Will Science Make Men An Endangered Species?

When I was in Grade 9 or 10, I was given an assignment to write a story that followed from a given opening.

"The last man on Earth sat alone in his room. Suddenly, there was a knock at the door..."

Most of the class came up with stories about aliens or the supernatural. A couple of girls, already feeling pithy and tragic, wrote purple prose about psychosis and insanity. But as far as I know, I was the only one who took a feminist slant. In my scenario, the person knocking at the door was a woman. Women had taken over the planet and had executed all the men. What followed was a dialogue between the two characters as the man walked the last mile to the gallows. The man pleading his case and the woman explaining that a) men weren't necessary anymore because there was lots of frozen sperm; and b) they were responsible for wars, dead baby jokes and other sordid stuff so who wants them anyway. It ended with the man yelling something like; "But what about love?" just before the rope snapped taut. It was a cool story, but I didn't get a high mark. I seem to remember my teacher being disturbed by the unprecedented slaughter implicit in the story. But I still occasionally wonder about a world of only women. Is it possible? Are men necessary?

In 1915, Charlotte Gilman wrote a novella based on a similar idea. In Herland, a trio of intrepid explorers seek a tribe of women who only give birth to girls. The genetic rationale for this was glossed over (in 1915 anything was still possible), but essentially, the women conceived by means of parthenogenesis (without fertilization - virgin births, as it were). The explorers expected to find a horde of primitive squabbling women that they could turn into their own personal harem, but were shocked to discover a peaceful, egalitarian utopia. Everything bad in the world - from jealousy to competition - flowed from the existence of men and without them co-operation and harmony were the default condition. But ultimately, the presence of the men set loose the forces of darkness and the explorers were banished from this idyllic realm.

Utopias don't exist, of course, and attempts to realize them usually end up being dystopias (think Mao's China, Pol Pot's Kampuchea, or any number of hippie communes) for the obvious reason that humans aren't nice enough to live in them. But Gilmans Herland does raise an interesting question. Would a world without men be a better world? While there are no examples of completely maleless societies, history has concocted a few situations where men and women have lived predominantly separate lives. In ancient Sparta, the men and boys lived together in war camps, while the women and girls lived in the village. Far from being exemplars of peace, love and understanding though, the Spartan women were, if anything, more warmongering than the men. It was the men that fought, of course, but any man that didn't fight bravely enough could expect to be excoriated and shunned by the women.

The essential point is this though: they got by. Rather well, too. While the women may have needed men to procreate and to fight and protect them (from other men); they didn't really need them for anything else. This notion was underscored during the two world wars when women largely held up the home front. Additionally, evidence has shown that girls who are schooled without the distraction of boys do better academically and socially. They are more co-operative, less hierarchical, happier and more confident than those schooled in a co-ed setting. Hmmm.

Biologically speaking, males are parasites. Sure, we may bring home the bacon and do the heavy lifting, and the dishes and diapers and the laundry (don't forget the laundry!). But at a very basic level we exist solely to insert our genes into the next generation and everything else we do, from building bombs to burping babies, is indirectly in service of this one essential purpose. And while there is an obvious symbiosis between the male and female of any species, it is the egg producing female which is ultimately responsible for incubating and nourishing her brood. In asexually reproducing species there are no males, every member is a mother. In a way, males are a genetic afterthought, useful only for shuffling the genetic deck between generations. And while this can be very helpful in producing sufficient variability to ward off evolving viruses and parasites, there are many, many species that can get by with moms alone.

Can it be done? Is a wholly female society possible? Well, yes and no. Any group of determined women can buy an island, set up a commune and shoot any man that sails into port. With a couple of vials of frozen sperm they could last generations. But could they last indefinitely? Until very recently the answer would have been no. Human females, by themselves, are not naturally capable of parthenogenesis. That's because women produce haploid gametes. That is, their eggs have 23 chromosomes, half the number necessary to produce viable offspring. The other half must come from someone else, and that's where we guys come in, with all our attendant baggage.

But thanks to the miracle of modern science that extra compliment of 23 chromosomes may no longer have to come by way of a man. In April 2004, researchers lead by Tomohiro Kono, at the Tokyo University of Agriculture, succeeded in combining the nucleus of one mouse egg with that of another. The offspring, (female, of course - females don't carry the Y chromosome) was named Kayuga (pictured), after a Japanese fairy tale in which a princess is found in a bamboo stalk (don't laugh, it's more imaginative than Dolly!). Kayuga survived to adulthood and has now given birth to conventionally fathered offspring of her own.

Now, before you get all depressed, remember that mice are not men and there are many things we can do with mice - including curing diseases - which we can't replicate in humans. And given the squeamishness that ethicists feel about playing Doctor Frankenstein with humans, it's not likely that we'll be producing human Kayugas anytime soon. But theoretically it is possible, and if history is any guide, whatever is possible in theory eventually becomes a reality.

