Category Archives: Biology

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.


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

Risks of Insertive Anal Sex

erikthered: Is anal with a woman safer than with a man?

You mean penetrating? I guess you mean being the penetrator and not the one being penetrated. Insertive anal sex is as risky with a man as with a woman, but no one quite knows even how risky insertive anal sex is anyway. Figures coming out of the gay community show that it does carry some risk, but it is far less risky than receptive anal sex. A friend of mine knows a gay man who says he did some research and now he has lots of gay sex with lots of men and he hasn’t gotten HIV yet. He said he only tops, and he never bottoms. He’s topped hundreds of gay men this way in recent years. Surely some of them were HIV positive.

There is at least one case in the porn world of a straight actor who got HIV from insertive sex on a porn set with some transsexual person or pre-op tranny or whatever the Hell it was. The actor got HIV from insertive anal with him/her/whatever.

There is another guy in porn who says he got it from a woman, but he doesn’t say how he got it.

Men are at risk of female-male HIV transmission in cases of penile and vaginal bleeding. The Padian Study in 1989 followed a number of HIV-serodiscordant heterosexual couples in which either the male or the female was HIV positive. Over a five year period through ~700 sex acts, 20% of the men had gotten HIV from their wives. This means that a man would have to have sex with an HIV positive woman 2,800 times in order to get HIV. Even after a man has sex with an HIV positive woman 40 times, he still only has a 1% chance of getting HIV. You have a 99% chance of not getting HIV even after having sex with an HIV positive woman 40 times for God’s sake!

In the Padian Study, female-male HIV transmission was highly correlated with episodes of vaginal and penile bleeding. Therefore it appears that the presence of blood during the sex act appears important in female-male HIV transmission. This makes sense as HIV is a blood-borne illness. Most people tend to forget that. Semen is only so transmissible because it is full of blood (little known fact).

I have studied titer levels needed to transmit HIV, and looking at HIV titers of HIV positive women in the US, I am a bit baffled at how it even transmits because the levels seem to low to transmit.

Vaginal titers are quite a  bit higher in HIV positive prostitutes in Thailand and this makes sense as female-male transmission is happening a lot more over there. But even in Thailand, most female-male HIV transmission was found to be occurring due to vaginal bleeding in prostitutes servicing too many man a day. Even with that going on, the recent introduction of condoms reduced nearly eliminated that transmission. So condoms appear to be effective even in the presence of vaginal bleeding.  This also makes sense if female-male HIV transmission is going via blood instead of vaginal fluid.

In addition, the urethra appears to be an inefficient vehicle to receive HIV. Anal and vaginal walls which may experience tiny tears are much better for transmission, especially the former. Anal walls are much more susceptible to tiny tears and microscopic bleeding than vaginal walls are, hence insertive anal sex would seem to put the insertive partner at greater risk due to increased chances of exposure to blood via the anus of the partner. This is probably the reason for the somewhat elevated risk from anal sex.


Filed under Asia, Biology, Health, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Illness, Pornography, Public Health, Regional, Science, SE Asia, Sex, Thailand

Why Am I Gay? Is It True That People Are “Born Gay”?

Question from Quora:

My answer:

And no one knows if gay men are “born that way” either, however, the latest research indicates that male homosexuality appears to be a developmental issue or developmental disorder if you will.

Something goes wrong in the womb with the mother’s hormonal levels, and this appears to cause male homosexuality along with a lot of other things such as left-handedness. In fact, left-handed men have an elevated rate of homosexuality. If it really is a developmental disorder like left-handedness, then people are indeed “born that way.” Not only born gay, but also born straight and perhaps bisexual, etc.

Females seem to be able to move around a lot more, and some lesbians can be changed in the lab. Whether they go from lez to straight or to bisexual is not known, but they are able to react to men after therapy in the lab. So at least some females can change their orientation.

If males are stuck at whatever their orientation is, they have no choice other than to accept it. If you are gay, you’re gay. If you’re straight, you’re straight. If you are bisexual, you’re bisexual. Quit trying to change yourself, and just be happy with who you are.

