Part # 1 The Junk Science of Real Clear Science

[Billy Rojas]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Junk Science of Real Clear Science

By: Billy Rojas

Real Clear Politics is widely regarded as a "must read" among political people 

-in government, the news media, the leadership of our political parties,

 even NGOs and businesses. The reputation is well deserved. However,

the Science editor, Steven Ross Pomeroy, is unfit for his job as editor at

Real Clear Science. There can be no question about it after reading Pomeroy's

May 9, 2019 article,  "Are Homophobic Men Turned On by Gay Porn?"

There are several glaring problems with the article, each of which make it clear

that Pomeroy is biased in favor of homosexuals and homosexual recruitment

and is biased against a heterosexual understanding of nature and natural processes.

Let us go through these problems one by one.

-----

First is the title of Pomeroy's paper, which includes the phrase "homophobic men."

Included as Part 2 of this presentation is a lengthy article of mine entitled

"The word homophobia."  Briefly, this essay provides substantial evidence that the coinage,

"homophobia" was invented in the early 1970s with the explicit purpose of defamation

of critics of homosexuality. There was no other purpose; the idea was to smear critics

as if they were the equivalent of racists. 

There is no clinical phobia which consists of irrational aversion to homosexuality

and homosexuals. On the contrary, as Claude Crepault of the University of Montreal

has pointed out, you can define homosexuality as a clinical phobia, as unnatural revulsion

against normal interest in the opposite sex , a  characteristic of our species, something

necessary for our survival. Things do not get more basic than that.

In other words, necessarily, the burden of proof falls on homosexuals and their advocates

by way of producing a defense that demonstrates a species advantage from homosexual

behavior. And guess what? There is no such defense. By definition,  homosexuality

is clinical heterophobia.

Which, incidentally, Caesar Augustus seems to have understood well enough

in his time even if he lacked the vocabulary that we would prefer by way of

describing the phenomena of homosexuality. But the Augustan Laws- to speak

of the lex Julia et Papia, in effect in the last decades of the century before Christ,

and still current when the Apostle Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans, were

explicit about a variety of acts of homosexuality that were punishable by death.

Anyone who sexually abused a  freeborn Roman was liable to capital punishment

and soldiers involved in acts of sodomy were executed in disgrace. In the section

of the Augustan laws dealing with "adultery" a category was included for male

effeminacy, viz, in homosexual relationships, that also merited death.

Indeed, as Livy reported, Augustus went so far as to require all male Roman citizens

to marry, this edict promulgated by the emperor himself before the Senate of Rome

in 17 BC.  Not until the Christian era of the 4th century AD would laws that were

so completely opposed to homosexuality exist in the empire.

Sodomy should not be tolerated, it did not serve the interests of the state or of 

Roman society, indeed, it worked against those interests, and it served

no useful purpose of any kind, and, hence, must be eliminated by

eliminating homosexuals.

By the time of Nero, while these laws were still enforced in parts of the empire,

the emperor himself could disregardful them at will, but this sketch should

put things in perspective  -and correct the false impression generated

by homosexuals that classical era Rome was a homosexual hothouse.

It wasn't. And especially under Augustus, moral legislation set the stage

for Christian civil law when the new faith became the religion of the state.

This being the case, we need more opposition to homosexuality, not less, we need

strong measures to  eliminate homosexuality from society, and we need to throw out

all laws that have had the effect of extending rights and privileges to homosexuals

-just as we do not grant rights to any population that can be defined in terms

of a mental defect or psychological disorder.  The entire "homosexual rights"

movement is based on false premises and is an absurdity.

Moreover,  the word "homophobia" has as a subtext the view that critics of homosexuality

must be Neanderthals, or uninformed simpletons, or some other category of person

who should not be taken seriously. And who should be demonized as evil. Inasmuch as

this unjustified characterization now permeates the media and has become part of

popular culture lore, it is time to demand a complete reversal of public policy

to reflect empirical reality. 

