Wednesday, January 10, 2007
So this explains it
Since I got back to New York, I've gotten several queries along the lines of "I read your blog. Are you hitting it with chicks again?"
The answer to that is no, not really. I think chicks are hot and sexy, and I'd rather look at a naked chick than a naked dude, but when it comes down to it, I'm in for the function over form. Therefore, I'll always be partial to a good, old-fashioned hard penis. Just because I've occasionally strayed from my "strictly dickly" approach to my sexuality doesn't mean that I'm switching teams permanently.
Now I have some insight, direct from the pages of Nature, which may help those curious about why I'll occasionally indulge in some Sapphic action. For whatever reason, Nature seems to devote far more coverage to the science of same-sex doin' it than any other elite science journal. For example, there were no pictures of gay animal sex (ie: male giraffes fudge packing or male whales sticking their dicks in each others' blowholes) in Science or Cell, but Nature devoted an entire page to it. J-Sexy has this picture hanging above her desk, indicating that Nature is obviously the go-to journal regarding stories appealing to scientists with more prurient interests.
The "News and Views" section of Nature covers interesting research published this week in any journal. I am glad they do, because I don't routinely read Proceedings of the Royal Society, and I would have missed an important study modeling the prevalence of the as-yet unidentified gay gene in the human population. I abbreviated it here, because nobody really cares about Gavrilets and Rice's speculative theories about whether this hypothetical gay gene is X-linked or autosomal or their musings about homosexuality being "a Darwinian paradox." The important part is highlighted in bold text anyway, and is quite succinct. Read for yourself:
Yes! Finally, a genetics study that's actually interesting! Note the conclusion in the abstract of this blurb: "The model also predicts widespread bisexuality in humans." The next time someone asks me why I'm getting down with the ladies, I'll just refer them to this article and attribute it to the normal phenotype of someone heterozygous for gay and straight alleles at the sexual preferences locus. It makes sense. I hope that next they tackle distribution of the pull-my-hair-while-you're-doing-me-doggystyle gene among the population. Gavrilets and Rice are doing some of the most meaningful genetics research EVER...it's way more insightful than dicking around with Drosophila or C. elegans. I hope they get funding for years to come, and I look forward to all their future papers.
The answer to that is no, not really. I think chicks are hot and sexy, and I'd rather look at a naked chick than a naked dude, but when it comes down to it, I'm in for the function over form. Therefore, I'll always be partial to a good, old-fashioned hard penis. Just because I've occasionally strayed from my "strictly dickly" approach to my sexuality doesn't mean that I'm switching teams permanently.
Now I have some insight, direct from the pages of Nature, which may help those curious about why I'll occasionally indulge in some Sapphic action. For whatever reason, Nature seems to devote far more coverage to the science of same-sex doin' it than any other elite science journal. For example, there were no pictures of gay animal sex (ie: male giraffes fudge packing or male whales sticking their dicks in each others' blowholes) in Science or Cell, but Nature devoted an entire page to it. J-Sexy has this picture hanging above her desk, indicating that Nature is obviously the go-to journal regarding stories appealing to scientists with more prurient interests.
The "News and Views" section of Nature covers interesting research published this week in any journal. I am glad they do, because I don't routinely read Proceedings of the Royal Society, and I would have missed an important study modeling the prevalence of the as-yet unidentified gay gene in the human population. I abbreviated it here, because nobody really cares about Gavrilets and Rice's speculative theories about whether this hypothetical gay gene is X-linked or autosomal or their musings about homosexuality being "a Darwinian paradox." The important part is highlighted in bold text anyway, and is quite succinct. Read for yourself:
Yes! Finally, a genetics study that's actually interesting! Note the conclusion in the abstract of this blurb: "The model also predicts widespread bisexuality in humans." The next time someone asks me why I'm getting down with the ladies, I'll just refer them to this article and attribute it to the normal phenotype of someone heterozygous for gay and straight alleles at the sexual preferences locus. It makes sense. I hope that next they tackle distribution of the pull-my-hair-while-you're-doing-me-doggystyle gene among the population. Gavrilets and Rice are doing some of the most meaningful genetics research EVER...it's way more insightful than dicking around with Drosophila or C. elegans. I hope they get funding for years to come, and I look forward to all their future papers.
Labels: I LOVE IT, perversion, Razzification, science, sex
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
