bats flew out my butt” as there  was mass borrowing of entire pronoun paradigms.

In addition, Altaic has a huge amount of core vocabulary in common including forms that match in say Turkish and say Evenki. Apparently the Evenki and the Ottomans borrowed from each other. How? Bats flew out my butt.

Typically and for many decades now, all of these cognates in core vocabulary are said to be borrowings. There are specialists who spent most of their careers ferreting out these “borrowings” most of which are actual cognates. These men frittered away a lot of their careers on a theory that is obviously false. For the only way Altaic could not be true is if this vast amount of borrowing actually took place. The level of borrowing of core vocabulary postulated for Altaic is on a scale that is far beyond the language borrowing we have seen anywhere else on Earth. In other words, it didn’t happen. Bats flew out my butt. Once again it fails even the hypothesis stage because hypotheses are supposed to be plausible and anti-Altaic fails that those grounds alone.

Being a Historical Linguistics conservative is the hip and cool thing to be in Linguistics, and the peer pressure in the field is worse than an eighth grade playground. If you take a liberal position that says that some ancient language family like Altaic exists, the peer pressure on you as a fraud, idiot, kook, crank and loser is unbelievable. I am amazed that there are any liberals left promoting daring new ideas on ancient language families.

Leave a comment

Filed under Altaic, Cultural Marxists, Isolates, Language Families, Left, Linguistics, Politics, Ridiculousness, Scholarship, Science

Is Psychiatry a Pseudoscience?

Vancouver! Vancouver! This is it!: I think Mr Lindsay would do well to read Crazy Like Us if he hasn’t already.

Is psychiatry a pseudoscience?

Yes and no. That is, the phenomena of mental illness are genuine, but their investigation is sorely lacking in rigor. This added to the fact that psychiatry is a business in the US and the Anglosphere more generally results in huge over-diagnosis, pathologizing difference, etc., and children are the easiest marks for this con.

As someone who works with people who have actual diagnosed DSM disorders on a regular basis, I definitely think that a lot of these things are real, and they are indeed disorders. We actually try very hard not to pathologize anything that could remotely be seen as normal conduct, and we cast a wide net for that phrase.

The people I deal with have Axis 1 disorders, and they are suffering from the most incredible pain and misery. Many of them are almost literally living in Hell. I lost one client to suicide. Further, the disorder often makes it very hard for them to function well in society. It’s not uncommon that I have clients who have been hospitalized, sometimes on multiple occasions.

Axis 2 is real too. Those are real disorders. I have known some people on Axis 2 (personality disorders), and trust me, they are not normal in any way, shape or form. Mostly they are making other people miserable, but the disorder is usually screwing up their own life in a big way too.

As far as psychiatry being a pseudoscience, well, I get people who are misdiagnosed all the time. I’m not allowed to give legal DSM diagnoses, but I tell them my opinion on what they have and how they are misdiagnosed. Often I get people diagnosed psychotic who are not psychotic at all.

Some of them are pretty crazy, but just because you feel really nuts does not mean you are psychotic. Psychosis is a loss of touch with reality. If you are not out of touch with reality, you are not psychotic. Psychosis is grossly misdiagnosed in the US. If you feel really crazy, you get diagnosed “psychotic.” It is just the field’s way of saying “this person is seriously crazy.” But seriously crazy is not the same thing as psychotic. You would not believe how nuts people can feel without being psychotic. Your world can get seriously weirded out when you are not even psychotic at all.

I also get people who are mis-prescribed all the time. Psychiatrists hand this stuff out like candy and they severely play down the side effects.

In short, yes it’s a real science, but we don’t have formal tests like lab tests or X-rays to actually make a perfect diagnosis. So we have to go on symptoms, and it can be quite hard to diagnose a mentally ill person correctly. I have dealt with people who had been diagnosed with 10-15 different disorders. There was no way that they currently had all of those conditions when I spoke to them. This person was extremely ill though, I would agree with that. Unbelievably ill.

19 Comments

Filed under Health, Medicine, Mental Illness, Personality Disorders, Psychology, Psychopathology, Psychotherapy, Psychotic Disorders, Science

Can Gay Men Still Be Attracted to Women in Some Sort of Way?