Even if it does though, men are not likely to become obsolete. Women and men may have different reproductive agendas but we've moved through evolution in lock-step. We've grown to depend on each other. Women may well end up taking over the world but they will never get rid of all the men, even if they'd be better off without us. For all they bitch about us, women still need us - in their lives, in their beds and hey... somebody's got to take out the trash.

The Penis Preference

Heaven loves ya,
The clouds part for ya,
Nothing stands in your way,
When you're a boy
David Bowie – Boys Keep Swinging

It's better to be a boy. Admit it, it's true. You've always had a feeling, not necessarily of superiority, but perhaps of being favored in some way. This sense of entitlement, sometimes subtle, often overt, is endemic to all cultures across all time periods. Despite the fact that we all agree (in western culture anyway) that gender favoritism is unfair, efforts to counter this imbalance have been patchy at best, and have largely been led by the popular media. On television and in movies, children's books etc., women and girls are now favored. It's rare now to find a female character who is less kick-ass than a man. And to some extent this has been successful. Women dominate the music scene. Girls outperform boys in school and outnumber them in university. Teenage girls are more aggressive. Their testosterone levels are rising. But note that what is happening with Buffy, Lara Croft and other icons of grrrl power isn't the celebration of the feminine so much as the celebration of the masculine in the guise of the feminine. After all these years of male diminishment and female ascendance, it's still better to be a boy.

A moment's thought reveals the reality of this. Even in our western culture, where political correctness has become something of a secular religion, parents still voice a preference for boys. "It's a boy!" is still a more triumphant proclamation than; "It's a girl!" And while it's okay to be a boyish-girl (parents speak with sneaking pride about their tomboy daughters), it's definitely not okay to be a girlish-boy (sissy). Males in urban cultures diminish their rivals by calling them bitches. Female empowerment may be the dominant cultural force of our time, but as any five year-old in the playground can tell you, the greatest insult for a boy is to be called a girl.

Why does society have a preference for boys? What parent in their right mind would prefer something made of snakes, snails and puppy dogs tails to something made of sugar and spice and everything nice? Boys are not easy to raise. They're aggressive, destructive little things; and when they grow up they can be downright murderous. Males are responsible for 80 percent of crimes, 90 percent of murders and pretty much every war throughout history. Men are less forgiving, more judgmental, more right-wing, more prone to mob violence. They're more vulnerable to schizophrenia, genetic diseases and baldness. They die younger. Their body odor is ranker. Their claims to superior logic are belied by their impulsive behavior and their tendency to think with their dicks. Men are just as emotional as women but in all the wrong ways. Women may get weepy at the slightest thing but it's men that go postal. Men will kill out of anger, jealousy, revenge, sport... you name it. And if there's a cause out there, then they'll kill for that too. Does anybody think America would be at war in Iraq if Laura Bush ran the country?

So, given that girls are better behaved, more caring, more giving, more even tempered, more likely to be exemplars of everything we recognize as worthy and good; why, oh why, do we favor boys? Well, let's start with the obvious. Half of society is made up of men and men like men. They want to have sex with women and they're willing to live with them but they generally prefer the company of men. And it's not hard to see why. Guys get other guys. Guys understand why it's fun to get drunk and piss off the edge of a rooftop. They speak the same language. They know the rules. A guy is never going to get pissy because some other guy forgot to call him. And there's nothing a guy likes more than to see his guyness reflected back at him. When a man looks at his infant son he can envision their whole relationship; from playing catch to drinking beer on the porch. The father-son relationship is profound, almost sacred. It's completely different with a daughter. Women, generally, are a mystery to men. Men don't truly understand their wives, their connection to their sisters is often limited to tearing off their dolls' heads and God's knows what's going on with the whole mother thing. Daughters, to men, are an unknown quantity. They have no memory of a father-daughter relationship to draw from. And any fantasy about her future life comes to an abrupt, unfathomable end when he imagines her of dating age. In poll after poll from around the world, men strongly (up to 95 percent in China) prefer sons.

Women, on the other hand, do not strongly prefer daughters; and like men, women also like men. They may not appreciate their testosterone driven excesses, but they're attracted to their forthrightness, their boldness, their humor and their sense of honor and duty. They marvel at the ease with which men negotiate their position in the hierarchy. Girls may make better human beings overall, but boys just seem... more appealing. But here's the central question: Does this essential masculine appeal drive the preference for boys or is it simply a reflection of it?

Feminist theory is fairly blunt about this. The preferential treatment of boys and the desire for boys is a social construct. We live in a patriarchal society which places greater value on boys and as long as men have power it's better to have sons. The construct is self-reinforcing and is very difficult to change. If women were to become the dominant gender then the situation would presumably be reversed and girls would be accorded greater value than boys. The theory is speculative of course. There's almost no way to prove or refute it because almost all societies are patriarchal and they're patriarchal because men being physically stronger and more aggressive, naturally gravitate to leadership.

