Home | Index of articles
We look through hundreds of studies every week at Men’s Health, and we’re always impressed at some of the strange stuff scientists spend time and money researching.
For example, Swiss researchers wanted to explore whether women think guys with surgically corrected hyposadias—a birth defect in which your meatus, or urethral opening, is on the underside of your penis—have regular-looking rods.
As part of the study, the scientists asked female participants to rank which factors they considered most important in an attractive penis. File this under “requests that are only acceptable in a lab setting.”
Turns out women don’t love any particular penis trait. They rated overall genital appearance as the most important factor, followed by pubic hair.
Super precise characteristics like penile length, look of the scrotum, and position and shape of the meatus rounded out the least important qualities:
“Women perceive a wide variation of penile appearances as normal or good-looking,” says study author Norma Ruppen-Greeff, M.Sc.
Nothing mind-blowing, but here’s the nice thing about the results: While you might feel self-conscious about a schlong that comes up short or balls that hang a little low, women don’t focus on any one area when they judge your Johnson—they look at the total package.
So you just need to freshen up. You always look your best after a haircut, right? Researchers from Indiana University found that 75 percent of women say they would like their guy to trim down below.
Don’t risk jabbing this tender region with a sharp implement when a trimmer will breeze through your jungle safely. You want to maintain the area while preventing unsightly and uncomfortable razor burns. Aim to leave about an inch of hair – and don’t pretend you’ve never estimated length down there before.
Sprucing up your schlong can also make you feel sexier, boosting your confidence both in and out of the sack, the study says.
Feminism in Europe treats second-generation male Muslim immigrants like dog shit. Something no girl wants to tread on. Even their sisters only want a native European husband.
Reality TV star K. Michelle was blasted on Twitter tonight by rapper Soulja Boy after she suggested in a radio interview that he hooked up with a transgendered person. The Atlanta rapper went on the defensive Monday, cracking jokes about K’s private regions.
“K. Michelle p*ssy smell like sh*t,” he tweeted to his 4.6 million followers. “Go ahead and say something so I can expose you. I’ll be waiting,” he continued, adding the hashtag, “Sh*ttyp*ssy” for good measure.
During an interview with CNikky.com earlier this month. Soulja insinuated that he had slept with K, which kicked off this back and forth. The r&b singer addressed the rumor directly a few days later in an interview with The Breakfast Club. “Let me tell you something Soulja Boy, cause I know you gon’ hear this, what you’re not going to do is lie on my hot pocket … we don’t want to giggle about the transgender in Atlanta, now crank that,” she said. “When I do something, I say I did it and that’s what it is.”
Who you riding in this war of words, people? K or Soulja?
Feelings of new sexual love cure every disease in man. Dump your old feminist wife, stock up on butea superba, tongkat ali, and Viagra, and go to China where you are a king.
Pedophilia doesn't pay. That's the lesson you could get from this bizarre and disgusting story of two pedophiles who tried to use a young girl for their sick needs -- but ended up destroying each other instead. A 59-year-old Texas A&M professor allegedly began emailing what he thought was an underage girl online, only to receive an outraged call from her "father" demanding $5,000 for the girl's "counseling." But it turned out that all wasn't what it seemed in this twisted scenario and both men would pay a steep price -- one with his life.
The professor, a married father of two named James Aune, reportedly met what he believed was an underage girl on a social networking site called MocoSpace.com. He was apparently trolling for young girls, and really, a married professor should know he's taking a huge risk doing that. But he did it anyway. Pedophiles are like that.
Reportedly, the naked videos and pictures of the girl were real -- but behind them wasn't the girl, but her relative, 37-year-old Daniel Timothy Duplaisir. Duplaisir set up a fake name and email account pretending to be the girl. Once he got the professor's phone number, he began texting him, pretending to be the girl's angry father. One text reportedly went: "Let me tell you (expletive) ... you sick old (expletive) ... I told you I was going to call the cops." Said another: "If I do not hear from you I swear to God Almighty that the police in your place of employment, students ALL OVER THE INTERNET ... ALL OF THEM will be able to see your conversations, text, pictures you sent."