Those who most tend to be uniformed, who are most simplistic, and who deserve

some form of negative characterization as having evil intent, are homosexuals

and their supporters.

Besides which, despite decades of pressure tactics, decades of pro-homosexual

propaganda promulgated by the Big Press and Big TV, those who are most

well informed about same-sex psychopathology are critics of homosexuality

who happen to be uncompromisingly heterosexual.

In so many words, the title of Pomeroy's paper is an attempt to smear opponents

of homosexuals as not deserving as much as a fair hearing. The title consists

of an ad hominem attack against normal people. The objective which can be inferred

is that Ross Pomeroy wants to advance the homosexual cause at the expense of

heterosexual normality, in the process further undermining values that

our nation has depended up  since its founding.

That is, what all of this implies is that we need a modern version of the system of laws

that criminalized homosexuality not only in 1787 but continually afterward until

the era of Eisenhower and JFK, and beyond, until Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan

began to reverse course and prepared the way for the era of nihilistic sexual values

ushered in by William Jefferson Clinton.  Note the irony: Thomas Jefferson, during

the time he was governor of Virginia, signed into Law a measure that mandated

the death penalty for sodomy;  he instituted, for Americans, something much like

the laws of Caesar Augustus.

------

Secondly, there is reflexive use of the word "gay" to denote homosexuals

or homosexuality.  Such language custom is rarely given a second thought

as if  "of course," gay is the term we all use in this context; why is this a problem?

I will tell you why, and tell you why the word "lesbian" is also very objectionable.

There is, after all, the respect that is due to our shared history. Not that the libertarians

who run Silicon Valley get the idea, not that champions of STEM education get the idea,

either, savants who are so tech-centric that all other values are worthless to them, and not that

anyone else who is a cultural illiterate, who fails to see any relevance to historic documents

including great song hits of the past and literary masterpieces we should all cherish, gets either.

But the fact is that words have actual meanings and if the mass media chooses to disregard

these meanings it is time enough to discredit these purveyors of 'crap culture' and create

a new media that is responsible and that actually respects American history

and America's heritage.

A "gay" traditionally was a female prostitute or, by extension, any "woman of easy virtue."

This usage was dominant in American idiom until the WWII era and into the 1960s;

that was when homosexuals began the first of several major word thefts, appropriating

the term "gay" for themselves. Hence, until the late 1960s,  there still were hit songs that

either used the dictionary definition (happy, joyful) or alluded to "shameless" females.

The story of songs that made use of the word gay in non-homosexual contexts is interesting

unto itself. And it certainly has important meanings for anyone who is a student of

American history, or family history, or cultural history. And it seems to me to

be a worthy objective to take back the word, to deny any association of "gay"

with sodomy, and to turn public opinion against homosexuals so thoroughly

that the 1970-2019 era fades from memory like a sickness that is brought

under control and eradicated, leaving no trace.

On the subject of song lyrics, there are any number of things to say. All of which

have importance of their own. The conceit -based on short-sightedness and ignorance-

of STEM advocates, that the only real value in society is technology, is just that,

short-sighted and ignorant. If you owned the rights to a top tier music ensemble

what would it be worth to you, after all? If you were Garth Brooks' agent you would

be a millionaire; if you were Garth Brooks you would be a multi-millionaire.

That is, popular music is an industry worth billions of dollars annually.

It matters a helluva lot what the words are to popular songs.

People identify with songs, they derive at least some of their values

from songs, sometimes they buy products because of songs, they may

make all kinds of choices based on the words to songs they especially like.

This said it is worth knowing that the Judy Collins song about daddy being

"gay" was a reference to generic happiness and had zero reference

to homosexuality. And Judy Collins still has millions of fans who

watch TV specials featuring the songstress, they buy CDS, and

they attend concerts. None of which is trivial.