1 Comment

Filed under Biology, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Man World, Psychology, Science, Sex

How, If At All, Is the Accent, Pitch and Voice of Gay Men Different Than That of Straight Men and How Accurate is Voice in Determining Sexual Orientation?

Question from Quora.

My response:

Most of these answers are simply going to be wrong in that particular PC, Gay Identity Politics way which is sadly so common among gay men these days. It is sad that gay men have taken up Gay Identity Politics because like all IP, it is based on lies. Gays take up IP like any other group does to protect themselves.

With most IP groups, there are negative things about that group that are flat out factual. The purpose of IP for gays or anyone is to exalt their identity, blow up all the great things about themselves and play down or usually to flat out lie about all of the bad things about the group.

The purpose of this is simple: the IP group feels that the truth is dangerous and if the truth about the negative things about the group get out, that could lead to prejudice. This is not a completely irrational fear. Because the IP group fears more prejudice, they lie and deny all the negative things about the group. Sadly, in most IP groups, this leads to near incessant lying, sophistry, logical fallacies and all sorts of lawyerese, diplomat-speech, half truth types of bullshit.

The Gay IP claim is that gay men are no more likely to be effeminate than anyone else. Yes, some gay men are effeminate, but some straight men are effeminate too. This is factually correct but like most sophistry it is a form of lying and deliberately obscures the truth.

I have been around gay men for much of my life. I hung out in Hollywood for years and Hollywood is gay as Hell, maybe even gayer than San Francisco. After about 10 years there, I had a crash course in homosexuality. Also I have known a fair number of homosexuals. In addition, for some reason, I am gaybait for gay men, countless numbers of whom have hit on me over the years. I have no idea why they love me so much. You tell me. Anyway, after all that, I feel I could write an encyclopedia entry on male homosexuality.

The truth is this: 75% of all gay men experience something called Sissy Boy Syndrome when growing up, and 75% of sissy boys end up becoming gay. As gay men are only 3% of all men and 75% of sissy boys grow up gay, you can see that sissy boy backgrounds are incredibly more likely among gay men than among straight men. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

75% of gay men were sissy boys. These are feminine to effeminate boys who renounce the usual rough and tumble dog eat dog trial by fire Masculinity Boot Camp called Normative Boyhood. Most heterosexual men go through this vicious process by which rather sensitive boys are beaten figuratively and literally into masculine men. Most come out of it ok, but some are damaged.

Gay men as boys seem to sit out this whole process. The effeminate boys did not play with us and we taunted, teased and ridiculed us. Effeminate boys were not welcome in our boy circle and I fear for any effeminate boy who tried to join. My understanding is that while most boys are going through Camp Pendleton for Boys, pre-gay boys or gay boys in the kitchen with Mom baking muffins. Now I could be wrong. But this is my perception.

I do not blame gay boys for bailing out of Boy Boot Camp as it is one Hell of a vicious and brutal place. But by never having their masculinity questioned much, perhaps the feminine behaviors get stuck. I have no idea.

Now why so many gay men were sissy boys is not known. It is probably biological and the effeminate behavior probably goes along with the homosexuality.

Perhaps gay men have brains that are like women’s brains. After all, the female brain wants to have sex with a man. And the gay male brain wants to have sex with a man also. In order to attract a man for sex, women act feminine and fluttery. When a woman wants sex, she often turns up the feminine behaviors to where she is almost a Southern belle. By the way, this is one way to tell if a woman wants to have sex with you. Women do this because feminine behaviors turn on men and make men want to have sex with the feminine female object. It’s all sexual signaling.

So when gay men want to have sex with a man, they act feminine just as straight women do in order to turn on the man. Perhaps gay men, still being men, are turned on by feminine behavior as all men are. Hence gay men are turned on by effeminate behavior in other gay men. Also when gay men hit on you, they dramatically increase their effeminate behavior for some reason. I know this because it has happened to me many times. I am not sure what they are doing? Sexual signaling?

Anyway, many and probably most gay men are at least somewhat effeminate in behavior. Often the most noticeable behavior is voice. Gay men themselves note this many times as in the common saying, “I didn’t know he was gay until he opened his mouth and a purse fell out.”

