On the Crisis of Scientifically Studying Homosexuality

Crossposted, Original Link

Unless addressing HIV, AIDS, or sexual health, queer communities, at least in Lebanon, often disregard scientific interferences in our issues. Even though it is understandable, this hatred is still misleading, disturbing, and damaging to our movement. At the heart of my article is my scientific side trying to analyze and explain how scientists fucked up when they pointed their microscopes towards our identities.
If you bring up most scientific research talking about the genetic, psychological, or hormonal origin of our identities, you are most likely to get rolling eyes for a response. In some cases, you could harshly be reprimanded for being self-hating or naïve.
This scientophobia, if I may call it that, is a direct result of our bitter history with unethical or biased scientists trying to prevent us from accepting, or to heal us from, our identities.
In this article, we will not go over theories and studies that discuss biological and psychological origins of homosexuality. For those, you may find a well-referenced discussion about the subject on Wikipedia.
Scientific flaws permeate most of these research papers: The first being that they often study small groups of “homogenous” homosexuals. The studied homosexual is usually the stereotyped homosexual, white, cute, HIV+ and effeminate man.
There are rarely any mentions of other sub-communities, of lesbians, bisexuals, non-effeminate gay men, or transgender individuals. Perhaps, including everyone in one study would be too much of a hassle – I understand.
But here’s the catch: When you limit the scope of your study, you limit the scope of your conclusion. When you study a very specific population of homosexuals, you clarify the profile of that population.
After all, when science brags about finding an origin for homosexuality, and after looking at one sub-group in the queer community, random fucks, and their random assumptions about me, are legitimized, when in fact, science has barely ever studied people like me!
Of course, there are also issues of methodology that surface with some of the research. LeVay’s research* for example had a small sample of 7 homosexual men who died of AIDS. A sample of 7 is not enough to draw any conclusions whatsoever; the margin of error would remain too large. The differences observed could have resulted from sample artifacts, random population drifts, pure luck, etc.
Needless to say, these findings always fail the fundamental scientific test of replication. The laywoman may not know this, but for any scientific quantitative research to be acknowledged and for the scientist behind it to be accredited, it needs to be verified by another research team, while studying a different sample of the same population. If the conclusions fail to conform, then the theory is dropped.
The analysis of the results is also problematic. Scientists are allowed and encouraged to draw conclusions, as long as they, on one hand, keep their assumptions within the limits of reason, and on the other hand, they ought to clearly state they are speculating.
In addition, scientific research was always plagued with the overlap between causality and correlation, and that often led to numerous cruelties concealed behind the veil of science. As a biologist, there is nothing that shames me more. When we speak of causality, it means that A causes B, sticking a knife in someone’s skin causes a wound. Correlation on the other hand, means A is highly common when B is highly common in a specific population, for example, IQ results are often low in African American populations in the United States of America. Correlation may indicate causality, but scientists must be extremely careful when making a conclusion for a scientific research. Because s/he will steer the public opinion based on her/his research.
The African American IQ studies for example were disastrous and shameful for the scientists who performed them. Because of their racism and blunt bias, they frauded (they plea innocence on the basis of ignorance, but I personally refuse to let them off that easily) the results. Instead of drawing attention to some fundamental social problems affecting a minority’s ability to integrate the school system, such as language barriers, they chose to stigmatize the African American population and formulating correlation in the guise of causality.
Similarly, when scientists speak of homosexuality, they often speak of correlations with subtle phenomena such as unhealthy family dynamics, or a succession of older female siblings, and so on. They often fail to bring the social into the scene: After all, when parents notice that their son may be homosexual in a homophobic society, they often turn aggressive, if not violent.
You can also notice how some scientists, mainly genetic engineers, conduct certain “gay mice and homosexual flies” types of research and manipulation. It sounds interesting, that’s for sure, but when you think about it, what on earth do we have in common with mice? And flies? To top it off, the definition of a “homosexual fly” is one that just sticks its genital organ into another male. The same goes for mice. Such populations do not “choose partners” and have no preferential attitude towards anyone in the population. Give them a 100 mates and they will fuck 100 mates. I believe that the queer populations, throughout the different sub-communities, agree that what we define as sexuality is far more complicated.
Some argue that we look at animals in order to counter the normalcy argument. A comparison with insects and rodents is irrelevant for this purpose, because our social structures are fundamentally different from theirs: Drinking human blood is not rendered normal because mosquitoes ingest blood, is it?
If we need to better understand the evolutionary advantage our sexuality and identities present to society, then we can study animals that are socially closer to us, maybe primates. For such populations, non-heterosexual romance and sexual practice have been observed for as long as these animals have been observed.
For this, we also need to clarify, or maybe remember, that the concept of “normal” is void by definition, humans are normal, our non-conforming identities and orientations are by definition normal because a human being feels them, if these feelings were not “normal”, we wouldn’t be able to feel them. Psychological problems and illnesses are normal, they usually occur as a coping mechanism against stressful environments. Why do we treat them as illnesses? Because they pose a handicap to the individual’s life, hinder their ability to resolve the source(s) of stress, or causes danger to those around them. The same is not true for being queer. Rape, murder, violence, infanticide, pedophilia, necrophilia, and other unacceptable behavior have been observed and documented throughout history and across the ecosystems. This does not mean that we want to legalize them or defend pedophile rights, does it?
If we were to point out the patriarch of all scientific mistakes regarding homosexuality, it would be the desocialization of a deeply social matter. If you want to study homosexuality you need to know that you are stepping into an intricate field, where identity collides with a deeply heteronormative and homophobic society. You also need to understand that, whether or not you have a problem with homosexuals, and most modern societies have a problem with them, and that problem has a name, homophobia.
Unlike members of ethnic minorities, we are often born into heteronormative families, our persecution starts in our cradles. Such a struggle stains our whole life, it influences how and if we come out, it influences how we identify and how we interact with scientists, and other professionals. So the question cannot be what makes a man physically incapable of tolerating a pussy. The question is more complicated, I personally don’t know how to define it, and until you absolutely know what you are looking for, don’t venture into a world that you can’t even understand.
Just a friendly reminder, please stop mixing up gender identity, sexual orientation, and socially prescribed gender roles. A girl who likes to play football can be a person with an alternative gender identity or simply a child that likes to play football. She is not a homosexual, and the word “pre-homosexual” is one of the most disturbing and unscientific words I have ever come across.
And for all the queer folks out there, don’t fear science, dive headfirst and grab the beast with its horns. A PhD in neuroscience gives a white middle class man no advantage against you. Biology is a simple natural science, argue!

