An ode to the many evolved virtues of human semen

http://bit.ly/bMZ0Dx

discus

really very educational

no takers huh

a voluminous article, still reading

this is kind of interesting but horribly written tbh

feel I am adding to my PUA arsenal however

i got this far and i'm just gonna quit on this note:

but instead happiness appears to be a function of the ambient seminal fluid pulsing through one’s veins.

but if this article is true it will be regarded as a seminal study in its field

Now, I ask you, which is the more informative paradigm for understanding why gay men would practice unsafe sex through unprotected anal intercourse: an evolutionary biological account taking into consideration the chemical composition of seminal plasma and its possible affects on attachment among gay men, or a symbolic, postmodernist perspective like the following one advanced by Holmes and Warner

NOW, I ASK YOU, WHICH IS THE MORE INFORMATIVE PARADIGM

knowing that the penis is capable of dispensing a sort of natural Prozac

also i can supply anecdotal evidence that cohabitating lesbians are totally capable of synchronizing their menstrual cycles, just fyi

http://thefreshscent.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/wine.jpg

wow

semen-exposed women perform better on concentration and cognitive tasks; women’s bodies can detect “foreign” semen that differs from their recurrent sexual partner’s signature semen, an evolved system that, Gallup believes, often leads to unsuccessful pregnancies because it signals a disinvested male partner who is not as likely to provide for the offspring; women who had unprotected sex with their ex-partners—and therefore were getting regularly inseminated—experience more significant depression on breaking up than those who were not as regularly exposed to their ex’s semen (and they also go on the “rebound” faster in seeking new sexual partners, which presumably would help fix their semen-deprived depression).

the style is cloying and insufferably "nudge nudge wink wink"

also there is a weirdly heteronormative/kinda chauvinist undercurrent? would like to read a feminist critique tbh. I mean on the one hand I am learning weird things about human development. on the other hand, someone is basically saying that women actually NEED to be fucked, it's not just natural, its therapeutic!!!

I couldn't get past "BERING IN MIND, by Jesse Bering"

i got this far and i'm just gonna quit on this note:

/but instead happiness appears to be a function of the ambient seminal fluid pulsing through one’s veins./

tbh my brain reflexively read the article in the voice of LJ

yeah there's definitely that, doesn't help that he tries to fill the article with dollar bin semen jokes xp

but it's definitely tricky to navigate since I dunno how much of it is backed up by HARD SCIENCE (~groan~) and how much of it is dubious extrapolation

maybe jesse bering will become the first person in human history to reroute his vas deferens to his rectum

okay i definitely feel like their are some interesting findings here but i don't think this is presented in a very sensitive or responsible way in this article -- like, hey i like semen, semen is great! -- but to imply that semen is the evolutionary equivalent of an essential magic mood-lifting elixir is a pretty fucked up way of privileging male biology. and the flippant disregard for symbolic / cultural / psychological significance of semen is pretty dumb too imho.

isn't this sort of tone a regular thing in evolutionary psych? (not the jokeiness but the privileging of heteronormativity and other "orthodox" type stuff?)

like, there are plenty of valid psychological ways to account for the barebacking subculture among gay dudes -- i won't argue that certain hormones etc. might contribute to feelings of connectedness -- but if you extrapolate that, are promiscuous barebackers really all that emotionally connected to their sex partners? and generally less depressed? my honest opinion is: hell no, not by a long shot

I remember reading about this "semen is an anti-depressant' study back when it came out and having the same roll-eye gbx suggested. It's just such a rapey* undercurrent of thought, "poor little honey is all blue? let's jizz her into acting how we think she should."

*probably the wrong word, certainly a hyperbolic one

Besides, everyone knows it's most properly applied to the face.

Just kidding, guys! Just kidding. I undermined myself with a joke and I'm a terrible person.

