Aussie uni students live up to stereotypes

16 12 2008

Arts majors are easy sluts.
Science students mostly virgins.

Can you guess which headline The Australian went with?

These two conclusions are based on repsonses from 185 students from the University of Sydney .

The study also found that those more sexually active students were less knowledgable about risks, namely chlamydia, associated with their behaviour. Perhaps those knowedgeable about chlamydia were less likely to have sex. Bliss in ignorance? Well, maybe in the short run.


Think of the children

8 11 2008

New Humanist has its annual BAD FAITH poll open for crashing.

The list is full of burning stupid. But burning stupid really is not enough these days.

Only one nominee really stands out as a despicable abomination worthy of complete and utter scorn.

The Governors of St. Monica’s

Other people are on the list for saying something silly to atheists, believing dinosaurs walked with people, or getting some old dude’s book banned. The Governor’s have done something much worse.

They have blocked preventative medicine from reaching children.

That’s right. A vaccine was developed that reduces young women’s risk of cervical cancer tremendously, and yet these bastards have told doctors they can not give it to their students. Why?

Because without the threat of cancer their students will become sluts. There’s strong faith in human conviction there.

The idiocy is that it’s not like there is HIV, gonnorhea, siphilis, and a whole host of other nether-region nasties they can fall back on to scare young ones celibate. (But, don’t worry us godless medical scientists are working on cures for those too).

These horrible people are supposed to be looking after the children in their care. They wouldn’t ban dentist vans because they encourage kids to eat too many sweeties. Or would they?

People who let children get lethal diseases are scum. It’s pretty simple choice really.

Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter are leading on reputation alone. And some crackpot Islamic creationist is third just because he pissed of Richard Dawkins. Go over, have a scan of the contenders and vote for someone who is really evil.

Tangled Bank #117 at Neural Gourmet

3 11 2008

Check it out for yourself.

Quite a fine selection on display – even if some shoddy puritanical anti-sex tirade somehow slipped through the quality control.

Neural Gourmet

Sex, what is it good for?

28 10 2008

(Maybe the single life is getting to me…)

Humans often look at things from a very human point of view. It’s really not that surprising, but it can lead to somewhat linear thinking.

Such as linear concepts regarding evolution. You know that horrendous version where by everything lines up towards a singularity (usually us): from amoebas to fish to lizards to rats to monkeys to us. It sounds like some twisted video game-esque parody really.

Along with opposable thumbs, the development of bonking has been paraded as a major leap forward in evolution. But why then does most life on earth today reproduce by non-sexual means?

The whole myth of sex being all that and then some begins, like many mythconceptions on evolution with high-school. We learn that sex was developed as a way of maximising genetic variation. You get genes from Mummy AND Daddy. This means offspring made from sex are ultimately more likely to be fitter than asexually reproducing species and therefore sex is the best thing before and after, and possibly during, sliced bread.


Sex is not a mechanism for maxmising fitness through evolution – particularly in a sense of strength, toughness and all-round better-er-ness. Sex is the slippery path to a shallow and superficial future. All sex really cares about good looks. When selective pressure rises, keeping up appearances is all that counts†. Even in yeast.

In order to pass genes onto the next generation, an asexual organism must prove its worth by surviving in its environment long enough to gather the resources necessary to create its own offspring: all… by… itself. That takes guts*, people. That’s why some of the biggest hard-asses around are asexual – Anthrax, Thermus aquaticus, and black tip sharks. They have to fight for their right to … well not party

When you introduce sex, evolution changes from this romper stomper red in tooth and claw deathmatch to a Miss Universe pagent. Previous gen-pool lifeguard Gunn. Sgt. Hartmann has been replaced by Paris “That’s Hot” Hilton.

All a sexual reproducing species has to do is be suave enough to get someone up the duff**. After that you can run away and die. Everything after the “act” is generally no consequence. Incidentally, that’s why elephants starve to death in old age (which we’ve already covered).

I’m envisaging some sort of bizarre reverse frog-prince scenario on the horizon. Although when I look at some old people, I wonder if perhaps we are already there?

Read the rest of this entry »

Nature doesn’t care about you

9 10 2008

It only cares about your children…

Perhaps a certain biologist going all silly billies should brush on his basic evolutions.

Evolution does not care too much about anything that occurs after reproduction, unless its more reproduction.

As much as they drill you “survival of the fittest”, nature is not the Olympics, it’s not about Faster, Higher, Stronger – it’s about rampant bunny sex. But don’t you dare tell the children.

Oh, somebody please think of the children!

facebook goatsex

8 10 2008

Okay. I am a fan of facebook (I think my facebook page even says so), but honestly some people just do not think before they put things up on there.

Case in point:

In case thats not loading right:

Interests: sex sex sex hair shoping horses sex goats cats and a shit load of fun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OH and i will bcome a Famous designer of cloths some day soon

Some words just aren’t meant to be used together to describe what you are into. Sex and farmyard animals. And “cloth” design. Oh My…

Hey did you know wikipedia has a (rather poor) article on the history of goat-human sexual relations.

Sex, lies, and vomeronasal organs

20 08 2008

That seems to be the end of the MHC-smelling your mates and the recent pill “revelation”.

Already I was disappointed when erv used science (or, well high school statistics) to make a mockery the latest hot news item.

It is a very bad shame that people who are supposed to be competent to report on science don’t understand what error bars are for.

I’d heard of MHC-smell relatedness before back when I was in high school from the BBC and ABC. But by the time I got home from work, erv has gone a destroyed my trust in the whole idea, with real science (this time she actually goes and talks to a scientist*)

Humans do not have well developed vomeronasal organs. Ok, what what? That’s ~nasal as in nose, or, oh, just look at wikipedia. As human-like apes have become more reliant on colour-based vision, our sense of smell has diminished. We just don’t have the capacity for being able to strongly sense smell differences associated with MHC.

So why is research still being done with smell-based MHC detection in humans?

Could there be non-olfactory cues in MHC distinction in humans and human-like apes? Differences in sweat light refraction perhaps?

*yes erv is a scientist in her own right, but just to perfect, she goes and talks to a scientist with appropriate knowledge – it’s a machiavellian scheme alright