The Nomenclature of Genitalia (2/3)

It was getting harder and harder to ignore the fact that in journal after journal the human female genitalia consistently had more arrows pointing to it than the human male genitalia.

I’m not talking about all the inside stuff, just the stuff that shows. The part count was demonstrably lopsided and decidedly incorrect. And every place I looked the error was repeating itself.

Some quick math confirmed there was a consistent 1:3 ratio in the discrepancy. All in favor of the female. As a man I found the disparity irritating. As a scientist I wanted to know why.

I did a thorough part count of my own genitalia 10 times and averaged the results. According to my findings the ratio was nearly reversed. I came up with 1:2 favoring the male. Was that why one was more highly regarded than the other? And from my count it was the wrong one. Female genitalia was getting credited for having more parts than it actually had. And unfairly garnering most of the attention as a result. I was sure of it.

To prove it I needed to develop a competent criteria for determining what was and what wasn’t a bonafide part. And then apply the same standard to both. It was the only way to scientifically confirm the error and then take the necessary steps to document it. I wanted to publish a strong enough paper to correct this misunderstanding. That was my focus now.

In order to be considered a genuine part did it have to do something that no other part did? Could it be near a part that did roughly the same thing and still be considered a separate part? Maybe by taking advantage of the natural symmetry of human genitalia I could draw an imaginary line right down the middle, do my count on one side only and then multiply by two. But if the line bisected a part, then I would have to divide by two after the initial doubling. That might save me some time but could detract from my study’s verisimilitude. Good science only has so much patience and taking shortcuts can test it sorely.

I decided to look at it from the perspective of functionality. I spent some time determining if the part being pointed at actually did anything or not. In the case of the female few did. Maybe the germane question here is, “Can something be something even if it doesn’t do anything?”

Considering the organs as a whole, I contemplated the fairness of putting forward the observation that from a purely functional point of view one seemed to do much more than the other. Irrespective of how many arrows were pointing at it. I try to avoid metaphors in my work but in the world of hammers and boards which one actually does something? A hammer, once taken in hand, can beat itself here and there but the board can do little more than lie there waiting to get nailed.

Logical as that was, it did not negate the fact that if something has more arrows pointing at it, it’s going to be of greater interest and attract the most attention. Was one erroneously receiving the accolades that rightfully belonged to the other? Was one more maligned and the other more flattered than it had a right to be? In the case of the female, in many instances, I had to squint to see what the arrow was actually pointing at. In the case of the male every denoted part was clearly visible, its function obvious.

So, how did the count get so cockeyed? How did it start and who started it? If nothing else, modern science allows us the opportunity to take a fresh look at things that flummoxed the science of days gone by. I quickly finished up the self-gratification portion of my original study and moved on.

What current woes are we enduring as a result of this transposed adulation? For myself, I’ve always lamented the ogling of private parts generally goes only one way. One can only speculate what the changes to our current lives might be if this high regard wasn’t misplaced. Obviously dancing and dating would be much different. And fashion would never be the same. For instance, the current popularity of bikinis vs speedos would most certainly be reversed. And lingerie would need a complete revamping. I had a hold of a bombshell and I knew it. Science has been known to change lives.

As I settled into my investigation I gave a silent hoorah while studying the fertility tributes of the ancient world. They were overwhelmingly phallic. There were a few clefts being tossed around in a civilization here and there. But tributes to the male far outweighed those to the female. Obviously, the part count was correct then. So, what changed? I’ll admit to an unnecessary dawdle while I envisioned the days when phallic worship was a cult. Pleasant musings no doubt but I needed to move on.

TO BE CONTINUED.

 

Share

The Nomenclature of Genitalia (1/3)

As a scientist I had run out of things to research. Space is crowded and brains overdone. I find the uncertainty principle vague so quantum mechanics was out as well. There were few places to turn and I was forced back to the basics. How can you go wrong with argumentum ad ignorantium?