I feel like this is the definitive Jesse Bering article:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=secrets-of-the-phallus

this is like scientific american's version of PUA culture

I can PROVE sex will make you feel better with FACTS

this has got to lead to some unfortunate GISing

Why Is the Penis Shaped Like That?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/inline/secrets-of-the-phallus_1.jpg

"Secrets of the phallus" has maybe my favorite 21st century scientific experiment, in which they used dildos to fuck a cornstarch solution out of a sex toy vagina.

i don't know if anyone's mentioned yet that bering is gay? i don't know how that impacts on various people's reading of this as heteronormative/chauvinist, but it makes me less uncomfotable reading it, personally, than if he was male + straight

also generally his whole schtick is sort of tongue-in-cheek + extrapolated readings of evolutionary psychology, which i find more bearable than when people take it very. very. seriously, which happens

man the puns in that article, ouch

but still, it IS interesting

just throwing it out there: maybe individuals who have fulfilling stable intimate relationships are MORE likely to engage in semen exchange, and they are less depressed because of the former, rather than the latter?

idk there is something bothersome about this idea of transmission -- that the man has what the woman needs / lacks -- that runs through a lot of scientific discourse. (qv, the concept that a human embryo is female by default, only becomes male via hormones introduced during gestation -- the male has something special the female lacks)

and tbh no, the authors homosexuality doesn't really change my reading on this

idk this article irks me, not trying to be cranky abt it but ugh

idk there is something bothersome about this idea of transmission -- that the man has what the woman needs / lacks -- that runs through a lot of scientific discourse.

What's the point of having two genders/sex then...?

If the evolutionary point is too encourage the most varied gene pool and to encourage long-term pair bonding for parenthood, it would make perfect sense.

The guy writes like a midlle-schooler, though.

yeah i'm not disputing biology or the actual mechanics of reproduction -- i'm talking about how the discussion of such is framed in a way that privileges the male

i mean ffs the article uses the phrase "semen-deprived depression"

It's why kids are so sad!

Maybe I should stay out of this thread.

omg no please stay

lolll

in re: the bering penis shape article -- the whole hypothesis is that the human dong has a coronal ridge because -- hey hey -- women may be unfaithful sluts! idk who is to say that it didn't evolve that way because, hey, maybe that shape of dick feels better for the woman?

God gave you a jizz-scoop.

fwiw i have seen plenty of dicks whose coronal ridge was smaller in diameter than the shaft! cigar-shaped dicks -- how do they work???

time to move to iltmi imo

I have a little bit of a beef with evolutionary psychology. Sometimes it seems like tacking a retrofitted narrative onto human behavior or physiology without any evidence besides it sounding good to the guy who came up with it. Though I admit I love it on a certain "heh heh heh" level when it agrees with my ideologies, like Margie Profet's hypothesis that menstruation keeps out pathogens carried by semen.

feel like these articles sum up quite a few dudes i have had conversations with at The Eagle: love penises, don't love women.

haha ed -- just saying -- dicks come in a million shapes & flavors. just because some dude fucked some cornstarch out of a fleshlight pussy with a jeff stryker dildo doesn't actually make it science

in other words, being a homo in no way precludes this kind of bs in fact it plays to a certain "type".

xp lol

"jesse bering" "tom of finland"

6 results (0.14 seconds)

Abbot, isn't your approach kind of backward? By all means kick a theory in the nuts, test it, tweak its assumptions, check your math, etc... but it's hardly scientific to want the world to conform to your own predilections or fancies.

pathogens Sperm? ;)

Of course, which is why we have to be critical and vigilant.

the coronal ridge displaces fluids

To deduce that it's to displace prior semen could be no more than post hoc ergo prompter hoc

if you think science is somehow above or beyond pervasive cultural bias, boy do I have news for you

― tangelo amour (elmo argonaut), Thursday, November 4, 2010 12:27 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

well i don't. science is obviously prone to errors of bias and assumption. i do, however, dislike the suggestion that science that seems to endorse pervasive cultural bias must be itself biased or otherwise somehow wrong, must be rejected. better to reject science only when we can say with some scientific certainty that its methods and/or assumptions are faulty. in this case, i think it's enough to remind ourselves that evolutionary biology is built largely on theoretical speculation, and that it's conclusions are therefore often far from definitive.