Also there is pressure in the gay community to act effeminate as straight acting men can be treated badly. I recall one straight acting gay men was a bartender in a gay bar and dealt with constant comments of, “Fire the straight guy,” “What’s this straight guy doing here,” “Since when do you hire straight guys,” “Why does this bar have a straight bartender,” etc.

In fact, effeminate behavior especially voice in a man is a pretty good way to out a homosexual man. The problem here is that many conflate feminine men with effeminate men. Many heterosexual men could be called feminine. They have soft voices, are sensitive, pretty, soft, wimpy, passive and kind and often are just not very masculine or or certainly not hypermasculine or macho. However, most of these soft straight men do have a certain “soft” masculinity about them.

A gay men pointed this out to me for the first time and a light went off. I do think that gay men understand the nature of masculine – feminine – effeminate men much more than any other humans. And they have an excellent understanding of masculinity itself.

If you can ever learn to tell the feminine men (who are mostly straight) from the effeminate men (who are mostly gay) then you are halfway there already.

It is often said that there are effeminate straight men. Technically this is true but once again this is sophistry. Yes, I have met a few effeminate straight men in my life and more commonly you see straight men who are effeminate sometimes and not at other times. In other words, they turn it on and turn it off.

Some straight men who are feminine, passive, and wimpy can become defeated by life and essentially run up the white flag and surrender. At these times of low self esteem, the passivity, wimpiness, helplessness, etc. gets an effeminate component added to it. Straight effeminate men can easily be mistaken for being gay because, well, to act effeminate is to act like a gay man.

There are some married men often with 3–5 kids who are absolutely flamingly effeminate to the point where you notice them. They always baffle people who shake their heads and somehow accept them anyway. Such a man will be very accepted in straight society even though people will say, “He acts like a faggot!” Others will quickly point out the wife and 4 kids and then the others will quiet down. In straight society, the wife and kids are enough to get accepted albeit reluctantly as a heterosexual.

It’s not how you act but what you do. However a gay man I know said he has followed this married flamers over a period of time ranging from 5–20 years and he said that all of these married flamers had come out as gay and left their wives and kids sooner or later during that time frame. So if you meet one of these flaming men who are married with children, a bit of skepticism may be in order.

While effeminate straight men are maybe 1% of the straight population if that, effeminacy is much more common among gay men. I would guess that maybe ~65–75%??? of gay men are effeminate to one degree or another.

Those that are not are commonly not so much masculine by can be wimpy (commonly extremely wimpy, much more wimpy than a straight man) or soft like the feminine straight men described above.

Some gay men do indeed act out and out straight. They look and act no different from any “regular guy.” However, I think that they are not common. The % of truly straight acting gay men may only be ~15%??? Anderson Cooper is a very famous and excellent example of a gay man who acts completely straight. In fact, I watched him for years and thought he was just another straight man until he stunned me by coming out.

There are even some gay men who are not just straight acting but are actually hypermasculine to macho in the exaggerated manner of many straight men. Jack Donovan is an extremely masculine gay men. He is one of the most masculine men out there and he is totally gay. I saw another hypermasculine gay man in a movie about bugchasing. This was one of the most masculine men of any orientation that I have ever met (reminded me of a longshoreman, sailor or merchant marine). I almost fell out of my chair when I saw that he was gay.

Hypermasculine or macho gay men are extremely uncommon. I would say less than 1% of gay men are like this.

So, like everything else, the continuum of hypermasculine – masculine – feminine – effeminate behaviors among gay men exists as it does among straight men. However, the graphs will look dramatically different when we plot them out and effeminate men will be dramatically more common among gay men and hypermasculine men will be profoundly more common among straight men. So gay men do tend to be more effeminate than straight men, but it is just a tendency, not a hard law. And straight men do tend to be more macho than gay men, but once again this is a tendency and not a law.