I smash one more insane Cultural Left lie below.

The Cultural Left regularly states as one of its theorems that most if not all gay men get turned on by females on a regular basis. Why the Cultural Left wants to insist on this nonsense, I have no idea.

In general, the Cultural Left hates “generalizations.” They don’t want any laws or rules about anything. Or corollaries or theorems. Or well-supported conclusions. It’s scientific nihilism all the way.

We cannot “generalize” (which means form a conclusion by testing a hypothesis against the collected data) about anything on Earth. Nothing means anything. Or everything means nothing. Or nothing means everything. Or everything means everything. Or everything means anything. Or something. Or something. Or whatever. Or mumbo jumbo. Or bullshit.

Oh, and no labels! The Cultural Left hates labels because labels imply definitions and in the wild and woolly bonkers world of the insipid Cultural Left, definitions are generalizations, and generalized conclusions are bigotry. All generalizations are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, looksist, speciesist or just some generalized form of oppression by the dominant paradigm of whatever the beaten down subaltern of the day is.

If you notice, the asinine scientific nihilism of the Cultural Left is straight out of the social sciences, where notoriously nothing can ever be proven except whatever silly PC theory the social scientist wants to prove, typically with no evidence, while the obvious common sense wisdom of ages is all “scientifically disproven” by a bunch of fake social science studies and is at any rate waved away as racism, sexism, fat-shaming, slut-shaming, homophobia, transphobia or whatever whatever bla bla. Oppression Olympics.

My answer to this question on Quora:

Newsflash: Gay men don’t get turned on by women! Isn’t that shocking?
Most of the gay men posting below are simply lying. Endless studies in the lab have shown that the typical gay men reacts in the following way:

maximal attraction to males

minimal attraction to females

In fact, this is one of the most robust findings in social science! They’ve tested it so many times that no one wants to test it anymore because everyone knows how it comes out.

To put it another way, how many straight men are turned on by men? Most of them are not, and even those that are have quite low levels of attraction to men.
Hard bisexual men are not common. Most men lean hard one way or the other. Most bisexual men lean straight and usually hard straight. A much smaller percentage of bisexual men lean gay ,and many of those lean hard gay. Fully 87% of men with a bisexual orientation in the lab lean straight. The other 13% lean gay and those vary 2/3 leaning hard gay and 1/3 being significantly bisexual.

I have not the faintest idea why all these gay men below are falling all over themselves to lie that they get hard for women on any regular basis.

Is there some sort of shame in not being turned on by women? So you’re not turned on by women? So what? Or as I would say, lucky you, now you don’t have to be driven insane by them like we are!

If you asked a group of straight men on here if we ever get turned on by men, would they be falling all over each other to deliriously confess how they regularly get hard for Brad Pitt? These gay men trying to desperately to prove that they get hard for women strike me as self-haters. The implication being that a man who cannot get turned on by women is defective somehow. Sad.

I work as a psychological counselor. In the course of my counseling, I have many people who come in with problems that involve sexuality in some way. In these cases, I do a sexual orientation assessment of my male clients. Contrary to the nonsense you are reading below about “don’t believe in labels,” the truth is that labels are completely appropriate for men when it comes to sexual orientation.

That is because by no later than age 15, it has been proven in the lab that male sexual orientation is completely fixed. Not only can gay men not be turned straight (as proven endlessly in the lab), but, even more pessimistically than that, gay men cannot even be moved anywhere towards straight on the orientation scale. A 0-100 gay man cannot even become 10-90. A 20-80 gay man cannot become even a 30-70.

There is no data on whether straight men can turn gay, but if it works one way, it must work the other. In fact, there is one intriguing case in the literature of a miserable and hopelessly heterosexual male college student who hated women and desperately wanted to be gay. He spent most of his time hanging around gay men trying to turn gay. He told the clinician that he had tried everything he could think of to turn gay, and nothing had worked.

We men are simply up the creek as far as our orientation goes. We are whatever we got wired up to be, and that’s that.

The sexual orientation assessment simply assesses what the man was turned on by as a child and then up until age 15, as I don’t care what happened after that, as nothing could have happened anyway. All gay men told me that they were strongly attracted to males from puberty on, and some told me that they were into males even as early as childhood. Most of them reported no attraction to females during childhood, puberty and adolescence.