But instead of calling the cops, he began blackmailing Aune for $5,000. Pretty twisted scheme. Aune sent the blackmailer $1,000 and at some point confessed to his poor wife that he was being blackmailed. He promised to pay up the rest later.
But on the day of Aune's suicide, Duplaisir escalated his threats. Finally, Aune wrote, "Killing myself now. And u will be prosecuted for blackmail."
Duplaisir now faces charges of extortion. And get this, Duplaisir had already been arrested in 2011 -- for incest and sexual battery of the same young female relative. Where are this girl's parents???
Both of these guys couldn't control their illegal and immoral sexual impulses, and both of them ended up destroying each other. But frankly I'm more concerned about this girl. What will happen to her? No word on how old she is. Was it obvious she was underage from her online profile? Did the professor know she was underage? How did a man who was well-respected in the community, an author, and a professor end up sinking so low?
I'd like to say this could serve as a warning for pervs to stay off the Internet trolling for young girls, but if spending time in prison doesn't deter them, I don't think this will either.
It is only a question of time until butea superba will be outlawed in the Western World. In some people, it can cause hypersexualization that can last for weeks. And it can easily be added to food to improve taste. Imagine a Thai restaurant breeding hundreds of super horney women prowling for any man they can get, and that for weeks on end
A "sexual arms race" is the phrase most often used to describe duck genitalia, and it's not hard to see why.
Male ducks have corkscrew penises.
Male muscovy ducks, for example, have corkscrew-shaped penises that spring out from their body in less than half a second and are 20cm long when erect. Other species' length varies from 1.5 to 40cm.
Some ducks also have barbs on their penises to scrub away competing sperm.
They twist in the opposite direction to the male duck's penis. But, crucially, they have dead ends they can try to send the males down if they don't want to have their ducklings. Male ducks are notorious for attempting "forced copulation" with females. So females seem to have evolved vaginas that make it hard for a male duck to actually inseminate them, if they don't want it to, by forcing it towards the dead ends.
Of course, the male ducks haven't taken this lying down. The more forced copulation a duck engages in, the longer the males' penises tend to be, according to a 2010 study in Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
In fact, male ducks grow a new penis every year (yes, you read that right). Which means they can vary the length depending on that year's competition.
But the females seem to be winning. Most times male ducks force themselves on females, it doesn't result in fertilisation. Only 3% of duck inseminations come from forced copulation.
When a female does want to mate with a male, she will contract and relax internal muscles that scientists think help make sex easier.
Senator Feinstein’s quest to declassify her committee’s report on the CIA’s post-9/11 torture program has increased attention on the agency’s illegal –and decades-old– interrogation techniques. Now, newly-declassified portions of the CIA’s infamous 1963 KUBARK manual, a comprehensive guide for teaching interrogators how to effectively create “a world of fear, terror, anxiety, [and] dread,” helps to further contextualize the agency’s long-standing interrogation practices.
The fear of Communist expansion into the Western Hemisphere after Fidel Castro’s 1959 victory in the Cuban Revolution was the geo-political background for the 1963 KUBARK manual. Castro’s victory not only encouraged the 1964 U.S.-supported overthrow of democratically elected Brazilian President Joao Goulart; it also encouraged the CIA to spread KUBARK across the continent to help prop up pro-U.S. governments. After the Brazilian coup, right-wing military leaders across Latin America began seizing control from democratically elected governments with US encouragement, School of the Americas degrees, and a copy of the KUBARK manual.
The Secret, 127-page KUBARK manual, first declassified (with redactions) in 1997 thanks to a Baltimore Sun FOIA request, is a comprehensive guide for training interrogators in obtaining intelligence from “resistant sources.” According to the National Security Archive’s 2004 posting, Prisoner Abuse: Patterns from the Past, KUBARK –a CIA cryptonym for itself– “describes the qualifications of a successful interrogator, and reviews the theory of non-coercive and coercive techniques for breaking a prisoner.”