Songs which include the word "gay" with no homosexual meaning:

I'll be seeing you, 1938

The last time I saw Paris, 1941

Have yourself a merry little Christmas, 1944

It might as well be Spring,1945

Peter Cottontail, 1949

Jambalaya, 1952

The Great Pretender, ca. 1955

Why do fools fall in love?, 1956

Twistin' the night away, 1962

Alone again, naturally, 1972

Our musical heritage means something and what it means is antithetical

to everything homosexuality is all about.

Here is what we get now, from the depths of homosexual Hell;

lyrics from a 2003 tune from Agoraphobic Nosebleed, which seems

to be an album, which has the song: "When taking a shit feels sexy."

The words go like this-

Immaculate defecation
Covered in semen the blue-eyed demon
Jesus is born
From the cunt of a gay whore

How about if we rebel against such ugliness and go to war against homosexuality

and against homosexuals and defeat the entire project of the Cultural Marxist Left

and destroy it completely?  War.  Not hand-wringing and wimpish consternation.

There was a time when "our hearts were young and gay" referred to young men chasing skirts

or skirts luring young men into their snares, and the obviously heterosexual pleasures

that are associated with such behaviors.  Cornelia Otis Skinner wrote the book

of that title in 1942.  It became a movie in 1944 and was produced on Broadway

as a stage play in 1946.  It served as the basis for a CBS television show in 1950

and had an afterlife as late as 1960 as a musical comedy.

There was also common use of the phrase "gay blade"  -also until the 1950s. This was

a man who was a womanizer who could not get enough "poon-tang," as it were.

He was  a man (blade) interested in any available loose woman (gay).

And what about people, viz, real life human beings, named Gay or Gaye or Gaylord?

They don't count?  What counts are homosexuals who have temper tantrums when

they don't get their way? How about we declare war on the irresponsible news media

and demand that they make things right for the families of three political leaders named "Gay"

(from Vermont, Louisiana, and New Mexico) who contributed to the history of their states?

How about the news media making things right for the family of singer Marvin Gaye,

for movie producer Gaye Hirsch (Shattered Glass), and for actress Gaye Paritz

(Return of Josey Wales)?

Now, thanks to an irresponsible and historically illiterate news media, we need to

deal with language pollution brought about by sexual degenerates (homosexuals)

whenever we read documents from American history. I refuse to go along with

the media or thoughtless popular culture idiom.  Hence in my own usage I only

employ the word "gay" as a homosexual referent when quoting a book title

or someone's on-the-record comments.

Similarly, the term "lesbian" is highly objectionable as a synonym for female homosexual.

It reflects an ancient slander which had it that the poetess Sappho of Lesbos, who was the

overseer of a finishing school for upper class Greek brides-to-be, was, instead, a female

homosexual.  However, Sappho was married, had at least one daughter, and the two stanzas

of her extant poems that have homosexual content have been known as forgeries for more

than a half century. So, on what grounds is it legitimate to call female degenerates "lesbians"?

At that, the people of the very real island of Lesbos (spelled "Lesvos" on many maps)

are very unhappy with homosexual usage. Twice there have been major petition drives

and legal action before the Supreme Court of Greece to make false and insulting use

of their island's name a criminal offense. The 150,000 or so authentic  "Lesbians"

of the Aegean happen to be Greek Orthodox Christians for whom homosexuality

is a grievous sin. And I prefer to take a stand with them   -against female homosexuals

All of which may sound like a side issue, not all that important, but that is not how

I look at it.  I will not concede even one word to sexual degenerates, to any homosexuals,

and a battle for words is part of any war of ideas for the soul of our culture.  That is,

make people know, even at the level of popular idiom, that we are 100% serious

about this war for our heritage. Get people to use words differently

and, in due course, they will start to think differently.

-----

Next we should turn to the "byline."

Who is Steven 'Ross' Pomeroy?

Real Clear Science does not say. All we are told is that he has a degree in zoology

(as did Alfred Kinsey) and that he has an interest in general science. Unsaid is

Ross' relationship to another Pomeroy, Wardell Pomeroy. 