So far, all of my gay male clients have told me that in general:

  • They rarely look at women and check them out sexually, in most cases never do so. They’re checking out the guys, all guys, all the time.
  • Even more importantly, they never fantasize about sex with women. Like never, ever. All men, all the time.
  • Perhaps most importantly of all, they never think about women when they masturbate. Not even once, ever. It’s all men, all the time.

I have not yet had one gay man in my practice who had any significant attraction to women. Now that’s anecdotal, not scientific, but it ought to tell you something.

Some of the men above who showed no significant reaction to women had identified as 25-75 bisexuals to me on my scale, which is reasonably bisexual. A 25-75 man is maximally attracted to males and attracted to females at only half that rate. However, my 25-75’s practically speaking had no real attraction to women at all. So you see gay men often identify themselves as much more bisexual than they are.

Furthermore, in interviews with women married to closeted gay men, the wives say that their husbands displayed no interest at all in their bodies, even when they were naked. The husbands were often fascinated with male bodies, some claiming to be sports fans and collecting bodybuilder or other magazines that showcase jacked handsome men. They report that their husbands showed a particular aversion to cunnilingus.

The husbands often preferred sex from the rear position, and some liked anal sex a bit too much, if you catch my drift. Others reported that the husband showed little or no interest in sex. Reports of longterm impotence among closeted gay husbands are common. Girlfriends have told me that they have disrobed partially or fully in front of gay or suspected gay men, and the gay men did not look at them for one second and even acted like nothing in the room had changed!

This has actually been born out in the lab, as until recently all studies of so called “bisexual” men found that they tested in the lab exactly the same way as gay men:

  • maximally to men
  • minimally to women

The researchers concluded that “bisexual” men were simply gay men who cannot accept being gay due to stigma or prejudice, so they identify as bisexual because that is more acceptable to society.

This scenario continues to this day, as males in their late teens on through their 20’s identify at fairly high rates as “bisexual.” A common scenario is young men in their 20’s identifying as “bisexual” while they have wives or girlfriends. Yet these men spend most of their free time in gay bars and clubs. If you follow these men to age 30, you will find out that nearly of them have come fully out as gay by then. It simply took them all through their 20’s to accept that they were gay. Sad.

However a study was recently reported where researchers found a group of “bisexual” men who were actually bisexual in that they reacted significantly to both men and women in the lab. So it appears that they do exist. However, pure bisexual men or 50-50’s seem to be quite rare. Surveys show that only 1% of men can be classified this way.

Men are leaners. We either lean straight or we lean gay, often pretty hard one way or the other. This is even true of bisexual men. I do not know why this is, but that is what the research shows us.

6 Comments

Filed under Cultural Marxists, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Left, Man World, Psychology, Psychotherapy, Science, Scum, Sex

Can Gay Men Still Be Attracted to Women in Some Sort of Way?

I smash one more insane Cultural Left lie below.

The Cultural Left regularly states as one of its theorems that most if not all gay men get turned on by females on a regular basis. Why the Cultural Left wants to insist on this nonsense, I have no idea.

In general, the Cultural Left hates “generalizations.” They don’t want any laws or rules about anything. Or corollaries or theorems. Or well-supported conclusions. It’s scientific nihilism all the way.

We cannot “generalize” (which means form a conclusion by testing a hypothesis against the collected data) about anything on Earth. Nothing means anything. Or everything means nothing. Or nothing means everything. Or everything means everything. Or everything means anything. Or something. Or something. Or whatever. Or mumbo jumbo. Or bullshit.

Oh, and no labels! The Cultural Left hates labels because labels imply definitions and in the wild and woolly bonkers world of the insipid Cultural Left, definitions are generalizations, and generalized conclusions are bigotry. All generalizations are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, looksist, speciesist or just some generalized form of oppression by the dominant paradigm of whatever the beaten down subaltern of the day is.

If you notice, the asinine scientific nihilism of the Cultural Left is straight out of the social sciences, where notoriously nothing can ever be proven except whatever silly PC theory the social scientist wants to prove, typically with no evidence, while the obvious common sense wisdom of ages is all “scientifically disproven” by a bunch of fake social science studies and is at any rate waved away as racism, sexism, fat-shaming, slut-shaming, homophobia, transphobia or whatever whatever bla bla. Oppression Olympics.