But now that physical prowess is no longer a leadership determinant, is it possible that at some point we may see a shift in gender value towards girls? Given the recent inversion of academic performance (girls now excel in all subjects while boys' sphere of excellence has been reduced to Gameboy, Pokemon and lipping-off at the teacher), and with the increasing importance of education in the global economy, it is quite possible that women will begin out-earning their less educated brothers within a generation. Whether this translates into a genuine shift in gender power and whether this shift has any real effect on gender value remains to be seen.

There are signs that this may already be happening, however. While the preference for sons is very strong worldwide, it is diminishing, especially in the western nations where women have made the greatest gains towards gender equality. If one were to draw a line on the gender preference graph from 1950 to today, one would see the line fall, slowly at first, but quite steeply in the last couple of decades. If one were to follow the angle of this line into the future one could conclude that at some point, girls will be preferred to boys. In one country, that line has already crossed the threshold. In Japan, girls are wanted more than boys. So far, Japan is the lone exception to the gender bias expressed everywhere else and the jury's out on whether Japan is a cultural anomaly or the vanguard of a sea-change in gender value. Fifty years ago the Japanese expressed the same strongly pro-boy bias that was typical in other Asian countries, but over the last thirty years as the Japanese became richer and better educated, that stated preference has fallen. Men still prefer sons (41 percent to 28 percent - the rest being neutral) but women strongly (64 percent to 16 percent) prefer girls. This runs counter to the stats of most other countries and may underscore the Japanese exception. In Japan, sons may carry on the family name but they no longer bring home all the bacon. Japanese women make almost as much money and they're much more likely to care for aging parents. Additionally, mother-daughter relationships are "trendy" in Japan and this has likely been reflected in the current mother-daughter preference. But it's also probable that the shift towards daughters is a product of the increasing valuation of women that comes with gender equality.

So, will we be gender neutral in a couple of decades? Might we actually drift to a preference for females? It's possible but I doubt it. Even if women end up earning more than men. Even if femininity triumphs masculinity and The Gilmore Girls ends up representing a higher standard of female potential than Buffy the Vampire Slayer; boys will still be boys. Boys will never want to be like girls. Whatever value society places on them, they will place a higher value on themselves, individually and as a gender. As David Bowie said so succinctly; "Boys keep swinging, Boys always work it out." And goddamnit, there's just something appealing about that.

When A Penis Becomes A Handicap

Men are stronger than women. We're bigger, tougher and have more muscle mass. We're decisive and we lead naturally (usually while facing into the wind with a chiseled chin). So it may come as a surprise to learn that by practically every measure, save for physical prowess, men are, by some margin, the weaker sex. Perhaps I'm being a little disingenuous using the term "weaker." I use it because it's ironic. It confounds our expectations. For centuries women have been referred to as the weaker sex, but in a wider sense, the term is better applied to men. Let's start with the basics. Males lack a duplicate set of X chromosomes. As such they fall prey to any recessive disorder carried on the X chromosome including color blindness, hemophilia, muscular dystrophy, Rett's syndrome and a couple of dozen others that you've never heard of. For reasons unknown, men are also more susceptible to birth defects, mental retardation and autism. And those are just the diseases latent when we're in the womb. After we're born it gets worse.

We're more susceptible to alcoholism, obesity, heart disease, cancer and diabetes. We're more likely to suffer from a host of mental disorders including schizophrenia and manic-depression. While it's still men that scale the commanding heights of social success, it's also men that plumb its depths. Of those living on the streets, men outnumber women by a factor of 5. Although both men and women are buffeted by circumstances both inside and outside their control, men seem to have less resilience. Men are more likely to succumb to disease and stress and widowers are far more likely to die shortly after their spouse than widows.

In his excellent book Y: The Descent of Man, Steve Jones describes an ill-fated expedition of Mormons that got caught in an early winter in the Rockies. Ultimately, forty men died through starvation and exhaustion while only four women suffered such a fate. We men like to think we're as tough as steel but push us too far and we're as fragile as glass.

On average, women live eight years longer than men. While some of this discrepancy can be accounted for in the myriad failings listed above, most men don't have genetic defects, nor are most alcoholics or mentally ill. Most of us survive our reckless teenage years. What then explains this longevity gap? There's a thought that the defining male hormone, testosterone, may itself be to blame. Studies have shown that testosterone weakens our immune systems and accordingly leaves us susceptible to infectious disease and cancer.

But even given all the above, it doesn't change the fact that we guys still dominate affairs on this planet, right? That might be true now, but not for much longer, and this is a tough idea for men to get used to. For all our genuflection to the idea of gender equality, men accept dominion over women pretty much as a birthright. And for all of history (and likely most of pre-history), man's natural endowments of physical strength, coupled with the inclination to use it aggressively have allowed him to dominate the female gender.