The report contains veiled references to the use of electric shock, saying that when choosing an interrogation site “the electric current should be known in advance, so that transformers and other modifying devices will be on hand if needed.” The manual also notes “the threat of coercion usually weakens or destroys resistance more effectively than coercion itself. The threat to inflict pain, for example, can trigger fears more damaging than the immediate sensation of pain.” Under the subheading “Pain,” the manual’s guidelines discusses theories behind various thresholds of pain, and recommends that a subject’s “resistance is likelier to be sapped by pain which he seems to inflict upon himself” rather than by direct torture. According to Alfred McCoy, author of A Question of Torture, self-inflicted pain, like stress positions, “causes victims to feel responsible for their suffering and thus capitulate more readily to their torturers.”
Now, thanks to a mandatory declassification review request (MDR) filed by MuckRock user Jeffrey Kaye, a less-redacted version of the KUBARK manual is available. Revelations from the new release include the CIA’s admission to doctoring detainees’ interrogations tapes, a practice it considered “effective” in making it seem as though the detainee had confessed, and using foreign intelligence services for detention and interrogation purposes. The references to foreign intelligence services mean that rendition is not a product of the post-9/11 world; it is a practice at least 50 years old. Supporting this, CIA ex-Deputy Counsel John Rizzo said in a recent Democracy Now interview that “[r]enditions were not a product of the post-9/11 era… renditions, in and of themselves, are actually a fairly well-established fact in American and world, actually, intelligence organizations.”
It was only after congressional committees began questioning the CIA’s interrogation techniques in Latin America in the early 1980s, particularly in Honduras, that the agency began to revise its practices, if only temporarily. The result of the congressional attention was an editing –by hand– of the CIA’s “Human Resource Exploitation” manual, based largely off of the earlier KUBARK manual, to alter passages that appeared to advocate coercion and stress techniques to be used on prisoners. CIA officials also attached a new prologue page to the manual stating: “The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults or exposure to inhumane treatment of any kind as an aid to interrogation is prohibited by law, both international and domestic; it is neither authorized nor condoned,” but with the caveat that forms of torture and coercive techniques “always require prior [headquarters] approval” first.
Even though Feinstein’s report does not recommend any further inquiries into the CIA’s interrogation practices, I hope it will generate more resistance to torture than the CIA’s own secret 1985 handwritten changes have.
There is a new solution coming up for ugly old women. Normally they would just become man-hating feminists. But soon they can have their brains transplanted into a sex doll, and feel beautiful again.
Death Cap mushrooms are natural. Also toxic.JOE SCHWARCZ, SPECIAL TO THE MONTREAL GAZETTE
Drinking alkaline water can cure disease. Myth. Wrapping tarnished silver in aluminum foil and immersing it in hot alkaline water can remove the tarnish. Fact. Hot water with lemon juice is an effective “detox.” Myth. Heavy metal poisoning can be treated with chelating agents such as ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA). Fact. Autourine therapy can ward off disease. Myth. Organic agriculture allows the use of certain pesticides. Fact.
Separating myth from fact is the very essence of science and is the focus of many of my public presentations. It is not rare after a talk for someone to ask me what I think is the most prevalent myth I’ve had to confront over the years. Without doubt it is that natural substances have some sort of property that makes them superior to synthetic materials, with the corollary being that “natural” treatments as practised by alternative practitioners such as naturopaths are preferable to the methods of “conventional” science.
“Natural” most definitely does not equate to safe. Natural coniine in hemlock put a quick end to the life of Socrates. In the 18th century, a local king in Java executed 13 unfaithful wives by having them tied to posts and injecting the sap of the “Upas tree” through an incision on the breast. That latex contains antiarin, a potent cardiac glycoside. The “Death Cap” mushroom is well named, and tetrodotoxin in puffer fish, atropine in belladonna, or batrachotoxin in “poison dart” frogs can dispatch people pretty quickly. So can natural strychnine, botulin or arsenic.