If true male homosexuality is biological as it seems, then the effeminate type behavior seems to be part of the package that results from this biological mechanism. In other words, the homosexual orientation and the effeminate behavior are bound hand in hand. And if the effeminate behavior is caused by the same biological mechanism as the homosexuality, then it might be hard to change. Anyway after years of effeminate behavior, many gay men will develop a behavior pattern that becomes ingrained and second nature and is extremely difficult to change.

If the effeminacy is as biological as the homosexuality, maybe we ought to give effeminate gay men some slack on the grounds that they can’t help it. If we are to accept their orientation, perhaps we should accept the effeminate behavior that rides along with it.

A typical stupid response from an obvious homosexual and my response to that. Note that his or its response is completely in line with the lies that Gay Politics peddles on an everyday basis. The main reason I oppose Gay Politics is because it seems to be nothing but lies.

If a boy grows up around women he might as well adopt the ‘female/feminine’ traits and even how they sound and naturally act. Your description of boyhood is interesting but that’s no indication of a man’s sexuality (trust me, I’ve been there, someone isn’t ‘gay’ because they’re playing house dolls and dress-me-up with girls as not every tomboy who plays rough turns out to be a lesbian).

The girls and boys who act extra masculine and feminine, respectively, may be seen as defying the social ‘norm’, but that’s no indication of their sexual orientation (for example, how would you explain bisexuality, gay/lesbian trans, etc. if it’s all black and white masculine/feminine?). Some boys may even be gay but they’ve been told not to ‘threaten’ their masculinity because they feel attraction towards the same sex and try to mask it with ‘masculinity’ growing up, how would explain that?

My response to his Gay Politics claptrap:

Kanchand, as the post says, there is a strong tendency for gay men to be more effeminate. ~75% of gay men are at least a bit effeminate. ~1% of straight men are effeminate. That’s a profound difference right there. The studies on sissy boys indicate that 25% of sissy boys actually grow up to be heterosexual men! I assume many of them become more masculine as they grow up in order to fit into the heterosexual world.

75% of gay men were sissy boys growing up. The % of straight men who were sissy boys must be quite small. We are looking at percentages here, not hard and fast laws. Everything is tendencies, not absolutes.

Also lesbians are much more likely to have been tomboys as girls and many are quite masculine as adults. Yes some straight women were also tomboys, but I have met some of these women, and they seem as feminine as any woman.

A man who acts extra feminine as you put it is highly likely to be gay. A woman who acts extra masculine is highly likely to be lesbian.

Bisexual men vary. I have met many of them. The more effeminate the bi man is, the more he prefers men to women. In fact, a number of these often closeted bisexual men are simply closeted gay men who are in denial. Many “bisexual” men like this can be seen in their 20’s. They are married or have girlfriends but spend most of their time in gay bars or hanging around gay men. By age 30, most are done pretending and have come out as fully gay. Closets are for clothes!

The more masculine a bisexual man is the more he prefers sex with women. In fact the vast majority of “gay” men who are extremely masculine have quite a bit of sex with women. You see this in a lot of “gay” male criminals.

Transwomen when they are out are obviously much more effeminate than most gay men. Transmen when they are out are often much more effeminate than even most lesbians. Transsexualism is often just an extreme form of homosexuality in my opinion. The gayest of the gay men tend to be drag queens of nowadays some type of transwoman. The butchest of lesbians often become either bull dykes or some type of transman.

This sort of thing is a lot simpler than most people with a Gay IP agenda of water muddying would have you believe. Masculinity is correlated with heterosexuality. The more masculine a man is, the more he prefers and has women for sex partners. Masculinity is a marker for heterosexuality in men.

The more effeminate a man is, the more he prefers and has men for sex partners. The dykier a bisexual woman is, the more she prefers or has women for sex partners. Most bisexual women who are feminine or act like normal straight women tend to prefer men over when. Femininity is a marker for heterosexuality in women. The more feminine the woman, the more she prefers and has men for sex partners.

This stuff isn’t rocket science, folks. There is no need to unnecessarily confuse something that is pretty straightforward unless you are doing it for a political reason.

This is my careful observation after 58 years on this planet and you are welcome to disagree.