My answer to this question on Quora:

Newsflash: Gay men don’t get turned on by women! Isn’t that shocking?
Most of the gay men posting below are simply lying. Endless studies in the lab have shown that the typical gay men reacts in the following way:

maximal attraction to males

minimal attraction to females

In fact, this is one of the most robust findings in social science! They’ve tested it so many times that no one wants to test it anymore because everyone knows how it comes out.

To put it another way, how many straight men are turned on by men? Most of them are not, and even those that are have quite low levels of attraction to men.
Hard bisexual men are not common. Most men lean hard one way or the other. Most bisexual men lean straight and usually hard straight. A much smaller percentage of bisexual men lean gay ,and many of those lean hard gay. Fully 87% of men with a bisexual orientation in the lab lean straight. The other 13% lean gay and those vary 2/3 leaning hard gay and 1/3 being significantly bisexual.

I have not the faintest idea why all these gay men below are falling all over themselves to lie that they get hard for women on any regular basis.

Is there some sort of shame in not being turned on by women? So you’re not turned on by women? So what? Or as I would say, lucky you, now you don’t have to be driven insane by them like we are!

If you asked a group of straight men on here if we ever get turned on by men, would they be falling all over each other to deliriously confess how they regularly get hard for Brad Pitt? These gay men trying to desperately to prove that they get hard for women strike me as self-haters. The implication being that a man who cannot get turned on by women is defective somehow. Sad.

I work as a psychological counselor. In the course of my counseling, I have many people who come in with problems that involve sexuality in some way. In these cases, I do a sexual orientation assessment of my male clients. Contrary to the nonsense you are reading below about “don’t believe in labels,” the truth is that labels are completely appropriate for men when it comes to sexual orientation.

That is because by no later than age 15, it has been proven in the lab that male sexual orientation is completely fixed. Not only can gay men not be turned straight (as proven endlessly in the lab), but, even more pessimistically than that, gay men cannot even be moved anywhere towards straight on the orientation scale. A 0-100 gay man cannot even become 10-90. A 20-80 gay man cannot become even a 30-70.

There is no data on whether straight men can turn gay, but if it works one way, it must work the other. In fact, there is one intriguing case in the literature of a miserable and hopelessly heterosexual male college student who hated women and desperately wanted to be gay. He spent most of his time hanging around gay men trying to turn gay. He told the clinician that he had tried everything he could think of to turn gay, and nothing had worked.

We men are simply up the creek as far as our orientation goes. We are whatever we got wired up to be, and that’s that.

The sexual orientation assessment simply assesses what the man was turned on by as a child and then up until age 15, as I don’t care what happened after that, as nothing could have happened anyway. All gay men told me that they were strongly attracted to males from puberty on, and some told me that they were into males even as early as childhood. Most of them reported no attraction to females during childhood, puberty and adolescence.

So far, all of my gay male clients have told me that in general:

  • They rarely look at women and check them out sexually, in most cases never do so. They’re checking out the guys, all guys, all the time.
  • Even more importantly, they never fantasize about sex with women. Like never, ever. All men, all the time.
  • Perhaps most importantly of all, they never think about women when they masturbate. Not even once, ever. It’s all men, all the time.

I have not yet had one gay man in my practice who had any significant attraction to women. Now that’s anecdotal, not scientific, but it ought to tell you something.

Some of the men above who showed no significant reaction to women had identified as 25-75 bisexuals to me on my scale, which is reasonably bisexual. A 25-75 man is maximally attracted to males and attracted to females at only half that rate. However, my 25-75’s practically speaking had no real attraction to women at all. So you see gay men often identify themselves as much more bisexual than they are.

Furthermore, in interviews with women married to closeted gay men, the wives say that their husbands displayed no interest at all in their bodies, even when they were naked. The husbands were often fascinated with male bodies, some claiming to be sports fans and collecting bodybuilder or other magazines that showcase jacked handsome men. They report that their husbands showed a particular aversion to cunnilingus.