Possibly Ross is a grandson of Wardell, or perhaps a cousin. In any case, given

Wardell's reputation as a party to unethical sexual experiments, it would have been

useful for Real Clear Science to have told its readers about any relationship 

-if for no other reason than to try and neutralize questions about Ross' confirmation bias

when he discusses research by the Kinsey Institute.  Instead, Real Clear Science

has chosen to keep these things secret.

Wardell Pomeroy was the notorious associate of Alfred Kinsey who helped

him prepare two widely read books filled with misleading statistics, relying on unethical

research procedures, which covered-up the sexual perversions of both researchers

as if they were promoting family values.  That is, not only were the "findings"

of the Kinsey Reports based on such "cooking-the-books" methods as including

25% of the male sample consisting of  convicted sex offenders as if

any representative "normal" male population would be 1/4th criminal, but

the pretense of objectivity was fraudulent. After all, Kinsey and Pomeroy had

a homosexual relationship during their corroboration.

Then there were those "studies" which showed that, when someone fondles

the genitalia of infants, the babies become sexually aroused. No-one, back in the

1950s when the "Kinsey Reports" were first published, thought to ask:

Who, exactly, is fondling infants and why isn't the perpetrator identified,

arrested, and prosecuted in a court of law?

Who, indeed?  We still do not know for certain but it IS obvious that even though

Kinsey was the headliner on the project and Wardell followed Alfred's directives,

Wardell nonetheless was assigned major responsibilities for the "reports"

and received credits as a sort of junior author. Which is to say that

for sexual manipulation of infants to have taken place it would have

been necessary for both Kinsey and Wardell Pomeroy to have approved.

Which, it seems obvious, utterly discredits the Kinsey Reports and

makes Wardell Pomeroy a dirty sonovabitch.

However, this is not how Ross Pomeroy sees things.

An article by Ross Pomeroy dated November 18, 2011, is available online.

It is entitled: "With the Help of the Kinsey Institute, Let's Talk About Sex."

If you take the time to read this essay it should become immediately clear that

Ross has more than a disinterested academic interest in the Kinsey Institute.

You just might think that Ross takes such a whole-heartedly positive view

of Kinsey because, if Kinsey's reputation is extolled, that would simultaneously

validate the worth of Wardell and make him   -perhaps Ross' grandfather-

a hero and an authority to refer to when advocating nihilistic sexual values

and criminally deviant sexual behaviors of many kinds. In fact,

what else are we to conclude from Ross Pomeroy's 2011 screed?

Here are some excerpts:

*Dr. Alfred Kinsey, a Harvard-educated professor of zoology,...[carried out] an ambitious

undertaking: the study of human sexuality. Before Kinsey set about this mission,

knowledge about sex was scant, and the studies available in the public domain

were either lacking depth or laden with bias.

*Most of the research conducted by Kinsey Institute has been incredibly vital to society.

* Despite the obvious benefit of the Kinsey Institute's work, their research, and sexual

education in general, has often been mired in controversy. Opponents of comprehensive

sexual education contend that an abstinence-only approach is the more proper course

of action. ...But by simply urging abstinence and shoving sex under the rug, where will

our nation's youth learn about sex?

These comments are incredibly misleading, not to mention factually incorrect in various

details. Here are a few corrections:

-While it is true that empirical information about sex was relatively rare before ca 1950.

it hardly follows that everything available was worthless. 

-The research produced by Kinsey was uncritically used to destroy moral law in America

starting in the late 1950s. Rather than being "vital to society" it was destructive to society.

For a full discussion of the damages done to our legal system by Kinsey and Wardell

Pomeroy, see Judith Reisman's 2010 book, Sexual Sabotage.

-While it is true that opponents of homosexuality sometimes insist on abstinence

as the only remedy, it is grossly misleading to characterize all of Kinsey and Pomeroy's

opponents as religious puritans. Among opponents from the beginning were

people like Abraham Maslow, Erich Fromm and Karen Horney. This is to speak

of some of the most respected names in the field of psychology.  And they

sure in heck did not counsel abstinence education.  That is, Ross Pomeroy

made use of a straw man argument that he knew was false.