When you base your research on the axiom that everything is true unless proven otherwise science was easy. It was a good choice as it turned out because this led to some of my most stunning work yet. And all without having to leave my house or spend a dime. Read more The Nomenclature of Genitalia (1/3)

Share

Richard Dawkins to Open a Sustainable Fish and Chip Shop

OXFORD, ENGLAND – Richard Dawkins, professor emeritus and former chair of public understanding of science at Oxford University has announced plans to open a new fish and chip shop that aims to serve up a sustainable catch. Professor Dawkins explained:

Cod has been on the Marine Conversation Society’s endangered stocks list for many years now.
But, despite all of the evidence, traditional fish and chip shops have continued to ignore these warnings.
Those who believe we can simply continue to consume cod at our current rates are under a severe delusion!

Professor Dawkins continued:

However, at my fish and chip shop, we are proud to say that there is no cod.

Professor Dawkins rose to fame in the fishing industry in 1976 with the release of his book “The Shellfish Gene.” He further cemented his reputation as one of the sharkest thinkers in marine biology with his 1998 bestselling book “Unweaving the Rainbow Trout.”

However, he has been in the public eye most recently for his sharp criticism of religion. Alongside Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett, Dawkins is referred to as one of the “four seahorses of the apocalypse.”

Professor Dawkins’s shop has come under attack from Christian groups. Stephen Green from Christian Voice accused the shop of failing to provide a sustainable alternative. Green explained:

It would be much more efficient for Dawkins to buy two loaves of bread and a few fish, and then divide them up until everybody had some.

 

Share

Hotheads’ Violence Caused by Hot Climates, Study Finds

Dateline: GREENLAND—A sociobiological study from Bigwig University in Ittoqqortoormiit, Greenland shows that the areas around the world with the hottest temperatures tend to be inhabited by more aggressive, bellicose peoples, or “hotheads,” as the study calls them, while colder zones are home to more peaceful, even timid populations.

The team of scientists concludes that collective belligerence is a form of literal hot-headedness in which a screaming-hot environment transfers its heat to the human head and turns the mind into a stew of animal reactions, bypassing the brain’s rational faculties and driving the population as a whole to childish displays of wonton irrationality and brutality.

The deserts of the Middle East and Africa, along with Southeast Asia, Central America, Mexico, and the southern (Republican) United States are marked by dictatorships, perennial civil wars, gang wars, coups, chaos, rampant crime, riots, bloody uprisings, bigotry or fundamentalist lunacy.

By contrast, Canada, Alaska, the northern (Democratic) United States, and Europe are known for being sober, peaceful, and stable to the point of being infamously dull.

“It’s hard to stir up trouble,” said the team’s lead researcher, Professor Francesca Bobbins, “or to get all offended and hot-headed when there’s a foot of snow outside your door or when you know the snow will come in a matter of weeks or months. I mean literally, it’s hard to heat your head enough to sustain animal rage when it’s often super-cold out.

“But just imagine living in a desert that fries and scrambles your brains. How can you stop to think when you’re always stinking and soaking wet with sweat? Haven’t you got to take your rage out on someone, like the government or a rival sect or some other scapegoat? Mustn’t the excess heat that bubbles up in the heads of those dwelling in a humid environment be vented back into the world by some series of violent outbursts to prevent those heads from exploding?”

The researchers tested their hypothesis by observing the facial expressions and by measuring the heat steaming off of the heads of subjects who agreed just to stand for hours in the streets of altogether too-hot places, including San Antonio, Mexico City, Khartoum, Riyadh, and Bangkok. Invariably, the test subjects became increasingly agitated as the sweat streamed down their faces, dampening their shirts and messing up their underwear.

Subjects reported feeling their blood boil when strangers stopped merely to say “Hello” and were unable to concentrate when the researchers posed simple problems to them to determine whether heat negatively affects cognition.

“The sociobiologist asked me, ‘What’s two times four?’ and I swear I blanked,” recalled one test subject. “Back home in Halifax, Canada, I could have answered that with no problem, but standing there in Riyadh in that dreadful heat, my fevered brain was racing from one impulse and nonsensical notion to the next, as if the desert were boiling my neurons. All I could think was: ‘Get me the fuck out of this oppressive heat!’ And failing that, ‘Whom can I take out this aggression on?’”

As one of the researchers explained, “It’s like the difference between cold and boiling water. When water is very cold it’s frozen and so it tends to stay put, going nowhere; but when it boils, it spills out and bubbles up everywhere from the transfer of energy.”