But for some time now, at least in the developed world, physical strength has not been a primary determinant of power. We have laws that protect the weak. Violence is now the prerogative of the state, not the individual. Within the state we are all equal, at least in theory. That notion will never trickle down into the trenches of grade school, but it has seeped into all levels of adult society. Instead of warrior princes, it's spindly geeks who rule the world. As a natural corollary to the forces of economic and technical change, masculinity is being progressively devalued. Tasks requiring strength and endurance are being done by machines or shunted to the third world. Wage labor is less physical and increasingly mental and in many ways better served by the innate skills of women.

Whether the sexes are born intellectually equal depends on what your frame of reference is. What is clear is that we are not born the same. Evolutionary logic requires this. We have different reproductive agendas, different natural roles and different skills required to carry them out. Men are more visual, we're better able to manipulate objects in a three-dimensional space. And for what it's worth, we seem to be better at making judgments dispassionately. While there will always be jobs that require these skills, the labor market is increasingly weighted towards the service sector, where jobs require tact, communication and attention to detail; skills that women have in abundance.

Right now we're at a tipping point, and ground-zero is the classroom, where girls are consistently outperforming boys. They score higher in scholastic achievement and are already over-represented in colleges and universities. And the trend shows no sign of abating. This is a complete reversal from a generation ago and no one knows why it's happening. Theories range from the effect of brainless video games to a global male sulk to male-oriented scholarly pursuits like blowing dope, chasing ass and mooning passing traffic. But young men have always put such activities ahead of study, so perhaps one can conclude that while boys haven't changed all that much, girls have. It could well be that girls are simply better suited to the world of academia. At every stage, save for perhaps those unfortunate years between 12 and 15, girls are clearly the more sensible gender. Guys are more impulsive, restless and less able to sit still and pay attention. It's not our fault; it's mandated by our genes. It's testosterone that turns us into Dennis the Menace while the Margarets of this world study and get good grades.

Like it or not, it's those who get the grades that will, in the future, make the grade. There is direct relationship between the level of one's education and the level of one's future income. Men may still out-earn women statistically, but for those under the age of thirty those differences are largely non-existent. In another decade it will be women that are bringing home the larger share of the bacon. And this financial clout will inevitably translate into political clout. And what will happen then? Feminism arose to address the perceived inequalities between men and women. Can we expect a similar movement representing the interests of men to arise when the tables have been turned? Perhaps, but I doubt it. Feminism succeeded through solidarity. And that sense of solidarity was achieved because women perceived themselves to be the weaker sex. Men will never view themselves as such, even when all the evidence screams to the contrary. If it's not in our nature to stop and ask for directions when we're clearly lost, we're not likely to summon the collective will to whine about our fate. Men are from Mars and women are from Venus. And for the first time since we split from the Bonobo (our closest relative), Venus is ascendant.

Paul Aitken: A Penis Doesn't Always Make A Man

Penis Picture and Article. Back in the 70s, when I was on the verge of adolescence, I remember watching an episode of Hawaii Five-0 in which a man who had confessed to a series of rapes was revealed to be impotent. When Jack Lord's hard-boiled Detective Steve McGarrett asked the man why he would take the fall for such a heinous crime, the man admitted that he didn't want people to know that he "wasn't a man anymore." McGarrett shook his head in dismay and said. "You have no idea what it is to be a man... You haven't a clue!" We never did learn what constituted the essential masculine to Steve (presumably getting ones dick hard enough to penetrate a woman's vagina wasn't it), but the question tugged at my prepubescent existential doubt and still does to this day. What is it that makes us men?

According to my dad, a man was any male who was over the age of 21. In certain tribal societies it's any male who's undergone the tribal initiation ritual or been tested in combat. I personally felt that I was a man when I grew taller than my mom at age 14, but later, was led to understand that my status as a real man was in limbo unless I could down ten beers in one sitting. Given the subjectivity inherent in the definition, perhaps we should rephrase the question. What is it that makes us male?

The answer to this is both simpler and more complex than we might assume at first glance. It turns out that it's damnably hard to isolate the sin qua non of masculinity. Sure, generally speaking, if it stands to pee, then it's a guy, but talented women have been known to piss upright like John Wayne, so that's not definitive. Having a dick and balls is another strong indicator, but even that's not absolute. We've all seen pictures of chicks-with-dicks and it's estimated that one out of every 3,000 - 4,000 children sport both ovaries AND testes. Now, I know you brainiacs out there are musing impatiently; "Oh please. It's sooo obvious. It's in the genes, man. If it's got a Y chromosome it's a he." Some of you who've taken a couple of biology courses and are feeling your oats might sniff aloofly that it all comes down to a component of the Y chromosome called the SRY (sex determining region of the Y chromosome) gene. If the SRY gene is present you get a guy, if not, you get a girl. End of story, right? Well, not quite.

In the vast majority of cases the if-you've-got-a-Y-you're-a-guy rule holds. Even children with one or more extra X chromosomes (XXY and XXXY) are to all intents and purposes male. In rare cases, during meiotic recombination between the X and Y gene, the SRY gene can be translocated onto the X chromosome. When this happens the child will genetically be a girl (XX), but thanks to the presence of the SRY gene on the second X, will develop into a male complete with one dick, two balls and a multitude of Jessica Alba posters on the walls. He may never even know his genetic status until he and his wife try to figure out why she can't get pregnant. XX males are always sterile.