Then there was Ross Pomeroy's explanation for the Jerry Sandusky scandal at

Penn State.  It was all the fault of pre-Kinsey attitudes toward sex, so Ross Pomeroy  said.

But the scandal featured people from just about all age groups at the university

and their parts in the cover-up. In fact, what was so striking about the scandal

was how Sandusky was able to get away with abuse of 52 known victims over

a period of approximately 35 years, several stories known to authorities long

before the scandal exploded in 2011, the witnesses sometimes so young that

they weren't even born by the time Kinsey died.

What far better explains the scandal are values that were promoted by Kinsey and

Wardell Pomeroy that, by the 1970s when the Penn State outrages began,

had started to permeate American popular culture. That is, Ross Pomeroy's

comments are themselves part of a cover-up.

Yes, it is natural to want to think well of a relative, maybe even just a namesake,

but it may be the worst possible thing to do when a relative, or etc,  is a bad person

who deserves no plaudits at all and does deserve condemnation.  How do I know?

A mother who became a demented caricature of a human being during the last

decade of her life, and a (former) brother who turned into a sick-minded and

destructive pathological liar.  I do not like to say this but it happens to be

the truth. I sure in hell will not defend them for their horrible failings.

But Ross Pomeroy not only defends Wardell Pomeroy, he recommends

Wardell's irresponsibility and immorality as "good" for society,

Hey. There is no excuse for any such thing  -and if the people who run

Real Clear Politics and Real Clear Science can't understand this,

they, too, need to be replaced.

Ross Pomeroy is, by his own words, completely in the Kinsey camp,

a worshiper of Kinsey. Someone for whom Kinsey is God.

And for whom Wardell Pomeroy is some kind of "hero."

Here are comments by Judith Reisman about Wardell Pomeroy from

her book Sexual Sabotage:

Wardell knew, as he recounted himself,  that Kinsey was so biased generally that

he was incapable of objective reporting.  As Reisman put it, "Pomeroy's description

of who Kinsey would hire" can be reduced to a simple list of shalt nots. "No 'prudes.'

No Jews. No blacks. No Catholics. No female interviewers, Absolutely no one

with religious or ethical beliefs..."

p. 51

---

Wardell Pomeroy's pornographic addictions, begun in the Kinsey attic, made him

a natural  fit for employment by Big Pornography. Pomeroy was a paid advisor,

consultant, and expert witness for Penthouse Forum Variations, the publication

that taught bestiality, sadism, homosexuality, bisexuality, and incest, which

the magazine euphemistically dubbed "Home Sex."

p. 147

---

..."Pomeroy's Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality (IASHS)

has long advocated legalizing child pornography and prostitution  by

persons of any age."

p. 254

---

"In 1980, John Leo...quoted Kinsey co-author Wardell Pomeroy. "It is time

to admit that incest need not be a perversion or a symptom of mental illness,"

Pomeroy said. "Incest between children and adults... can sometimes be beneficial."

p.  256

---

"In 1973, Pomeroy told Playboy magazine that he found sadism

is often "loving."  As Reisman added, and she might have noted

that even the DSM considers sadism as mental illness, that

"No one considers sexual torture to be loving."

Unless, I suppose, someone thinks that  "Fifty Shades of Gray"

promotes something other than a sick and diseased view of sex based

on a totally dysfunctional psychosis.

p.  296

---

That is, Real Clear Science employs as an editor someone who defends the values

of  Wardell Pomeroy.

There is much more from Judith Reisman but just two additional quotes about Reisman

make points that need to be made.