The husbands often preferred sex from the rear position, and some liked anal sex a bit too much, if you catch my drift. Others reported that the husband showed little or no interest in sex. Reports of longterm impotence among closeted gay husbands are common. Girlfriends have told me that they have disrobed partially or fully in front of gay or suspected gay men, and the gay men did not look at them for one second and even acted like nothing in the room had changed!

This has actually been born out in the lab, as until recently all studies of so called “bisexual” men found that they tested in the lab exactly the same way as gay men:

  • maximally to men
  • minimally to women

The researchers concluded that “bisexual” men were simply gay men who cannot accept being gay due to stigma or prejudice, so they identify as bisexual because that is more acceptable to society.

This scenario continues to this day, as males in their late teens on through their 20’s identify at fairly high rates as “bisexual.” A common scenario is young men in their 20’s identifying as “bisexual” while they have wives or girlfriends. Yet these men spend most of their free time in gay bars and clubs. If you follow these men to age 30, you will find out that nearly of them have come fully out as gay by then. It simply took them all through their 20’s to accept that they were gay. Sad.

However a study was recently reported where researchers found a group of “bisexual” men who were actually bisexual in that they reacted significantly to both men and women in the lab. So it appears that they do exist. However, pure bisexual men or 50-50’s seem to be quite rare. Surveys show that only 1% of men can be classified this way.

Men are leaners. We either lean straight or we lean gay, often pretty hard one way or the other. This is even true of bisexual men. I do not know why this is, but that is what the research shows us.

2 Comments

Filed under Cultural Marxists, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Left, Man World, Psychology, Psychotherapy, Ridiculousness, Science, Scum, Sex

Simplification of Language with Increasing Civilization: A Result of Contact or Civilization Itself

Nice little comment here on an old post, Primitive People Have Primitive Languages and Other Nonsense? 

I would like to dedicate this post to my moronic field of study itself, Linguistics, which believes in many a silly thing as consensus that have never been proved and are either untrue or probably untrue.

One of the idiocies of my field is this belief that in some way or another, most human languages are pretty much the same. They believe that no language is inherently better or worse than any other language, which itself is quite a dubious proposition right there.

They also believe, incredibly, that no language is more complex or simple than any other language. Idiocy!

Another core belief is that each language is perfectly adapted for its speakers. This leads to their rejecting claims that some languages are unsuitable for the modern world due to lack of modern vocabulary. This common belief of many minority languages is obviously true. Drop a Papuan in Manhattan, and see what good his Torricelli tongue does him. He won’t have words for most of the things around him. He won’t even have verbs for most of the actions he sees around him. His language is nearly useless in this environment.

My field also despises notions that some languages are better suited to poetry, literature or say philosophy than others or that some languages are more or less concise or exact than others or that certain concepts or ways of thinking are better expressed in one language as opposed to another. However, this is a common belief among polyglots, and I would not be surprised if it was true.

The question we are dealing with below is based on the notion that many primitive languages are exceeding complex and the common sense observation that as languages acquire more speakers and civilization increases, one tends to see a simplification of language.

My field out and out rejects both statements.

They will tell you that primitive languages are no more complex than more civilized tongues and that there is no truth to the statement that languages simplify with greater numbers of speakers and increased civilization. However, I have shot these two rejected notions to many non-linguists, and they all felt that these statements had truth to them. Once again, my field violates common sense in the name of the abstract and abstruse “we can’t prove anything about anything” scientific nihilism so common in the intellectually degraded social sciences.

Indeed, some of the most wildly complex languages of all can be found among rather primitive peoples such as Aborigines, Papuans, Amerindians and even Africans. Most language isolates like Ket, Burashaski and Basque are pretty wild. The languages of the Caucasus are insanely complex, and that region doesn’t exactly look like Manhattan. Siberian languages are often maddeningly complex.

Even in China, in the remoter parts of China, language becomes highly differentiated and probably more complex. I know an American who was able to learn Cantonese and Mandarin who told me that at age 35, for an American to learn Hokkien was virtually impossible. He tried various schemes, but they all failed. He finally started to get a hold of the language with a strict eight hour a day study schedule. Anything less resulted in failure. Hokkien speakers that he spoke too said you needed to grow up speaking Hokkien to be able to speak the language well at all. By the way, this is another common sense notion that linguists reject. They say there are no languages so difficult that it is very hard to pick them up unless you grew up with them.

