<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d12981576\x26blogName\x3dArchaeopteryx\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLACK\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://archaeopteryx.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://archaeopteryx.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-5209098892742126272', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Saturday, May 28, 2005

Too much of a good thing

Educating children about the dangers and joys of sex is one thing. Showing them how to do it is another.

Caesar's bath meme

Courtesy of Dadahead: "List five things that people in your circle of friends or peer group are wild about, but which you can't really understand the fuss over."

Mammals. They just smell bad. It doesn't matter how often you bathe them, mammals just have an inherent stench. They are infested with germs and dirt. They shed hair continuously, which has an inexorable attraction to my toothbrush, my clothes and anything else that I'd like to keep sacred and clean. Plus, dogs slobber on everything. Dis-gust-ing.

Birds make much better pets. They don't stink or drool, they molt all at once and the feathers respect the sanctity of my person and my hygienic paraphernalia. Yes, they can get ornery. But all animals have bad moods; at least birds are cute when they are pissy. Seriously, if you had to get bitten by one of these bloodsuckers, which one would you choose?

I choose door #1

Tofu. The worst excuse for a healthy alternative and the best excuse to order pepperoni pizza instead. It's supposed to be a 'soy' product, but my analysis shows that it is composed of 4 parts rubber band, 5 parts marshmallow and a dash of regurgitated circus peanut. "But you can make it taste like anything." Yes the Jack-of-all-substitutes; I think Tofu suffers from a real identity crisis coupled with some severe abandonment issues. Tofu needs a serious personality make-over.

TV. I've tried it and it's not for me. There are some exceptions of course. I've been known to indulge in some Daily Show and Adult Swim when I get the opportunity. Overall it's a huge waste of airtime, electricity and brain cells. I will forfeit my participation in the lunch discussions if necessary, but I have no use for Friends. Don't get me wrong. I love film, especially Film Noir. It's the TV stuff that I can't stand.

Beer. Liquor-yes. Wine-absolutely. Beer-hell no. I can't imagine that anyone tried beer for the first time and said, "saaaay...this is truly a tasty beverage." It isn't because I just haven't tried the right brands. I understand that some are better than others. To me, all beers are as appetizing as rotten eggs or stomach bile. Yet, it is always the central feature of every lunch, dinner and get-together. I just don't get it.

Starbucks. It is convenient for sure. With one or two on every block, there is always a backup plan if I begin to have caffeine-withdrawal-induced headaches. It is not my first choice, or even my second. I will only drink starbucks if I am desperate. Perhaps if they offered a bean that wasn't 'burnt-roasted' 'til it turned to charcoal, it might be worth the money.

Catch the next exciting episode of Caesar's bath from Ryan of The Liberal Avenger and John H. Hinderaker .

Friday, May 27, 2005

The perfect example of an asshat

Despite his blatant ignorance of

1) women
2) sex
3) evolution
4) animal behavior

Max Ross has managed to piece together 'theories' from all these into one incoherent, offensive bastardization of human relations.

via Pandagon via Sadly, No!

Evolution: the non-science

The Intellectual Conservative cracked the case. We can all stop talking about the 'evolution' thing--it's all a load of shit, and here's why:

"Very few scientists have considered or pondered the implications of the law of entropy upon the theory of evolution."

Well, if you've done your homework, you know that evolution has ripped entropy a new one. Not that this nutjob is saying anything new, but the concluding thought is...different:

"Belief in neither evolution or creation is necessary to the actual study of science itself."

Because everyone knows that evolution is not science. So, clearly evolutionary biologists do not need to believe in evolution in order to study it. Besides, who says that life is becoming more ordered? The concept of speciation, that all life originated from a single form, might suggest that life is becoming less ordered.

Why I love biology

Here are some book titles recently added to my university's life sciences library:

The lobotomist: a maverick medical genius and his tragic quest to rid the world of mental illness
El-Hai, J.

Cognac: the seductive saga of the world's most coveted spirit
Jarrad, K.

Espresso coffee: the science of quality
editors: Illy, A. and R. Viani; with F.S. Liverani.

Feminist = Sex-hater

Since when did supporting equality of the sexes become synonymous with erotophobia? Apparently, feminists are in desperate need of a genophilic poster child.

"Why do so many women not want to call themselves feminists? I sincerely think it's because the word carries the stigma that feminists don't like bonking -- least of all bonking guys.

If feminism wants its good name back, it will have to come up with a pro-sex, highly bonkable feminist spokeswoman, who is seen to screw guys, and to like screwing them. Often. A feminist who digs cock."

I agree with Adam Ash's dissent from Catharine MacKinnon's view that pornography results in more violence towards women. I do think that if two consenting partners disagree on the use of porn, it can be destructive to a relationship. I am more inclined to think that for a single man (or woman), porn is an outlet to relieve sexual urges and prevents acting out on innocent standers-by.

However, Adam seems completely ill-informed about feminism in general. This statement is perhaps the most indicative:

"Until some sexy cock-happy feminist appears to gainsay this stereotype, feminism will remain lurking in the shadows of popular culture. It needs a poster child bad."