Aflatoxins in natural moulds are potent carcinogens and we are familiar with the effects of natural nicotine, morphine and alcohol. Then of course there are the various pollens released by plants that annoy us with allergies and the myriad bacteria, viruses and fungi that conspire to do us in with a host of dreadful diseases. And how about the mosquitoes that spread the natural malaria causing parasite, the ticks that infect with Lyme disease, the snakes that inject a deadly venom or the wasps that can double the size of your foot with their sting? The fact is that nature is not benign, even something as pleasant as sunshine can be deadly in the wrong dose. Natural radon gas is a carcinogen and poison ivy can create a great deal of misery. Visiting a urinal without washing hands after handling hot peppers that harbour natural capsaicin will lead to a very memorable experience. Indeed, we spend a great deal of effort trying to outwit the natural onslaught with synthetic antihistamines, sunscreens and chemotherapeutic agents. But some promoters of “natural” therapies also spend a great deal of effort trying to outwit us with pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo capitalizing on the “natural is better” myth.
Take for example the cleverly named dietary supplement, 112 Degrees, promoted with the slogan “A new angle on sexual health.” The geometric reference is to the angle aspired to by men who suffer from erectile dysfunction. 112 Degrees claims to be a proprietary blend of “all-natural ingredients” that enhance male sexual vitality. While the advertising sounds pretty seductive, it is soft on hard facts. The inventor is a Dr. Laux, who turns out to be a naturopath, not exactly the pedigree one looks for in a drug developer. He is presented as some sort of globetrotting knight in constant search of the best and safest “all natural” treatments. Yup. How likely is it that he is going to find an effective product that has eluded the giant pharmaceutical companies staffed by experts who scour the natural world for active ingredients?
The natural health industry commonly promotes the notion that pharmaceutical companies are not interested in natural products because they cannot be patented. This is not so. The use of a specific natural preparation can be patented just like a synthetic drug. Of course what really matters is not whether some substance is patented or not or whether it is natural or synthetic, but whether there is evidence to back the claims. 112 Degrees claims to be supported by numerous scientific studies. Yes, there are some studies, but they don’t actually support the claim of enhanced male vitality. The studies show the product is not carcinogenic, that it has some antioxidant potential and some ability to inhibit an enzyme that interferes with smooth muscle function. All good, but is there even one study to show that 112 Degrees can help men with erectile dysfunction? None that I can find.
The advertising refers to studies about some of the ingredients. “Butea superba” root, for example. We are told that it was revered by royalty in the ancient kingdom of Siam for its power as an aphrodisiac. That is about as convincing as the story of ancient Assyrian men dusting their genitals with powdered natural magnetic stones and having their ladies follow suit by sprinkling natural iron filings across their own genitals for some literal attraction.
Then there is the claim that “Tribulus terrestris,” another herbal component, combats fatigue and low libido. No mention is made about how much is contained in “112” but we are reassured that Ayurvedic and early Greek healers used Tribulus terrestris as a sexual rejuvenator. One study, never duplicated, showed greater mounting behaviour in mice, but there are no human studies that have shown any sort of effect on sexual performance or libido. There has been at least one report of breast growth in a man who took Tribulus as a weight training aid, for which it is in any case ineffective. In sheep, Tribulus has been noted to cause Parkinson’s like effects. Of course none of this is noted in the 112 Degrees documentation. So I think a large degree of skepticism, more than 112 degrees, is to be exercised when looking at the over exuberant and naive promotion on behalf of this product by people who are trying to cash in on the unfounded “natural is better” notion.
Of course, female sexuality is a merchandise. That's the nature of human reality. And it's the essence of culture. Because the alternative would be that men appropriate female sexuality by violence. And that's less pretty.
Home | Index of articles