No one knows precisely how the SRY functions but it appears to be a switch that turns on sometime during the fourth week of gestation, shunting the fetus away from a default female destination to a male version. Specifically, the proteins that the SRY produces bind to other sections of DNA, distorting their shape. This alters the expression of other genes which are themselves associated with other genes that are associated with other genes that are... associated with testes formation. Got it? As I mentioned before, nobody knows, but it's clear that sexuality is a manifestation built on processes that are themselves built on other processes. How many layers are in this scaffolding we can, at this point, only guess at.

The complexity of the process is hinted at by two well documented exceptions to the rule: XY females and XX (sans SRY) males. XY females are genetically male but are in every outward respect female. With XY females, fetal testes begin to grow during gestation and start to secrete testosterone. But thanks to a genetic mutation, or combination of mutations (some of which are thought to be located on the X chromosome - androgen insensitivity can be passed down by way of the mother), the surface receptors on critical cells don't recognize this testosterone or it's metabolite, dihydratestosterone (DHT). The fetus accordingly fails to undergo the secondary stages of male fetal sexual development (which seem to be driven almost entirely by hormones). Depending on the type of mutation involved, androgen insensitivity can result in the whole spectrum of gender mash-ups, from males to hermaphrodites to smokin' hot babes. It was rumored for a while that Jamie Le Curtis was an XY female. While this rumor seems to have been scotched, the basis for it is grounded in real science.

With XX (sans SRY gene) males, the picture gets even murkier. Somehow, in the absence of the sex-shifting gene, testes are formed, testosterone is produced; and when the baby pops out, his room gets painted blue. How this can happen is anybody's guess. Some scientists have speculated that perhaps the default sex is NOT female after all. In this scenario, the SRY gene acts to "repress an inhibitor of male testicular development." In case you didn't notice, that is the molecular equivalent of a double negative. Instead of being a guy because you're not a female, you're a guy because you're not not a male. Whatever is happening, it's clear that these XX (sans SRY) males have a mutation that affects a process that runs deeper than what the SRY gene affects. If your head is reeling with all of this, try thinking in terms of a computer metaphor. Sexual determination (and all development) is a sub-routine built on top of other sub-routines. At the very base of all this lies a machine language that is almost indecipherable. What has happened with these various mutations is that they've uncovered a backdoor code, a genetic atavism from a much earlier period when sexuality was determined by extra genetic or autosomal (any chromosome other than the X and Y) factors. In reptiles, sexuality is determined by temperature at a critical stage in embryo development. Warm egg - boy reptile; cool egg - girl reptile. In birds, sexuality is determined by an entirely different set of genes on different chromosomes. And in the case of birds, it is the males who have the double set.

So what makes a man? Well in the absence of a definitive test we're back to the subjective. A man is what we agree a man is, and if we can't agree, hey, it's anybody's guess. As Steve McGarrett might say; "We have no idea what it is to be a man... We haven't a clue!

Paul Aitken: Testosterone The Key To Embryo Sex Selection?

Penis Picture and Article. When I was a snotty adolescent punk, I got into a debate with my father about, of all things, the wisdom of nature. "Nature isn't wise, Dad, it doesn't have a brain!" My father took a more holistic view and cited the fact that more boys than girls were born following the two world wars - presumably to replenish the decimated male gender - as an example of nature's wisdom.

I hadn't heard that before so I did what any know-it-all adolescent does in such situations: I denied it completely. "Impossible," I snorted. "First of all, how would nature 'know' that a great chunk of the male gender had been killed off? And how would nature 'respond'? Wave a magic wand and presto! More male babies?" A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing and I had recently learned about X chromosomes and Y chromosomes and the fact that any one sperm had one or the other and therefore the gender of any baby, fetus or blastocyst was a strictly 50-50 proposition. I even remember my biology teacher talking about the irony of Henry VIII executing his wives because they couldn't give him male children when in fact the gender of his progeny was determined entirely by his sperm!

I can't remember how the debate ended and I can't say my opinion has changed. I still don't believe nature possesses "wisdom." But nature has certainly turned out to be far more complex and mysterious than I had imagined in my adolescent certitude. For one thing I've since learned that the ratio of male to females born is NOT a 50-50 proposition at all. There are in fact around 105 human males born to every 100 females. This is not a statistical anomaly. It cuts across all ethnic groups. But it's not a global constant either. Amongst Africans and Amerindians the figure is 102:100, suggesting a genetic mechanism is at work. It's possible, even probable, that this is an evolutionary adaptation to counter the gender imbalance that arises in late adolescence. In every culture young men are prone to dying young and stupidly. In primitive tribes the cull rate is over 25 percent. I also learned that my father was correct. During and after both world wars there was a spike in the birth of male babies. This is an astounding fact and one I still have trouble digesting. How did nature "know" there was a war? How was she able to respond in the way she did? What exactly determines the gender of a baby?