Thursday, May 26, 2005

Asexual healing

Salon.com, Lynn Harris writes:

A growing number of so-called asexuals insist that their indifference toward sex isn't a pathology, but an "orientation" like being gay. But some experts say that instead of comforting themselves with a label, "amoebas" should seek help.
If you're human, [asexuality] means, essentially, that you experience no sexual attraction to either males or females. Generally, you're not so much freaked out by sex as you are entirely neutral to it, if not a little puzzled by what all the fuss is about.
"I would be profoundly critical of the idea that 'asexuality' is an 'orientation' or that it's somehow the inevitable way that some people are born. The basic building blocks of sexual patterning are there in everyone." [says Barnaby Barratt]

How do you think Jerry Falwell reconciles his "abstinence-only mindset" with his "sexuality is a choice" mindset?

Women cry too much and have too many babies

And we certainly cannot have any of that on the battlefield. Luckily, the House Armed Services Committee has saved women the trouble of serving their country in combat with a 61-1 vote. I'm not exactly sure of my own opinions on the subject, mostly because I haven't been faced direclty with the option. However, my first gut reaction is that women should be allowed to serve in combat if they are inclined to. Refusing to allow this is blatant discrimination.

"Women in the military would be barred from serving in direct ground combat roles, under a House bill that sets Defense Department policy and spending plans for the upcoming budget year... Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., cast the lone dissenting vote on the overall bill."

Like I said, I'm not well established in my own opinion, but there is an interesting discussion on the military.com forum. I'll pick on SgtM_11B because his is an excessively long diatribe:

A)[The commander] would have additional worries that female soldiers/marines could and would be exposed to rape, sexual harrassment, pregnancy, boyfriends/girlfriends in a unit and their probles ect. [sic]

Well, I've never been in this situation, but if I were a male soldier and had harmful projectiles flying at me, the last thing on my mind would be sex.

2) Physique
A) Females are shaped different than men, hence the lowered standards of a PT Test. It is a proven science that the average, AND I SAY AGAIN AVERAGE, woman cannot perform as well as the AVERAGE male physically.
B) Potential HAND to HAND combat: Females, being mostly smaller and having different attributes as males ARE NOT as effective in CLOSE COMBAT.

I'm sure that women have to endure the same physical training as men to prepare them for these challenges. Even by his own admission later in his rant "Last I checked I HAD to pass all the requirements in order to fight on the frontlines, physically and mentally with NO substandard." Which would mean that if women are not able to perform, they are not allowed to--the same standards as held for men. But what if they are able? Shouldn't the option be open to them?

A) Most, and I say AGAIN NOT ALL, MOST females ARE NOT capable of maintaining focus in situations as a male. SOME males often have this problem, and they DO NOT belong there as well.
B) Crying is A FLAW IN COMBAT...MOST FEMALES, and AGAIN MOST, have a higher percentage of breaking down in combat compared to a male.

I won't even comment on that one. But I couldn't help but laugh at this one:


Whaaa??? Last time I checked, the military was understaffed and underequipped. You could use all the help you can get, my friend.

Wednesday, May 25, 2005

Who says the elderly don't get it on?

It is widely accepted that sexual desire declines with an overall increase in age. This trend may be compounded by certain medical conditions (e.g. sleep apnea) and the use of medications to treat conditions associated with aging. A recent study by John Delamater (University of Wisconsin-Madison) and Morgan Sill (University of Michigan) found psychological and social factors also have influence.

psychological factors were just as important. Negative attitudes toward sex were correlated with low sexual desire, and people who rated sex as important to their relationships had higher sexual desire. Besides age, attitude was the strongest predictor of desire.

Other social factors that predicted high sexual desire were a greater level of education and the presence of a sexual partner. Conversely, people who were less educated and did not have an available partner reported lower
levels of desire.

These findings contradict commonly held beliefs that older people are not sexual and that sex is only for young people. DeLamater and Sill conclude that "negative attitudes about sexual activity among older persons need to be challenged so that future cohorts are not influenced by such attitudes."

I'm not sure that their results contradict the commonly held belief because they all seem intuitive to me. Well, maybe not the level of education. But, perhaps the study suggests there is a greater variation in sexuality of older individuals than might be widely thought.

They also suggested that assisted living communities should be restructured to allow elderly residents to engage in intimate relationships.

Well, this is a pleasant thought...I guess.

Sunday, May 22, 2005

Life is Murder

At a time of bitter conflict in Washington, it is remarkable that the House of Representatives this week may witness a rare victory by a bipartisan, moderate coalition on a major social issue. (Seattle Times)

There should be a cooperative effort to move this research forward. Embryonic stem cells offer an extraordinary opportunity for advances in medicine. And how does President Bush treat this rare bipartisan surge, when members of his own party stand in opposition of him (e.g. Governor Romney)?

"I made it very clear to Congress that the use of federal money, taxpayers' money, to promote science which destroys life in order to save life is -- I'm against that."

So...let's start at the most fundamental level; then we'll work out the moral issues. He is against destroying life in order to save life? By his own logic, the President should be against EATING. Regardless of which diet plan you endorse--omnivore, frugivore, insectivore--whenever you eat something you are destroying the life or potential life of another organism. So, we are all murders because we destroy potential life in order to sustain our own. We are such greedy bastards.

We also murder potential life through our basic biological processes. Every menstrual cycle slaughters an egg, and thus, a potential life. The casualties mount even more swiftly each time a man masturbates: Every Sperm is Sacred!

If by our very nature we must destroy life in order to exist, why should scientific procedures be any different? Successful in vitro fertilization generally requires the formation of many zygotes. Many potential lives are created in order for one to fully develop. What is to be done with the embryos that are not used? Flush 'em? Why not donate them to scientific endeavors that will save lives?

If the zygotes are going to be trashed anyway, why is there so much resistance to advances in stem cell research?