From Life Site News for August 25, 2014, by Jonathan van Maren:

*Kinsey’s so-called research was simply a quest to justify the fact that he himself

was a deeply disturbed man. Dr. Reisman writes, “Both of Kinsey’s most recent

admiring biographers confessed he was a sadistic bi/homosexual, who seduced

his male students and coerced his wife, his staff and the staff’s wives to perform for

and with him in illegal pornographic films made in the family attic. Kinsey and his mates,

Wardell Pomeroy, Clyde Martin and Paul Gebhard, had ‘front’ Marriages that concealed

their strategies to supplant what they say as a narrow pro-creational Judeo-Christian era

with a promiscuous ‘anything goes’ bi/gay pedophile paradise.”

---

From The New Yorker for November 28, 2008, by Daniel Radosh:

*Reisman was not always a counter-revolutionary. Her parents were members

of the American Communist Party, and she belonged to the Labor Youth League

in Los Angeles in the nineteen-forties. But the sexual revolution caught her

off guard, and she became concerned, first, about the spread of pornography.

It was at an academic conference in Wales in the late nineteen-seventies that Reisman

discovered Kinsey. She was lecturing on evidence of child pornography in Playboy cartoons,

when, as she recalled it, a mysterious man approached her and said, "If you’re really concerned

about child sexual abuse you have to look at ‘The Kinsey Reports.’  I said, ‘Why?’ and he said,

‘I worked with Kinsey and his aide Wardell Pomeroy. One is a pedophile and

the other is homosexual.’

--------------------------------------

 

Now we can better understand the significance of Ross Pomeroy's May 9, 2019 article:

"Are Homophobic Men Turned On by Gay Porn?"

The essay makes several salient points; here are relevant quotes:

*In 1996, psychologists at the University of Georgia reported an intriguing,

controversial result: Heterosexual young men with homophobic beliefs were aroused

by gay porn, while their nonhomophobic straight peers were not. Since the study

was published, it has been touted in some circles as proof that many homophobic men

are in fact secretly gay themselves.

*But as we are now realizing with so many other seductive findings   – and the

psychological studies that produce them –   this one may not be as firmly grounded

as originally assumed. Just 64 heterosexual men, all college students, comprised

the original study group. Moreover, the method used to assess sexual arousal,

the penile plethysmograph, a device that measures blood flow to the penis, has recently

come under fire in judicial and academic circles for variation in testing and the potential

for false results.

*One study published in 2006 found that any arousal to gay sexual stimuli from

homophobic men can likely be attributed to "implicit aversion rather than an implicit

attraction," countering the original research. But another study published more recently

reported the opposite.

*Moreover, the University of Georgia researchers admitted the possibility that

"viewing homosexual stimuli causes negative emotions such as anxiety in

homophobic men but not in nonhomophobic men. Because anxiety has been

shown to enhance arousal and erection, this theory would predict increases

in erection in homophobic men."

-----

The immediate question to ask is why this article appeared in the first place.

Why was it regarded as important enough to be published under Real Clear aegis?

There are no obvious answers but what can be said is that the title of the article,

which implies that critics of homosexuality are mentally suspect, are, indeed,

secretly attracted to homosexual pornography. That  -very clearly-  was the intent

of the original article from 1996, which was widely circulated in newspapers

of the time; I saw it in the Arizona Republic when I lived in Tempe.

However, much in the Real Clear Science article backtracks from the 1996 opinion.

What is striking, though, is what is left out, that goes unsaid.

What is not made clear is that virtually all homosexual "science" is junk science, i.e.,

false reports,  skewed data, bad research design, poor sampling methods, untenable

conclusions, failure to consider alternative explanations, and overdoses of

confirmation bias.  Instead, the article ends with this lame excuse:

"Psychology is regularly weaponized in cultural and social debates, but all-too-often,

the field often does not lead us to replicable truths, only to misleading headlines

and enduring myths."

In a sense this is fair enough. However, if there is one generalization that seems

to be virtually an empirical truth it is that no pro-homosexual 'scientific' findings

can be trusted. This has been the case all along, whether many of John Money's

screeds in favor of a variety of deviant forms of sexual behavior or Dean Hamer's

bogus genetic conclusions of the 1993, or anything else.