The answer has been the same since we discovered chromosomes. XX = girl. XY = boy. End of story. Gender is genetic. Hormones may play a role in how gender manifests itself - bathe an XX fetus in the wrong hormones at a critical stage in development and she'll be a chick with a dick - but genetically she'll still be a girl. The female ovum only carries an X chromosome. That means gender is determined by the sperm. Given that there are an equal number of X and Y sperm produced, one would expect there to be an equal number of male and female births. This obviously isn't the case, so somewhere between the balls and the baby; something is giving the Y gene a leg up. But what?

Let's start with the sperm themselves. Could Y sperm have a natural advantage? Could they be, ahem, superior to X sperm? Well... yes, as a matter of fact. It comes down to basic physics. The Y gene is considerably smaller and lighter than the X gene. Given that speed is a product of force and mass; all things being equal Y should be faster and this is a race after all. The "Y is lighter" theory has been suggested to account for the fact that more boys than girls are conceived in the early stages of ovulation when the sperm must pass through a thick mucus plug at the entrance to the uterus. Once ovulation begins, the mucus plug develops watery channels and progress is much more a matter of chance, but before then it's a long hard slog and small advantages come into play. But is the weight advantage enough to account for the 105:102 ratio?

Early ovulation conception is fairly rare and while the difference in mass between Y and X is real, it is also negligible. The nucleus is a tiny fraction of the weight of the sperm and the weight of one chromosome is a tiny fraction of that. And what about that post war spike and other statistical quirks? Not only are more boys conceived in the early stages of ovulation, they're also favored in late ovulation. The length of the follicular period also appears to be a factor as does birth order (more boys born first) birth interval (short intervals favor boys) the age of the mother (older women give birth to more girls) and as we've already seen, ethnicity. Chromosomal mass differential may be a factor in the sex ratio, but it's not the only one and probably not the main one.

But one factor seems dominant and in fact may be able to account for most, if not all, the aforementioned statistical curiosities: hormones. In the period before and after conception, the sperm and the ovum are bathed in a number of different hormones the proportions of which vary according to the stage of ovulation, the status of fertilization and the state of mind of the mother. The latter may seem a stretch until one remembers that many personality traits are hormonally driven (think PMS). Dominance, driven by serum testosterone, (the amount of testosterone present in the blood - yes, women produce testosterone too!) seems to be an important determinant in the sex ratio. Mothers who score in the top quintile on dominance have on average five times more boys than those who score in the bottom quintile. This surprising statistic underpins what's become known as the Maternal-Dominance Hypothesis (MDH). Big-time MDH fan, Dr. Valerie Grant, contends that the tendency for dominant women to have male babies is an evolutionary adaptation. Not only are dominant women better suited to raising male children; high status women tend to raise high status sons. And because male status is attractive to women (how else do you explain Billy Joel and Christie Brinkley), these sons are more likely to be genetically successful than daughters, whose ability to reproduce is ultimately limited by the relatively small number of eggs they were born with.

While the molecular mechanism by which higher serum testosterone favors an XY conception is still unknown, there is speculation that testosterone affects the manner in which sperm passes through the clot of cells that surround the ovum (the zona pellucida). As I explained in "Mr. Sperm Goes to War", passage into the zona pellucida (ZP) is determined by a matching of surface proteins between the acrosome (head) of the sperm and the outer layer of the ZP. Recent studies have shown that while gene transcription is rare during sperm differentiation, some Y genes are expressed in the formation of the acrosome. This suggests a mechanism by which the ovum can recognize, and possibly favor, a Y sperm.

The high serum testosterone theory goes a long way to explaining why more first-borns are male. Young women have higher levels of serum testosterone and these levels are most pronounced in the first few months of a sexual relationship when sex is frequent and conception likely to occur. It also explains the preponderance of male babies born during and shortly after the two major wars. Serum testosterone levels in women are not constant. Like other hormones, testosterone is subject to flux depending on a woman's psychological state. Women working in traditionally masculine occupations such as law have been shown to have higher levels of serum testosterone. And no, this isn't just because high testosterone women are attracted to such occupations. Studies have shown that the type of work women do changes their testosterone level. So it stands to reason that when women were responsible for holding up the homefront during the war (they worked in factories, played professional baseball), they could very well have experienced elevated testosterone levels.

If the testosterone theory is correct it has enormous implications. For one, it could provide a means by which couples could influence, or even choose, the gender of their children. This may be good or bad depending on your ethical point of view, but there's no denying the value to parents desperate for one sex or the other. In a double irony it turns out that Henry VIII's choice of wives may have had some bearing on his inability to sire a male heir after all. If only Anne Boleyn had worn a testosterone patch history might have been very different.