* LeVay, S., A difference in hypothalamic structure between homosexual and heterosexual men. Science 253:1034-1037 (1991)

Google is heavenly

I am a big google fan, like a really really big google fan, google is my platonic lover, really! Now I know that the wight background in the google search engine kind of consumes energy, because ... well it's wight. But you can't come to me and say making 2 google searches produces as much carbon dioxide as boiling water :(. That's irrational! give me facts or figures, PLEASE.
You see, a lesson I have learned in my pseudo carrier in science and journalism is that, when it comes to writing, science is still science but scientists are the world's greatest drama queens and when it comes to media, BBC is the ultimate opportunistic Diva.
So...No! I refuse to believe.

Week in photo

Now in terms of information, the Scientific American remains my site of choice, that is no secret, but there is a site with outstanding charm the National Geographic news!

A very interesting feature of this site is, as it is the case with the Nat Geo magazine, the great emphasis on pictures. Pictures are the neglected child of science, though the early scientists were naturalists, that simply loved to observe nature, the visual part simply faded and lost its initial role, we stoped enjoying pictures as scientists, we simply use them as a means of explanation, clarification. But pictures, can be a great pleasure, that might not help with transmitting knowledge directly (there fore can't be used in those BIG, sophisticated references) but they can play a great role in humanizing science.

Well maybe my opinion is biased in this, being the daughter of an amateur photographer makes me particularly vulnerable to lovely pictures.

But here's a funny use of pictures, in the week in photo category you'd find this week two interesting photos:


Source

Not bad for a dress made out of condoms! Don't you think? Actually I can say that this is one of the best colorful dresses I have every seen, but the design does seem a bit poor, the model looks like a tank in it. More fit for a children's fashion... But I guess that dressing kids with condoms won't be so socially and ethically acceptable now would it?