The implication here is that Min Nan is even more complex than the difficult Mandarin or even the forbidding Cantonese, which even many Mandarin speakers give up trying to learn because it is too hard.

Min Nan comes out Fujian Province, a land of forbiddingly high mountains where language differentiation is very high, and there is often difficult intelligibility even from village to village. In one area, fifteen years ago an American researcher decided to walk to a nearby village. It took him six very difficult hours over steep mountains. He could have taken the bus, but that was a four-day trip! A number of these areas had no vehicle roads until recently and others were crossed by vast rivers that had no bridges across them. Transportation was via foot. Obviously civilization in these parts of China is at a more primitive level, and it’s hard to develop Hong Kong-style cities in places with such isolating and rugged terrain.

It’s more like, “Oh, those people on the other side of the ridge? We never go there, but we heard that their language is a lot different from ours. It’s too hard to go over that range so we never go to that area.”

In the post, I theorized that as civilization increased, time becomes money, and there is a need to get one’s point across quickly, whereas more primitive peoples often spend no more than 3-4 hours a day working and the rest sitting around, playing  and relaxing. A former Linguistics professor told me that one theory is that primitive people, being highly intelligent humans (all humans are highly intelligent by default), are bored by their primitive lives, so they enjoy their wildly complex languages and like to relax, hang out and play language games with them to test each other on how well they know the structures. They also like to play tricky and maybe humorous language games with their complicated languages. In other words, these languages are a source of intellectual stimulation and entertainment in an intellectually impoverished area.

Of course, my field rejects this theory as laughably ridiculous, but no one has disproven it yet, and I doubt if the hypothesis has even been tested, hence it is an open question. My field even tends to reject the notion of open questions, preferring instead to say that anything not proven (or even tested for that matter) is demonstrably false. That’s completely anti-scientific, but that’s the trend nowadays across the board as scientistic thinking replaces scientific thinking.

Of course this is in line with the terrible conservative or reactionary trend in science where Science is promoted to a fundamentalist religion and scientists decide that various things are simply proven true or proven not true and attempts to change the consensus paradigm are regarded derisively or with out and out fury and rage and such attempts are rejected via endless moving of goalposts with the goal of making it never possible to prove the hypothesis. If you want to see an example of this in Linguistics, look at the debate around  Altaic. They have set it up so that no matter how much existing evidence we are able to gather for the theory, we will probably never be able to prove it as barriers to proof have been set up to make the question nearly unprovable.

It’s rather senseless to set up Great Wall of China-like barriers to proof in science because at some point,  you are hardly proving anything new, apparently because you don’t want to.

Fringe science is one of the most hated branches of science and many scientists refer to it as pseudoscience. Practitioners of fringe science have a very difficult time as the Scientific Establishment often persecutes them, for instance trying to get them fired from professorships. Yet this Establishment is historically illiterate because many of the most stunning findings in history were made by widely ridiculed fringe scientists.

The commenter below rejects my theory that increased civilization itself results in language simplification, as it gets more important to get your point across as quickly  as possible with increasing complexity and development of society. Instead he says civilization leads to increased contact between speakers of different dialects or language, and in such cases,  language must be simplified, often dramatically, in order for any decent communication to occur. Hence increased contact, not civilization in and of itself, is the driver of simplification.

I like this theory, and I think he may be onto something.

To me the simplification of languages of more ‘civilized’ people is mostly a product of language contact rather than of civilization itself. If the need arises to communicate with foreign people all of the time, for example in trade, then the language must become more simple in order to be able to be understood by more people.

Also population size matters a lot. It has been found that the greater the number of speakers, the greater the rate of language change. For example Polynesian languages, although having been isolated centuries or even millennia ago, still have only minor differences from one another.

In the case of many speakers, not all will be able to learn all the rules of a language, so they will tend to use the most common ones. And if the language is split in many dialects, then speakers of each dialect must find a compromise in order to communicate, which might come out as simple. If we add sociolects, specific registers for some occasions, sacred registers, slang etc, something that will arise in a big and stratified civilization, then the linguistic barriers people will need to overcome become greater. So it is just normal that after some centuries, this system to simplify.