Paul Aitken: The Male Period

Penis Picture and Article. Recently, when I complained to a co-worker that I was "overwhelmed by lassitude" she suggested that perhaps I was on my period. I thought she was joking at first but she claimed to have read somewhere that men have hormonal swings just like woman (although they were slightly longer). She couldn't remember exactly where she'd read this but felt confident in nevertheless asserting that it was an established scientific fact.

I, of course, had my doubts. The female hormonal cycle is a function of a highly evolved chemical feedback loop between the pituitary gland and various girly body parts such as follicles, ocytes and the uterus, that we don't share. This feedback loop initiates a series of bodily changes, beginning with the release of the egg and its eventual expulsion along with the lining of the uterus if pregnancy doesn't occur. The process is the sin qua non of humanity's continued existence but it's also a debilitating process that has ancillary effects such as cramping, bloating and telling men to put the "Goddamned lid back on the goddamned peanut butter. Christ! WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU!" It's not something nature would permit if it wasn't absolutely necessary and science says it's only necessary for women.

But after the conversation with my co-worker I began to consider the possibility. Human beings, male and female are cut from the same cloth. Our default blueprint is female. In fact, were it not for the expression of a single gene on the Y chromosome sometime in the second month of gestation, men would be morphologically female. Would-be testes would become ovaries, the would-be penis would become a clitoris and the brain would become 10 percent smaller. So if we have analogous nipples, pubic hair and sexual organs, why can't we have analogous hormonal cycles? No one is suggesting that the cycles are equally as dramatic. The hormone fluctuations in women are vertiginous. Plotted on a graph they resemble a roller coaster. But that doesn't mean cycles of lower amplitude don't exist. It also seems credible when one remembers that the hormone system is dynamic. The components of the system feed back on themselves. As they do, patterns emerge, often manifested as regular fluctuations in the relative blood concentrations of a particular hormone.

For instance, testosterone in men fluctuates in a circadian rhythm – highest in the morning, lowest at bedtime (hence our propensity for morning sex – a propensity unfortunately not shared by most women). The process breaks down like this: The pituitary gland in men releases gonadotropin-stimulating hormone (GSH) in response to low levels of serum testosterone. This hormone then stimulates the testes to start pumping out testosterone. When the testosterone inventories are high enough, the GSH factory shuts down and serum concentration gradually decreases until the whole process begins again, sometime in the early hours. The circadian testosterone cycle has been well studied and verified and is exploited by steroid users to determine when best to intake their hormones. If you take steroids too late in the day, the GSH switch is never tripped, the balls never receive their production signal and eventually they shrivel up (literally).

The idea that men experience a monthly cycle is not new. As early as the 17th century, the Italian physician Santorio Sanctorius, after carefully measuring the weight of his body, along with it's various excretions (Santorio was nothing if not thorough), discovered a monthly cycle in body weight of approximately two pounds. He noted that the peak of the cycle was accompanied by feelings of heaviness and lassitude.

In later centuries there were various attempts to establish the existence of a male cycle. The late decades of the 19th century were a particularly fruitful period for some reason, with a number of authors (Gall, Stephenson and Campbell, if you must know) finding evidence for monthly fluctuations in mood, energy and sex drive. Later in 1929, a study found that men have emotional cycles of about one-month to six-weeks in length (as my friend had suggested). During the low period of the cycle, men were reported to feel apathetic and indifferent. During the high period they reported more energy, a greater sense of well-being, and lower body weight. Hmmm.

It is probably not coincidental that all these symptoms have been associated with serum levels of testosterone. During periods of low serum testosterone men report feeling apathetic and indifferent. During periods of high serum testosterone they report more energy, a greater sense of well-being, and lower body weight. In fact a whole market in testosterone supplements has emerged to service aging men whose levels of serum testosterone have fallen.

But the experts who weigh ponderously on such matters say that a monthly hormonal cycle in men has not been established. Part of the reason has been the lamentably thin body of research devoted to the topic (I couldn't find a single modern study). But it's also a function of testosterone itself. Testosterone levels are notoriously difficult to calibrate because they're often dependent on one's psychological state, which in turn is largely a function of circumstance. Leaders of every kind (tribal, political, business) have higher relative levels of serum testosterone. Levels drop sharply in men who lose there jobs or watch their teams lose. And that's not just in men. Women in high level corporate positions have higher levels of testosterone than their sisters in less driven professions.

Given the sensitivity of testosterone to life's ups and downs, it's easy to see how a discernable and very real cyclical pattern might get lost in the background noise. Perhaps the best evidence available to us is anecdotal. I know that I go through periods of high energy, high sex drive and periods of the opposite. I'm familiar enough with these cycles to know that any particular state will not last. While I can't say with any confidence that these cycles revolve in a regular pattern, I can safely predict that if I'm feeling crappy on Monday, I'll be feeling better by the weekend. Whether that constitutes a "Male Period" I can't say. All I know for certain is that if science ever establishes its non-existence, I'll never be able to use it as an excuse for bad behavior.