Leave a comment

Filed under Biology, Cultural Marxists, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Man World, Politics, Psychology, Science, Sex

Hybrid Vigor Works in Humans as in All Biological Organisms

Barack Thatcher: Sidetracking just a little bit. Could it not be argued in some ways “race mixing” is healthy because it reduces the odds of getting recessive genes? I.E. you’re more distantly related to people of other races?

Barack: hybrid vigor is well known. All of the best animal and plant breeds are produced by a process of ever more scientific “race-mixing.” And it’s gotten damned fancy these days. Look at all those cannabis strains.

Even in the wild, a species, subspecies or even regional population that has low genetic diversity (the pure races these morons cheer on) is considered to be at risk of extinction. In population biology, the more diverse the genome of the organism, the more healthy it’s population is deemed to be, as it can weather changes better.


Filed under Biology, Genetics, Race/Ethnicity, Science

A Simple Theory for the Development of Homosexuality in Males and Females



“According to the findings of the Savic-Lindström study, the number of neural connections also varied between hetero- and homosexual subjects. For instance, gay men and straight women showed greater neural connectivity in the cingulate cortex and contralateral amygdala regions than straight men and lesbians respectively. ”

The contralateral amygdala seems to be related with sexual drive, though in terms of volume not really in “connectivity”.


In terms basics functions it’s emotions, thus it would imply that the higher connectivity relates to the higher “emotionality” seen in women and gay men as “femininity” compared to straight men and lesbians. The cingulate cortex is responsible for processing emotions.

“According to the study, lesbians and straight men have similar brain structures and functionalities while gay men and straight women share neural characteristics. For instance, MRI findings prove that the right hemispheres of the brains of the lesbians and heterosexual men have slightly greater volumes than their left hemispheres. But the left and right hemispheres of gay men and heterosexual women are symmetrical.”

My guess this occurs in childhood as I have hypothesize referring to the study on developmental sex steroids, possibly specific forms of E and T or different ones entirely.

No, the masculinization of the brains of straight men and lesbians occurs in utero. “True lesbians” are women whose brains were masculinized in utero due to developmental aberrations.

The feminization of the brains of gay men and women also occurs in utero. Gay men are men whose brains got feminized in utero due to developmental aberrations.

Homosexuality is simply a developmental disorder. Look how many gay men are left-handed. You would be blown away.


Robert –

Another commenter brought up 2D:4D (fingers) ratio, as an indicator of testosterone levels, which is linked to gayness?

Have you heard of this?

Yes, I believe that is indicative of the developmental disorder in gay men.


Filed under Biology, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Neuroscience, Science, Sex

An Attempt at an All-Encompassing Theory (Single Unifying Theory) of the Development of Masculinity and Femininity in Humans

Steve: That is definitely really interesting if that is true.

So you think testosterone has no behavioral effects and has no effect on brain development? I heard guys who took T injections definitely noticed personality changes. But that’s really interesting anyway. So you think testosterone has no effect other than on physical things like muscle growth? Why are men way more violent than women? You think the black white violent crime rates has nothing to do with testosterone levels?

Hi Steve, testosterone injections are associated with anger, rage, irritability, high sex drive, aggressiveness, and possibly increased competitiveness.

Testosterone makes you want to fight and fuck. It also helps you be confident and competitive.

This is why men are so much more violent than women and in part why the Black-White-Asian crime differentials are the way they are. Absolutely testosterone effects criminal and antisocial behavior, with higher levels bringing more and lower levels bringing less.

On the other hand, let’s face it, anger, rage, irritability, high sex drive, aggressiveness, and possibly increased competitiveness are also associated with criminality if you think about it enough, no?

The male brain is indeed masculinity in the womb in development. This creates the sort of base masculine core of the male that you can even see in very young boys. I describe that behavior below.

It’s just that I do not think testosterone has much to do with the sort of macho, hypermasculine or masculine posturing and thinking that men do, including an artificially deep voice, the way that they walk, talk, sit, stand, carry themselves, hand and arm movements, and all sorts of gestures. All of this, including the “way to think and act like a man” like what is the masculine thing to do in 100,000 different situations, and the particularly shut down or controlled emotions of men in the West strike me as learned behavior.