To deduce that it's to displace prior semen could be no more than post hoc ergo prompter hoc

agreed

i won't reject this or that scientific theory simply because it might seem to support (or argue against) broader cultural biases

imho you have this backwards -- the only thing actually "supporting" this particular theory is the cultural bias that produced it!

and i don't think it's unreasonable to be upset at these conclusions if they are just self-perpetuating modes masculine privilege

all i know is, i'm gonna print this article out and keep it by my bed for when i have ladies over. "Condoms? no no dear, read this!"

better to reject science only when we can say with some scientific certainty that its methods and/or assumptions are faulty.

they are faulty!

to use an example i brought up earlier: what if the researchers gave a group of female test subjects 3 dildos like they used in the sex toy experiment and asked the subjects to rate them in terms of the pleasure they derived from each. and say the dong with the widest coronal ridge got the highest marks.

would that result prove anything about the actual evolutionary purpose of penis shape? of course not. it would be just as faulty in its assumptions.

in any case, it would never occur to these scientists to put forth such a theory, predicated on assumptions of female pleasure, agency, and preference -- none of which figure into an evolutionary psychology as it is currently understood -- which is preoccupied with male competition, dominance, and control.

the only thing actually "supporting" this particular theory is the cultural bias that produced it!

i don't believe that this is true. the theory seems reasonably well supported to me, though again, far from conclusive or definitive. and i think it's a fallacy to attribute distorting bias to the authors of a theory simply because the theory might be said to parallel broader cultural biases. this might be the case, but there's no way to know for sure, and i'd prefer to deal with the science as science, leaving unsupported assumptions about the scientists themselves off the table.

would that result prove anything about the actual evolutionary purpose of penis shape? of course not. it would be just as faulty in its assumptions.

in any case, it would never occur to these scientists to put forth such a theory, predicated on assumptions of female pleasure, agency, and preference -- none of which figure into an evolutionary psychology as it is currently understood -- which is preoccupied with male competition, dominance, and control.

― tangelo amour (elmo argonaut), Thursday, November 4, 2010 1:05 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

two things:

first, the experiment you suggest wouldn't prove anything. nor does the experiment in question prove anything. agree with you there. but both are (or could be) of at least potential scientific value, if executed properly.

second, i simply don't accept your rather hostile characterization of the scientists in question. even if i were to accept your characterization of evolutionary biology as a whole (and i do, to at least so me extent), i'd refrain from making these sorts of broad, negative assumptions about specific scientists - unless i knew a great deal about them. furthermore, a good deal of contemporary evolutionary biology does concern itself with "female pleasure, agency, and preference." it's not as one-dimensional and backwards a field as you suggest.

dude, i'm asserting that certain modes of scientific discourse are structurally biased. i'm not slandering anybody.

if they are just self-perpetuating modes masculine privilege

Which itself is a bias. Is physical dimorphism just a mode of masculine privilege? Just because we are wary of people making essentialist arguments or using them to justify politics or behavioral norms doesn't mean that nature made both genders indentical. And just because you suspect his motives doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong. It very well may that he is but that's not enough.

science has to stand outside such considerations

Not sure that's possible but it's worth aiming for if you wan't your conclusions to be useful

leave it to you guys to ruin a thread which by rights should've been a bunch of dick joeks

Never took any cockology classes but apart from horses ( I think), are there many mammals w/the coronal ridge?

contenderizer: maybe i'm speaking in overly broad terms -- i'm admittedly annoyed by this -- but ultimately i just don't see how this research is useful to any purpose other than establishing a continuity of male privilege back thru evolutionary history.

what have we really learned, other than what we already took for granted?

sometimes I wonder how much ppl actually know about science

dude, i'm asserting that certain modes of scientific discourse are structurally biased. i'm not slandering anybody.