We don’t need to look farther than Europe. Most languages of the western half being spoken in countries with strong trade links to one another and with much of the world later in history are quite analytic, but the languages of the more isolated eastern part are still like the older Indo-European languages. Basques, living in a small isolated pocket in the Iberian Peninsula, have kept a very complex language. Icelanders, also due to isolation, have kept a quite conservative Germanic language, whereas most modern Germanic languages are ridiculously simplified. No one can argue in his sane mind that Icelanders are primitives.

On the other hand, Romanian, being spoken in the more isolated Balkans, has retained more of the complex morphology of Latin compared to West Romance languages. And of course advance of civilization won’t automatically simplify the language, as Turkish and Russian, both quite complicated languages compared to the average European tongue, don’t seem to give up their complexity nowadays.

On the other hand, indigenous people were living in a much more isolated setting compared to the modern world, the number of speakers was comparatively low, and there was no need to change. Also, neighboring tribes were often hostile to one another, so each tribal group sought to make itself look special. That is the reason why places with much inter-tribal warfare like New Guinea have so many languages which are so different from one another. When these languages need to communicate, we get ridiculously simple contact languages like Hiri Motu.
So language simplification is more a result of language contact rather than civilization itself.

7 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Altaic, Amerindians, Anthropology, Applied, Asia, Basque, Cantonese, Caucasus, China, Chinese language, Cultural, Dialectology, Europe, Germanic, Indo-European, Isolates, Language Families, Language Learning, Linguistics, Mandarin, Min Nan, Near East, Papuans, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Russian, Science, Siberian, Sinitic, Sino-Tibetan, Sociolinguistics, Turkic, Turkish

The Strange Case of Magic Johnson’s HIV Infection

Gondwanan: But what explains Magic Johnson?

People have been wondering about that forever.

Not one of the many (1,100) women Magic had sex with has ever been known to have HIV. The woman who supposedly gave him the HIV has never been identified. It is quite a mysterious case. There were rumors that Magic was bisexual for some time before he came down with HIV. Yes, Magic was having sex with all sorts of call girls and sports groupies, but so were many of the big stars in LA in sports and entertainment. People discussing his case often note this. “Even though so many other men were doing exactly the same thing that Magic was doing with women, only Magic got HIV,” they note, leaving the implication up in the air. “Now why is that?” they ask. Rumors continue that he got it from a man.

On the other hand, Magic’s case is said to be so mild that even after all these years, he has not yet started on HIV drugs, and this is said to be compatible with his having gotten it from a woman because it is thought that female-male HIV transmission is so difficult that even when it does occur, the mode is so inefficient that the man only gets a weak dose of HIV.

People do not understand viruses. It’s all about viral load. You can be exposed to HIV and not get it, and in fact this happens all the time. If the titers are low, it simply will not transmit. This is the case in saliva. Yes there is HIV in saliva, but the titers are 99% lower than in semen or blood, so it is effectively impossible to transmit it.

There is also some new thinking that female-male HIV transmission is so weak that the man may require multiple dosings over a period of time in order to come down with HIV. In other words, he could get a bit of HIV each time he has sex with her possibly via vaginal fluids, but the titers are too low to infect at each time. However, with repeated dosings of low HIV-titer body fluid, perhaps a high enough level is built up that a threshold occurs beyond which infection can occur. But in this case, the mode was so inefficient and even the contracting dose or doses so weak that the theory is that the man may only get a weak HIV case.

And yes, your HIV case does depend on your viral load. With a low enough load, one may have only mild symptoms and may survive for decades, but with a high enough load via a very effective mode of transmission, HIV can kill you very rapidly, even within a year. Such cases continue to occur. Many such cases occurred in the gay porn industry and continue to occur to this day, especially among the “bareback” stars. HIV is so prevalent in the gay porn industry that I am not even sure that they test for it, and they let a lot of HIV-positive actors work anyway. Apparently if you fired all the HIV-positive gay porn stars or required only HIV-negative gay men to work in gay porn, you would not have much of a gay porn industry anymore.

25 Comments

Filed under Biology, Celebrities, Health, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Illness, Pornography, Public Health, Science, Sex, Sports