I say that because I feel that I learned all this stuff over a period of years, actually decades. And when I stop trying to do it sort of consciously, I revert back into my normal,  passive, soft, quiet, rather wussy self, which I think is just my normal baseline personality that I have always had since I was a boy. The fact that I can ramp up and down this “masculine display” more or less at will shows to me that it’s learned behavior and that it is subject to willpower and agency.

It’s also why gay men act so different in all of these areas because I feel that their effeminate behavior seems to be learned also.

However, males are more competitive, confident, aggressive, and violent have a more intense sex drive than women. That all seems to be down to testosterone. Interestingly, gay men mirror straight men on all of these variables.

I think there is a sort of basic “masculine” core in males. You can see it in the violent roughhousing, getting dirty, playing with bugs and snakes behavior of even very young boys. It is upon this base that all of the leaned behaviors involved in “learning how to be a man” are built.

Basically, boys are taught to be men. When you see a man walking around with masculine display, he’s not that way due to his hormones. He got taught how to act that way over many years or probably decades. But the massive and often cruel and abusive “boot camp” style learning project in which boys are taught to be men definitely builds on a somewhat masculine core base that we see in the young boys above.

Same thing with women I would say.

So with this all-encompassing theory of masculine and feminine behaviors, I believe to utilize both biology, hormones, and learning and training into a single theory that avoids the problems of “gender is constructed” feminist nonsense theory and the “it’s all biology and hormones and humans have no agency” theory by combining both theories into one and saying that they are both important in the development of masculinity and femininity.

In other words, nature provides the clay (core masculinity or femininity) and culture is the sculptor. Sure it helped to have the clay to make the sculpture, but you could not have created this fantastic sculpture called Man or Woman with the sculptor working on it for months on end. You would just end up with a lame lump of clay. Good clay is not necessary to make a good sculpture, but it sure helps.

What do you think? Did I square the circle? How is my Single Unifying Theory?


Filed under Biology, Crime, Culture, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Man World, Psychology, Sex

Another Theory Bites the Dust: Stereotypical Masculine and Feminine Behaviors Are Caused by Hormones

People in the comments section are insisting that masculine behaviors are caused by testosterone and nothing else. I dislike these theories because they all deprive humans of agency. Why do I do anything I do in life? Muh genes. Do I have any sort of agency to decide to go against the way my genes are forcing me to behave? Of course not. I am a gene-programmed automaton with no free will or agency. I’m incapable of defying my genes! To do that would mean I have free will and agency, and of course I lack both of those.

This same sort of deterministic bull is at play with Masculinity Theory. Who do I and so many other men act masculine? Muh high testosterone and muh low estrogen. You mean it’s not because I was programmed and molded that way hundreds of thousands of times since boyhood all the way through adulthood? Haven’t I acted anywhere from soft to masculine at various times in my life through sheer will and agency, as in I just decided to act that way? Of course not! When I was soft, it was muh low testosterone. When I act more masculine, obviously it’s muh high testosterone.

According to this theory, testosterone declines from the 20’s on and reaches low levels in the 50’s on. So one would expect men to become less and less masculine in their stereotypical behaviors as they age. We should have a bunch of pussy middle aged and older men walking around. But wait. Those older guys are the most masculine men of all nowadays. How could that be with muh low testosterone? And I get continuous reports of how young men, especially college-aged men, today are severely wussed out and hardly act like men at all anymore. Not to mention the metrosexual explosion. But how could this be as young men have muh high testosterone?

Whoa! Theory in danger!

Let’s try some more. Let’s look at gay men. Clearly the most unmasculine men of all in their stereotypical behaviors as is obvious to anyone. 75% of gay men more or less act like women. That’s the polar opposite of masculinity. Why do gay men act so feminine? Obviously muh low testosterone and muh high estrogen, right?

Gong! Wrong answer!

Gay men’s testosterone and estrogen levels are exactly the same as straight men’s.

Whoa. Theory in danger!

Well, why do women act feminine? Obviously muh high estrogen and muh low testosterone, right? Are we sure about that?