― tangelo amour (elmo argonaut), Thursday, November 4, 2010 1:17 PM (39 seconds ago) Bookmark

yeah, i get that. but in saying that "it would never occur to these scientists to put forth such a theory," you come close to the latter (though "slander" isn't the word i'd choose). accept it as hyperbole, but felt compelled to call it out. no offense intended.

as far as the "structurally biased" thing goes, okay. that's not an unreasonable accusation. would need a lot more evidence to really buy into it as relates to this particular set of theories, experiments and conclusions, but i don't reject it out of hand.

[insert dick joke here]

maybe useful if we want to genetically engineer superior penises but

xp

Can't wait for that e-mail in 2025.

but ultimately i just don't see how this research is useful to any purpose other than establishing a continuity of male privilege back thru evolutionary history.

what have we really learned, other than what we already took for granted?

― tangelo amour (elmo argonaut), Thursday, November 4, 2010 1:26 PM (47 seconds ago) Bookmark

i dunno. i'm not sure science has to be useful in order to justify itself. it's really just a formalized process of investigation. collect data, hypothesize, test, draw conlusions. would think that in conducting research such as this you'd really, really want to avoid thinking about whether you were establishing or dismantling the historical continuity of male privilege. worrying about that sort of thing is best left to philosphers and critics, has little to do with science.

and it's entirely possible that what we already took for granted is, in fact, true. if you're not open to this possibility, you're not really open to science.

"conlusions"

I meant useful in the process of investigation not necessarily in any real application.

Can't wait for that e-mail in 2025.

if it comes to that i fear irl shitting dick-nipples

you'd really, really want to avoid thinking about whether you were establishing or dismantling the historical continuity of male privilege

Tell that to Shirley Strum.

Just to be rigorous here, elmo, are we talking about you shitting dick nipples or having dick nipples on your chest that shit?

haha -- the latter, which already exist on the internet, in illustrated form

gis at your peril

I guess my personal dream to one day shit dick-nipples was coloring my reading of that.

http://www.sableverity.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/KATY-PERRY-CALIFORNIA-GURLS.jpg

Never look at this thread:

http://www.ilxor.com/ILX/ThreadSelectedControllerServlet?boardid=63&threadid=608

it's the shitting dick nipples thread

and it's even more frustrating because their evolutionary purpose was never satisfactorily explained

i just wonder if that whole experiment started with the scientist taking notes like, "checkin' out my dick... wonder why it's shaped like that... maybe get some funding to buy some sex toys... could be cool"

discussion sort of petered out

Blood isn’t red, for example, because red worked better than green or yellow or blue, but only because it contains the red hemoglobin protein, which happens to be an excellent transporter of oxygen and carbon dioxide.

this is such a retarded example

also wonder how this dude would reverse engineer male nipples

Octopus blood is blue - copper based instead of iron based.

Imagine growing a new dick each year...

does blue work as good as red, is the question

ask an octopus

feel like octopi got us beat on both counts

http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Detachable-Penis-43307.shtml

Semen is great, it creates life and feeds hoes but creepy porn has fetishized it too much.

this one not quite so evolved:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/man-treated-in-hospital-after-injecting-himself-with-own-semen-1.3759941

"Dr Dunne described the case as 'unique' and said it demonstrated the risks of innovative treatments that are relied upon prior to clinical research in the form of phased trials."

ill give him this he had some spunk

is this what yer talking about in the maleness thread?

in a sense it's what we talk about in all the threads

A+

The case was revealed in a report published by the Irish Medical Journal titled ‘Semenly’ Harmless Back Pain: An Unusual Presentation of a Subcutaneous Abscess.

every thread on ilx is either a circlejerk or a circular firing squad iirc

nominate "every thread is either a circlejerk or a circular firing squad" as new board description

a little part of me dies when socks make innocuous or vanilla posts

little death ey

not so little part though just sayin

it's not a soupçon of semen had died a little death inside a sock

has