Second picture of the week: the tallest guy weds:

Source

I don't know what does this picture demonstrate exactly...

• Every beast will find a beauty that will love him?


• In most parts of the world, romance is still nonexistent? and marriages are ruled by money and social opression?

Well I get the feeling that both are incomplete, inaccurate and rather naive conclusions, but what is undeniable is that this picture demonstrates the persistence of our circus-like curiosity and infatuation with exoticism as a sign of our normality's superiority and not as a celebration of human diversity.

Look at this picture:

what do you think of it? What is wrong with it? Nothing? Come on there’s a terrible flaw in it! Look closer. Notice how Dr Jordan Tang holds the Micropipette, that’s not only unorthodox and against the protocol but it’s also impossible to achieve. Notice how this guy holds the micropipette:

You see the micropipette is not called micropipette for nothing it is an instrument used for minute quantities and accurate applications, and Dr Tang is obviously manipulating a cell culture preparation. How is he going to control the micropipette if he holds it like that? We should only hold it like that when we are sucking up substance from a recipient and no precision is required. You see that’s the cool thing about a micropipette, it’s automated it only takes the exact amount of substance, with remarkable precision.
This picture just frustrates me! Now of course Dr Tang knows how to hold a micropipette, but you see this is just Hollywood work, he wasn’t actually manipulating that stuff he was just posing for the camera. You see people like Dr Tang is a head of a research unit he probably never bothers to work on any real manipulation, he has small Indian/South American assistants to do all the hard labor while he works on the abstract aspect. By the way, his findings are pretty interesting, Human Trials Begin For Enzyme Inhibitor Alzheimer's Drug, no I won’t annoy you with the annoying details, but this advance has actually had some success among scientific literature lately… Anyway, back to the subject.

Now what I find most annoying about this is the lack of professionalism in the article that was posted, not that the site is unprofessional, no they give very interesting information, I am in fact pretty much addicted to it. But notice the picture they have posted, so lame! Just so that they would post a picture! They didn’t have to, they didn’t even label the picture well. Now I don’t the poor design of this site, it’s ok, it’s about the content not the looks, but what bothers me is the Bibliography in their articles:
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation
Which news release? At which date? Which page? Tell us something, ANYTHING! But still I read this site everyday.

Nile v/s Amazon Duel the aftermath

Do you people remember when the BigPharaoh was whining about some pesky Brazilians claiming their Amazon is longer than BigPharaoh’s nile? Well just so you wouldn’t be so bothered about it, and just to help you sleep at night, don’t worry, that Brazilian-Peruvian team is almost wrong. You see there are two flaws in his analysis:

1. their study was performed during the rain season, it is not even certain if this river’s water flows all over the year, it might just be a seasonal river! They must wait till the September expedition confirms the continuous flow of this river before hailing victory.


2. And even if waters flow all over the year, that proves nothing! You see scientists choose the starting point of a river in a rather subjective way We take the longest, straightest tributary, explains Jennifer Runyon, a researcher at the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS)… Oh yes! The Americans ran to salvage the Nile’s honor when Arab scientists, yet again, failed to do so. So what do we conclude? NOTHING! In fact both the Nile and the Amazon could be considered as THE longest river of the world depending on the subjective choice of the starting point.

Hey don’t look at me people, it’s not the objective scientists’ fault if nature doesn’t care. After all, nature couldn’t care less if the Amazon or the Nile is the longest river, what difference can that possibly make?! Both Egyptians and Brazilian/Peruvians are still dying of hunger and poverty, it’s just a damn title, that will just amuse the people who can afford to buy the Guinness book of records and annoys the children who are blessed enough to go to school.
Source: Olé! Amazon Longer Than the Nile—Or Is It? By David Biello , on June 22, 2007, in the Online edition of the Scientific American

Body weight and global warming

Ok ok! Ecologists have spent decades trying to make raise awareness and revive the naturalistic nature of Man, unfortunately, they miserably failed, they warned us about global warming, the yelled Apocalypse!... Nothing worked.