Let’s take a look at lesbians, 75% of whom act like men, some almost to the point of almost being truck drivers or construction workers. Bull dykes are as masculine as a macho guy. Well obviously lesbians have muh low estrogen and muh high testosterone, just like men, right? I mean that’s logical, no?

Gong! Wrong answer!

Lesbians hormone levels of testosterone and estrogen are exactly the same as straight women’s.

Whoa! Theory in danger!


Filed under Biology, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Man World, Psychology, Sex, Women

Football Is Inherently Dangerous

There’s apparently no way whatsoever to make the game safer. They have tried everything at this point, and nothing works. The only way to make the game safer is to not play it in the first place. They are talking mostly about head injuries. No matter how they make the helmets, football players still get head injuries. And those who play it for a long time apparently end up brain damaged, just like boxing. There’s new data on this just starting to come out now.


Filed under Biology, Health, History, Illness, Medicine, Neuroscience, Science, Sports

Just Pack Up and Go


One of the things we talk about a lot on here is intelligence. Of course the main or only way we have to measure intelligence in man is via IQ tests. No, don’t give me any crap about IQ not measuring intelligence. They do in fact measure intelligence. That’s why they are called “Intelligence Quotient” tests. They actually measure intelligence better than any other device known to man.

There is a lot to back this up.

High correlations up to .41 have been found between IQ scores and head size on MRI. Recently the correlation was upped to ~.7 by a study that gave MRI’s to researchers and asked them to estimate IQ based on MRI. The correlation between their estimates and the actual IQ scores was ~.7. So the correlation between IQ and head size is as high as .7! That is a very high correlation for the social sciences. It’s almost good as gold.

In case some you IQ haters can’t figure what I am talking about (probably because your IQ isn’t very high) let me spell it real simple for you so even a dummy like you can understand.

What that correlation means is this: Statistically, the bigger your head is, the higher your IQ. This means that people with higher IQ’s actually have bigger heads than people with lower IQ’s. Ok, IQ haters, your position is that IQ does not measure intelligence. Fine. But if IQ doesn’t measure intelligence, why do people with higher IQ’s actually have bigger heads?! You would suspect someone with a bigger head to be more intelligent than someone with a small head, would you not? Now you are saying that there is absolutely no connection between the fact that people with bigger heads actually have higher IQ scores. Isn’t your theory starting to get a bit weak?

Still yapping away that IQ does not measure intelligence? Not a problem.

I believe that IQ correlates ~.41 or maybe higher with reaction time tests. These are tests that test just how fast you react or in other words how fast your brain works. Now you are free to object moronically that reaction time tests actually do not measure reaction time at all, but they are the best we have right now. We can now see that the higher your IQ is, the faster your brains works on tests of brain speed. Now you are left to say that the fact that IQ lines up with tests of brain speed (the higher the IQ, the faster the brain speed) means absolutely nothing at all. Your stupid theory is getting even weaker.

Still not satisfied? A new study of the efficiency of glucose utilization in the brain has shown a good correlation between IQ and the glucose utilization efficiency. In other words, the higher your IQ, the better and more efficient your brain is at utilizing glucose. Glucose may be seen as “fuel for the brain.” So higher IQ people use glucose (or brain fuel) better than people than lower IQ’s. Now of course you are going to say that how well someone’s brain uses brain fuel has nothing to do with how smart that person is. Your already retarded theory is getting dumber by the minute.

I think we better leave off here before I humiliate you IQ Deniers even further. I know how embarrassing it must be to be humiliated by showing how stupid your idiotic theory is, and not being a sadist, I will stop now out of the general Christian principle of mercy for the weak, lame, and crippled, which is what you are.

Getting back to the subject of the post, this blog talks about IQ a lot. We also assume that IQ accurately measures human intelligence. Now if you are an IQ Denier or an IQ Hater, that’s going to make you very angry. All I have to say to you is get out. You’re obviously reading the wrong website. This is what we talk about here a lot, and if it bugs you, just leave. Real simple, right? Even a dummy like you can probably figure it out.


Filed under Biology, Intelligence, Neuroscience, Psychology, Science