Not that Hamer hasn't tried. And some of his research outside of the area of

human sexuality has at least provisional merit, but:

(1) In an article by John Arlidge published in The Guardian newspaper for

April 24, 1999, it was reported, definitively, that "a team of scientists from

the University of Western Ontario has debunked Hamer's findings..."

See "No tears for the passing of the Gay gene."

(2) An article for December 7, 2017, published in New Scientist journal seemed to

say that weak causality had been found. This Andy Coghlar story, entitled

"What do the new 'gay genes' tell us about sexual orientation?" answers the

question with the equivalent of "not much."  In all cases where there seems

to be genetic linkage, the effect is small, a few percentage points. And, at that,

some results really are more inconclusive than not, such as a mild correlation

between a defective thyroid gland and incidence of homosexuality. But the

study the essay referred to was fairly large, over 1000 homosexuals and

over 1000 heterosexuals.

(3) Another article, this by Meghana for STAT News.com, dated October 24, 2018,

"A new study offers a glimpse into the genetics of same sex attraction," takes us

still further and more-or-less confirms the 1999 findings. Basically there is

no gay gene; what there is, are  a number of factors that, in some unknown

combination, under various circumstances, can make homosexual choices

more likely.  And that is about it. As one researcher put it: “Sexuality cannot be

reduced to a single trait. Rather, non-heterosexuality is in part influenced by

many tiny genetic effects, and environmental components.” As well, nobody

can fault the size of the scientific sample, a total of nearly 470,000 people.

Which is to say that the Real Clear Science article, in spreading the blame around

as if everyone makes mistakes at the same rate, leads us down a garden path.

The problem, we are supposed to think, isn't how homosexuals seem to be incapable

of doing science, it is the whole field of professional psychology.

O, yeah?

What else struck me as early as the late 1990s, was how the original research ignored

the testimony of sociobiology, just as the article of 2019 also overlooks sociobiology.

Of course, this research defect is not peculiar to homosexuals. It is commonplace

on the further political Left generally, especially among feminists.  That is, Lefties,

most notably feminist Lefties, are anti-evolution. You heard this right. It isn't just

Right wing religious hard cases who are anti-evolution, is also is the loony Left.

The Right rejects Darwin; the Left rejects E.O. Wilson and the science of

sociobiology, aka, "evolutionary biology."

Why? Because orthodox Cultural Marxism, viz, Marcuse and friends, insists

that human nature is infinitely plastic, can take any of a myriad of forms,

and knows no limits. You (supposedly) are free to make yourself into

anything your heart desires, or free to experiment at will, there are

are no consequences to think about.

All of which is pure rubbish, long disproved not only in research papers

but in the lives of countless men and women who were taken in by this

indefensible view of human biology and psychology, who ended up

emotionally crippled or, if they were lucky, with years and years of

heart wrenching regrets.

Sociobiology tells us not only that there are primate analogs to our behaviors and

attitudes that we can learn from, but that we have actual limits to how far we

can go without running into disaster.  As well, our dispositions may not be,

strictly speaking, determined as the products of evolutionary biology,

but evolution certainly sets boundaries. Cross these invisible lines

and you are asking for serious trouble.

The Left does not want to hear it.  Nor does the Right, for that matter,

even if for every different reasons. However, for the record,  there are facts

to ponder about male genital arousal in various primate species, Not that

human males invariably act like silverback gorillas or vervet monkeys

or chimpanzees or new world simians like marmosets. They don't.

But under the right circumstances sometimes they do, and the range

of primate sexual behaviors gives us a pretty good idea what our limits

actually are.  This is assuming comparable "equipment."  There is only

so far anyone can go in discussing analogs with chimpanzees since male chimps

have very large testes for body size. And even where there is some behavioral

comparison to make, as with Vervet monkeys from South Africa, it is necessary

to take non-human primate aesthetics into account inasmuch as Vervet males

have bright blue scrotums and vivid red phalluses.