But I believe I have found the ultimate way to address the public is a Humanly comprehensible manor:

*drum*

Global warming makes you FAT!

*undrum*

You see the principle is very simple, the body usually accommodates to heat stress by (among other methods of course) increasing transpiration (sweat). But there are certainly limits to how much a body can adapt (in this case sweat), so the body's water cannot drop for more than 0,5% maximum. Now, always keep in mind, sweat is an immediate reaction, a short term adaptation. Our bodies rely most of all on long term adaptation, so what happens is that our body needs to increase the amount of water it can dissipate by transpiration, the 0,5% being constant, the body will proceed by increasing its stock of water in the body hence increasing body weight.

Tell people that they will go fat if the climate continues to warm up and you'll see them doing everything to reduce the temperature. Now this approach is totally falsified and the increase of weight is insignificant but we don't need to tell them that much details, after all President Bush took the USA to war saying there are arms of mass destruction...

The main point is that people are hypocrites, there were a documentary a while back about medical tests for a disease very wide spread in Africa (wish I could remember which illness) but the project couldn't provide sufficient financial support to produce the substance as the disease is most spread in Africa and there fore the patients won't be able to pay money (it will be mostly donations and stuff) so there were not enough profit. The project was stopped. Then a few years later, this same substance was discovered to have beneficial effects on the skin, so it was incorporated into a cosmetic product... The project became profitable for pharmaceutical companies, so now the drug is being produced in parallel and dependently of the production of that cosmetic substance. Apparently, the beauty of rich women's skin is far more important than the lives of poor people. I wish I could scream against imperialism and the globalisation, but I can't because it isn't modernism that created this injustice, modernism just revealed it, and also revealed our impotence against it.

Sex IQ

Take the test


OK! OK! I don’t like to brag about anything but let’s face it: numbers don’t lie… I am simply SO good at sex, khalas!

Now, and I am quoting, my only problem is finding a sexual partner than can satisfy my requirements.

Yalla, we need a girl/boyfriend, volunteers anyone? No one? Come one people I need your support!

Pourquoi Dieu Ne Disparaitra jamais (Why God will never disappear)

Reference: All the scientific numbers and facts are extracted from the Number of Science et Vie #1055

A while back, when I posted an entry about God. I received a comment that I felt I needed to answer but the timing wasn’t great back then, because I was in the middle of my exams… So here it is (with some delay).


We biologically Need God… We believe in God because of how we are, regardless of God’s actual existence.

Definition(according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

1. The supreme reality :esp: The being worshipped as the creator and ruler of the universe
2. a being or object believed to have supernatural attributes and powers and to require worship
3. A person or thing of supreme value

When I say that we are programmed to believe in God I am neither denying God’s existence nor am I trying to anyone to atheism. But there are facts stating that the belief in God is a universal phenomenon, right? But every religion claims to monopolize God. Some people argue that the universality of the belief In God is a proof that God exists but humans somehow lost the “knowledge”. If that was so, then why is the concept of God so radically different, some religions believe in more than one God, some believe in no GOD but a certain superior “existence” or “material”… In brief, something superior that we should aspire to.

In fact, we want to believe in God, regardless of reason, we even create an image of God that goes against reason and denies the individuals the right to question God. If there is anything that unites all religions is the belief that God is some force that exceeds us, a perfect force that we want to get close to. Unfortunately, no such force has proven its existence, for all of us, God’s what ever we see that’s perfect and most powerful! God could do anything, but God won’t. Why? Each religion gives a different answer to human suffering which contradicts God’s supremacy and perfection, but eventually no religion has given a satisfying answer, at least as far as I’m concerned.

In spite of this “rational vacuum” in religions (if not to say contradiction), all religions seek to prove its righteousness through some supernatural events. You have river splitting, child killing, healing, resurrecting,warrior God… Sometimes you have a moody God… And that’s just a sample of the supernatural stuff that a God can do. We simply try to justify everything that God does just by saying: well, it’s God, God can do anything. This arbitrary authority given to divinities is probably a way to promote the socially submissive prototype of human beings, where obeying God is unconditional, then his representative’s obedience is unconditional and by extension almost everyone’s obedience is unconditional, thus pacifying societies by teaching not to demand anything.