Critics point out that the experiment was conducted in large cities, which suggests that the aggression may have been caused not by the blazing heat, but by the nearby presence of way too many people, the principle being as Sartre said, that “Hell is other people.”

The researchers replied that there are large cities in peaceful nations too, such as Toronto, Canada. What turns one large population into “placid, mousey little nobodies” and another into “a horde of raging orcs and barbarians” is largely the climate, said Professor Bobbins. “For example, the infusion of Middle Eastern immigrants into France and the UK and the conflicts this has stirred up there can be interpreted thermodynamically. The immigrants’ heads store the excess heat from their native lands and disperse it in the cooler climates of Western Europe. That transfer of heat causes social chaos.”

The report has also been criticized for failing to take into account the counterexample of Australia. Australians are known for being friendly and laid back, and yet much of that continent is as hot as anywhere else on the planet.

The researchers credit this apparent discrepancy to Australia’s British heritage. Like Canada, modern Australia was colonized by the United Kingdom. The team theorized that abundant rain can function like snow in dissuading a population from wanting to go outdoors to kick up a mighty ruckus.

“The rain-soaked temperament of Brits was passed onto Australian culture, making Aussies as tranquil and bloodless as Canadians,” said Professor Bobbins.

“As for Russia,” she continued, “while it’s true that Russians have historically preferred authoritarian rulers and been as brutal as all get-out, as in their laying waste to the Nazis, it’s notable that the soviets saw their ideology as being especially rational, even scientific. The Nazis, too, looked to science to support their social Darwinian prejudices.

“Temperature is only one factor in determining a population’s passivity or aggression, not the only one,” she conceded. “But while European and North Asian forms of violence are couched in rational or pseudoscientific terms, those forms that break out in scorching-hot zones are chaotic or primitive, showing similarities to the sort of genetic tribalism we see in other species.

“This is because the sweltering heat shuts down the cerebral cortex, leaving mainly the older, emotional and reactionary parts of the brain to steer the ship—and to pick up the pieces when those primitive forms of thinking crash the ship into a cliff.”

The team’s research has also been criticized for being flat-out racist. Professor Bobbins said in response that she “doesn’t care about skin colour. It’s not about innate differences between people, since even an annoyingly-polite Canadian will start to act like a jihadist nut job if he’s forced to live for years in a desert. Like they say in real estate, it’s ‘location, location, location.’”

Share

NASA Continues Search for Planets Where Government More Favorable to Funding Space Exploration

A panel of experts unveiled seven earth-sized planets only 235,145,014,927,344 miles from Earth (where we live), three of which may posses the proper conditions for Pokemon.

This is only the latest milestone in an ongoing search to identify alien governments that may be more willing to fund NASA’s budget than the U.S. government.

“It’s immensely exciting,” said Jane Kranston, an accountant at NASA:

“Ever since they cut funding for toilet seats, we’ve been incredibly motivated to diversify our funding across the Universe. Even the Multiverse if that’s what it takes. Just imagine that somewhere out there is a parallel Universe in which NASA has all its funding and we’ve already terraformed Saturn.”

With a budget that has dropped a staggering 96% since its peak in the 1960s, NASA now has to rely more on private space industry. But even this strategy is not without its detractors. Dean Shmumer, a White House advisor explains that budgets come down to dollars and cents:

“Consider the cost of one SpaceX flight to the ISS. We have to pay $133 million of taxpayer money for that. Meanwhile, we could send the President to Florida thirteen times for the same cost. How could we justify wasting Americans’ hard-earned money on a joyride into space?”

Meanwhile, Kranston and crew watch with anticipation to see what kind of civilizations might inhabit these other worlds:

“A big indication to us will be unorthodox gender roles,” she explains. “We’ve been told by some of our top scientists that there is a strong correlation between cultures in which gender roles are loosely defined and a willingness to fund mass exodus from a planet. If we can find a single dad doing dishes and expertly tracking his children’s developmental milestones on just one of these planets, then our chances of receiving the funding we need will increase exponentially.”

There is some concern about exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and various intergalactic coinages, credits, or whuffie. But Kranston and others at NASA are confident the American people will be ready to submit to new alien overlords and adopt a new currency if it means getting a few clearer pictures of the M81 galaxy.

For now, passionate NASA employees can only cling to the faith that a government somewhere out there is amicable to space exploration.

Share