Here are a few observations from nature that are relevant to human male sexual interests:

There are a large number of studies of primate behavior even if most  do not go into much

detail about male genital displays. An example is a 1998 book by Alan F. Dixon,

published by  Oxford University Press,  Primate Sexuality: Comparative Studies

of the Prosimians, Monkeys, Apes, and Human Beings. Most studies are species

specific, like the classic article from Animal Behavior journal for January, 1963,

"Display of penile erection in squirrel monkey." Some studies of human sexual
conduct include comments about primate behavior, such as found in an article

by Agustin Fuentes in the July 15, 2013 issue of Psychology Today,

"The Phallus Fallacy." From these and similar sources we can say...

While there is little evidence that human males make obvious use of penis display

it is a reasonable conjecture that ancient primate displays may now appear

in disguised form in behaviors that are not sexual on the surface, everything

from gestures to clothing choices.

In the wild, male primates use erections not only as part of normal courtship posturing

but to serve a variety of non-sexual functions. These include:

Establishing or maintaining status or dominance in a troop.

To indicate distress, anxiety, etc, even fear in some circumstances.

Sometimes penis displays include verbal 'messages', as among roloway guenons,

Some species like Vervets are quite versatile in their penis displays

...which may be used to signal intent to fight, intent to defend territory,

...desire to avoid proximity to other Vervets, intimidation of subordinates, etc.

In other words, how did the researchers in the 1993 study know what the best interpretation
of erections in a laboratory with the equipment of male subjects wired up to a machine

really was?  What other possibilities were considered besides what the researchers

wanted to find to confirm their pro-homosexual prejudices?

A very different interpretation was thinkable years ago, to the effect:

It is common in  primate species for normal males to have penile reactions

to other males who threaten their territory or safety. An erect phallus is also

a signal to other males in a troop that an enemy male has been spotted.

In so many words, what this is all about is a "put up your dukes and fight"

reaction, not at all a sexual-interest reaction.  It is how normal primates

are "wired."

Possibly this line of argument may be demonstrated historically. There is too little

evidence to do more than speculate, but some Greek art shows hoplite troops

marching off to battle,  no covering for the genital area. Possibly, in that era

before enough time had passed to entrench various "civilized values" in

human behavior patterns, the hoplites might show primate reactions

as a field of battle was approached. Maybe not, yet it is a possibility

to look into. At least if additional art history evidence can be located.

Another guess is that with the rise of  civilization and religion-inspired values,

the primate reaction was suppressed even if, subconsciously, it may still

show up in personal behaviors.  At any rate, it seems likely that the purpose

of the reaction is to create motivation so that action is taken to remove

the threat, viz, fighting against other males to force them to run away. 

However, we don't always need to refer to the literature of sociobiology.

there also exists a literature of male arousal phenomenon.

Wikipedia, for instance, informs us that the age of subjects in an experiment

may make considerable difference. Hence "spontaneous erections frequently

occur during adolescence due to friction with clothing, a full bladder or large intestine,

hormone fluctuations, nervousness, and undressing in a nonsexual situation. It is also

normal for erections to occur during sleep and upon waking."

A website called "everything you always wanted to know about erections but were

too embarrassed to ask" provides the invaluable information that sometimes an

"involuntary erection occurs when a man is nervous, stressed, or angry."

And so it goes with respect to "reflex boners," "morning wood," and psychogenic

erections based on sights sounds or smells. Hence there are recommendations

to women who want to entice a male companion into intimacy when he is a guest

at dinner. Hint, donuts or pumpkin pie are good bets.

This is enough. I have no interest in study of male sexual members and writing this

has been very distressing.  What I do have an  interest in is , uhhh, let's call it

libidinal gynecology. Nothing else comes remotely close. Unfortunately, however,

about this subject nobody seems to want my opinion. 

Life is unfair.