However, in many religions, some Gnostic and Sufi currents appear, that mainly promote direct contact with the divinity and encourages individualism as the best way to reach God (the only real being that’s sublime and therefore deserves to be obeyed). This meant that all of these currents were severely oppressed by the political authorities (in the name of God of course). Many might be tempted to believe that these thinkers are the best sources for knowledge and maybe that’s another proof that God exists. One of the most spectacular supernatural manifestations of religions are the meditations that most religions recommend, the trans situations where the believers feel as if they are united with GOD… Unfortunately again, these experiences only disenchant God even more, because it’s a physical phenomenon. It is proven that those who practice such meditations witness a measurable variation of the cerebral activity. It’s no secret that by reducing the activity of a certain part of the right hemisphere has anti-depressing effect (I know I should elaborate better this point but I am too tired). So it isn’t God that takes you to that great place it’s your physiology.


But most people believe in much easier and simpler concepts. I see no magic in religions and deities. And I assume that this problem has been so huge and so old that religions were aware of this problem and used a very old trick: Metaphysics and miracles. From hallucinogens in early Stone Age to miracles and demonological manifestations. Did you ever notice that, for example, that the Christian church (Christianity being the most widespread religions) gives a primordial importance to miracles? Ask an average Christian to prove that Jesus IS GOD, his answer would be: Miracles! I am a Maronite Catholic that was raised in a Maronite Catholic environment and went to a Maronite Catholic school and what was I taught to believe in as the cornerstone of my belief? What’s the ultimate proof that Jesus was not just another prophet? He died and he was resurrected! What a surprise, Judaism denies Jesus’ resurrection and Islam denies Jesus’ death in the first place… That’s what we rely on to prove supremacy.


I will repeat myself again:

God has never really given any real evidence of his/her existence… Not one evidence, not half an evidence, NOTHING.

What can I say, Science et vie has beautifully phrased that by saying:

Croire en Dieu? En general, c’est le mot “Dieu” qui reticent l’attention, focalize les débats. Comme si le fait de “croire” était une disposition parfaitement admise, pour ne pas dire naturelle. Et justement, c’est le cas!

Quick translation:

To believe in God? Usually, it’s the word “God” that retains attention and causes debates. As if “believing” was a perfectly admitted, if not to say natural, disposition. And that’s exactly the case!

This practically condenses what I still want to say. Believing in God, or maybe the better word would be having a religious feeling”, has been around for as long as man has existed, and maybe before. It was traced back to the Australopithecus around 160 000 years ago, when this pre-human used to collect stones and items that resemble humans, indicating that they are capable of giving certain object metaphysical meanings [ref: S&V #1055]. And the first decisive proof of spirituality (sepulture) is traced back to the early humans, with both Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis some 100 000 years ago (sepultures discovered in Skhul and Qafzeh, Israel). The first Gods were also discovered in the Middle East some 10 000 years ago… That’s long before the present religions, which can either mean that we biologically need to believe in a divinity (any divinity what so ever) or that God almighty has allowed human beings to remain in the darkness of sin and ignorance for more than 100 000 years ago… Oh! Not to mention that it would also mean that we as humans are not the only ones to see God, bashing the concept of the Human superiority against other creatures.


SO why would a Lie be so popular and universal? Maybe it’s beneficial.

Let’s not forget, Religions and Gods give absolute answers to unanswerable existential questions. Judaism/Christianity/Islam/most religions represent death as a new birth, a transition; some religions actually resolve the fear of death through reincarnation. In brief, Death no longer exists.

Other questions are also given magical answers:

• What to do with our money?
• Where are the keys to eternal happiness?
• what are the rules of interaction between humans?
• How to have sex?

Religions simply think for us, it’s like a more sophisticates social organization. It appeases our fears and makes us feel like we are part of a bigger group… The group of the “right ones”. That alone is an evolutionary benefit that none can deny!

But that’s not all; S&V posts the results of a Swedish research, showing a clear correlation between religious feeling and the concentration of a certain serotonin receptors names 5HT1A (an inverted correlation). The less receptors there are, the less serotonin is consumed, the more there are available in the blood.


Eventually, I look back at all what I have written and I think to myself: What have I proven? What was my point? Some might think that I have just proven that God exists while trying really hard to prove his absence but in the end, the only thing I wanted to prove that God is something we believe in, just believe; none can define, experiment or find God… Does God exist? That’s anybody’s guess, we just know one thing, that soft feeling you feel when you pray and become part of a community… You’d feel it whether God existed or not!

So… What about fellatio:

Once upon a time, there were a meticulous, careful and very professional scientist that I enjoy calling myself. Myself made an interesting entry a couple of weeks ago about the health effects of cunnilingus… Or at least one of its effects. And over the last few weeks myself has tried to investigate the cunnilingus’ closest cousin… Fellatio (or fellation).

The first lesson I learnt was actually a spelling lesson: it is written with an “F” and not a “PH” as I have always thought (it’s kind of funny that I have never searched it).

The second lesson I learnt was… linguistic: The word fellatio derives from the latin: fellare meaning: to suck. I wonder if there’s any connection? Haha.

Anyway, to the serious part:

Unlike cunnilingus, fellatio can include two radically different factors. The strict fellare act and the contact with any potential secretions. Of course in the case of cunnilingus this division is meaningless since vaginal secretions and microflora are constantly in contact with the partner, while in the case of fellatio the partner might choose to exclude any potential fluid from the contact.


Fellare
I was sadly disappointed to notice that there can be little (if any at all) benefit for the partner. Even though I couldn’t find any clear information about it, I can say that the man’s penis is an external organ. It’s covered with an external epithelium, naturally more hostile to microflora. Of course, microbes are everywhere, but the penis has a microbal population very similar to the rest of the body (notably the skin) so the woman might as well lick her own body! A woman’s genitals are different, the vagina is more or less hidden from the rest of the body, there are many folds that isolate the internal part and block fluid (more or less). In addition, a vagina is constantly wet (in variable degrees). All these factors create a unique environment that differs from the rest of the body. That’s sadly not the case with men.

But men are resourceful and therefore have another arsenal of substances.



The Semen

Yes, I know many ladies (and gentlemen) don’t like to think about that possibility and would certainly prefer avoiding talking about its nutritional value. But let’s face it, it’s produced in the honor of the partner, shouldn’t that make anyone feel special?

Semen is a very complex and interesting substance as you will notice:

1. Some substances are really gross and not appetizing such as Urea and Uric acid. Yuck! But don’t worry it’s in a small percentage, since the body makes sure to evacuate the urethra before the actual ejaculation (I wouldn’t recommend in this case any ingestion of precum, because that’s the body’s Urethra-cleaner). The body needs to clean the Urethra to preserve the health of the man’s body.
2. Water, well that’s not a surprise. But don’t try to use it for dehydration cases. Consider it like a coke, it might contain water but it’s not good against thirst.
3. Bicarbonate buffers. This is very interesting. The buffers maintain a stable pH in its environment, which is essential for surviving. When a person suffers from some stroke or anything temporarily blocking the breathing process, the acidity of the blood (resulting from accumulation of CO2) is reduced to a more neutral level by the blood’s buffers. Buffers are also used in the digestive system and play a major role in preventing parasitic infection. Unfortunately, the stomach’s pH is not neutral (=7) it’s significantly lower therefore the stomach is acidic. If I am not mistaking the stomach’s buffer is Nitric acid. Bicarbonate is an alkalizing buffer, it keeps the pH above 7. Introducing this substance to the stomach will actually get it closer to neutrality, thus facilitating viral infections ( <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
4. Cholesterol and other lipids have a bad reputation but in fact they are essential for the body… swallowing is not recommended for people with high cholesterol levels.
5. Fructose. When I read this I was kind of surprised. Even though I knew that simple sugars are abundant in semen (the little wiggly things need energy) but usually the body uses glucose and not fructose.
   
   Anyway, fructose is good news, and if you calculate the calorific value of semen than it is estimated as slightly less than one calorie. Which doesn’t seem much but an ejaculation is only between 2 and 5 ml, so in fact it’s VERY energetic.
   
   Swallowing is not recommended for people with diabetes.
6. Zinc, Calcium and Phosphate are extremely useful for the body, even in small proportions. Especially Calcium (why am I starting to feel I am talking about milk?) and Phosphate (I know it’s good for gardening but in fact the body needs it as well).
7. Ascorbic acid and Vitamin B12. Oh come on ladies, now you have to reason to complain. We pay money for multivitamin pills and then refuse an offer that would provide it for free!
   
   Did I mention that ascorbic acid is the scientific name for the vitamin C?
8. Citric acid. In spite of the impression one might take, semen is alkaline. It might contain acids but that’s overshadowed by the presence of spermine and spermidine, but most of all with the presence of bicarbonate buffers.
9. Proteins and enzymes Certainly, you don’t need to be clever to guess that the semen would contain proteins, but don’t try to commercialize it as a meat substitute! It’s mainly hormones, but not testosterone, so don’t you ladies worry about facial hair or something.
   The main enzymes in this case are: spermine and spermidine (Duh!). These are powerful bactericides… wow guys, all you need is some pesticide in there and you’ll be perfect for gardening.

Shlemazl, you mentioned the stimulation of immunity. I think that’s more about the copulation act, due to many factors such as the alkalinity of the semen (a vagina is acid) and the presence of bactericides (vaginas rely on microbes and bacteriae) and probably other factors. This would stimulate the genitals in a healthy way but I am not certain on the effect on the digestive system.

To sum it up, I admit that, putting my personal experience aside, I have no magic answer about this. After all sex is all about the fun, I know most people find sperm totally disgusting, but to be objective and scientific… It isn’t so bad, is it?

When I was writing this, I couldn’t help wondering about the exact constitution of the vaginal secretions… Maybe some other time!

Scientific tip of the week: Cunnilingus for a better health

Thanks to Arte

The internal cavities’ sterility (toward pathological parasites) is not an easy objective. Most pathological parasites are eliminated by the simple effect of hostile conditions (alkaline or acid environment, for example). But it’s not just that. Many microbes actually enjoy such “hostile” conditions. Those are eliminated by the effort of other microbes via the competition game… So far nothing new, right? Here are some problems though:

• On one hand, we know that parasites are far more successful than symbiotic or commensally organisms. In other terms, put two species of microbes (an aggressive one and a peaceful one) in the same environment. In no time, the parasite will take over.
• On the other hand, the equilibrium inside our digestive system is different from the one found in our environment (air, water, earth, food…). So apparently, we didn’t just ingest the microbes we modified their proportions.

Now of course, one could say that the human body is capable of producing enzymes and proteins to customize the composition of our micro-friends. I have no clear and conclusive information about that. Nothing prohibits such a mechanism but the plasticity of microbes limits its effectiveness.

A better-known reason is the precocious ingestion of useful germs and microbes. The early arrival of these germs to the “virgin stomach” gives it a huge advantage that will preserve its predominance. In other words, the nice germs are pumped into our body. They see the vast land with a lot of decaying shit to feed on, they think to themselves

Praise the Lord! He has given us this Promised Land. Let’s reproduce and fill it.

Then when the evil Polytheist parasites come, the Chosen germs produce toxins and purify the Land, so that God would remain happy.

This theory is proven in many animals. We know for example that baby elephants and baby hamsters find their Mom’s shit. These animals urgently need these germs for their crucial role in digestion.

Other animals regurgitate food for their kids (penguins, wild dogs, wolves…). The little ones ingest the germs with the meals. Mammals feed their babies with milk, which contains useful germs also.

Ok… That’s good… But that’s not all! What’s the very first environment that the child comes in contact with after the Uterus? The doctor’s hands? No, the Mom’s vagina.

Yes, boys and girls. The composition of the healthy and normal stomach is populate by a significant proportions of germs that usually populate the female vagina. Children who are born prematurely and by cesarean operation never compensate the absence of contact with their mom’s vagina.

So girls, next time your boyfriend/girlfriend are executing some cunning cunnilingus, don’t think of it as a great favor you are receiving… Think of it more as a favor you are giving… Oh and guys, stop complaining, you should be grateful!