Paul Aitken: Public Washrooms "The Ten Commandments"

Perhaps more than any other institution, the public restroom is the great leveler. Everyone uses them. In any establishment the high and mighty are pissing beside the low and slovenly. We're engaged in acts of an extremely personal nature in a very public space. It behooves us then to conform to a set of behaviors that makes the
whole experience as civilized as possible. To that end I present the ten commandments of public bathroom etiquette.

1. Mercy Flush... Please

Rule of thumb: If you can smell it, so can everybody else. If you've got a tendency to linger after dropping the big one then do us all a favor and offer up a preliminary flush. Yeah, I know it's a waste of water. Make it up by drinking less.

2. Take Responsibility For Your Own Puke

There's no shame in getting caught off guard. Some clown keeps buying Sambuca shooters and before you know it the room's helicoptering around you. But you've managed to weave through the patrons at the bar. You even managed to flash the cute waitress a sickly smile as you lurch past. But just because you've managed to push open the door to the men's room doesn't mean you're home free. It's bad manners of the highest order to simply open your mouth and let the fish and chips fall where they may. For one thing the surface is hard tile. Whatever falls from a distance of five feet or so is going to splatter leaving a no-go area the size of Chernobyl. You've made it this far, you've got to go the distance. There's probably no better place to puke in the indoor world than the men's public washroom. If the stalls are all full you've got other options. The first order of business is containment. The second is clean-up. That means the best places to puke, in descending order of preference, are: 1. The toilet. 2. The urinal (not the ideal place for blowing chunks but better than the floor by a long shot) 3. The sink. The garbage can is better than the floor but by far the inferior option to the above three. With the toilet, urinal and sink you have the means to clean up and this is something you MUST do. Flush twice if you have to. Wipe the seat/urinal/sink completely clean. Not a chunk of fish should remain.

3. Leave the Handicapped Stall for Last

I know they're extra wide. You can keep your gym bag beside you while you do your business but spare a moment's thought to the guys who don't have a choice which stall they use. The handicapped stall isn't like a handicapped parking spot. You can use it. But only if no other choices are available. It hard enough maneuvering your wheelchair into the bathroom in the first place. A wheelchair-bound man shouldn't have to wait to use the only stall available to him simply because you want a little elbow room while you contemplate nature.

4. Lift the Seat, Jerk!

Pee in the urinal, that's what it's there for. But if you must pee in the stall, for God's sake LIFT THE SEAT! I can't tell you how many times I've encountered pee splatter when I have sit-down business to attend to. I've stretched my imagination to breaking point trying to understand what kind of guy would pee through an open toilet seat rather than lift the lid. I've only come up with three possibilities. 1. They're sporting types. An open hole is an invitation to practice one's aim. 2. They're fastidious types who don't want to touch the toilet seat. 3. They're sociopaths who simply can't be bothered to expend any effort for the common good. If you're one of these guys then please write in and tell us what motivates you to commit such an egregiously anti-social act. Whatever the reason, there is simply no excuse for not lifting the lid.

5. Wash Your Hands After Peeing

You've probably heard this joke. A Harvard man notices a Yale man failing to wash-up after urinating and upbraids him; "At Harvard they teach us to wash our hands after urinating." To which Yale man replies; "At Yale they teach us not to piss on our hands." Every guy has questioned the value of washing up when our hands are unsullied. There is no good answer. According to The Straight Dope's Cecil Adams, washing is a must because the whole genital region is teeming with microbes. But if it's necessary to scrub up every time we touch our dicks then by logical extension we should never permit our girlfriends to put said dick in their mouths. There's obviously a double standard going on here. My own feeling is that we live in a world awash with germs. Our dicks may be germy but so is the surface of the table that the waitress has just wiped with her skanky wet cloth. That said, washing up after peeing just seems to be the polite thing to do. If no one is around to witness it, chances are no harm will come if you simply zip up and leave. But if you are in the company of others it's only good manners to wash up. It may be empty ritual but so is half the stuff we do.

6. If It's Plugged, DON'T USE IT!

It seems obvious but I can't tell you how many times I've walked into a stall and reeled at the sight. It's always possible that the previous occupant simply forgot to flush. And if everything looks otherwise normal, then by all means flush for him. But if the water level is already suspiciously high DON'T FLUSH! And whatever you do, don't just shrug and contribute to the problem. At some point, some poor chump has to go in, plunger in hand and deal with the problem. It's a shitty job - literally. Don't make it worse.

7. The Urinal Is Not the Place to Make Friends

Yeah I know, you're drunk, you're feeling gregarious and it seems unfriendly to just stand there beside some guy and not even talk about the hockey game. But ask yourself if you'd feel the same way on the subway platform or a movie queue. Something about having your dick out with a stranger seems to beg for social exchange. Resist the urge. Chances are no ill will come of a simply "howdy," but some guys view the act of urination as a matter of private contemplation and there's no reason to intrude. Now I'm willing to admit this is probably a cultural thing. In more gregarious social climes it may be seen as an anti-social act NOT to yak while you've got your dick out, but the Anglo-American convention is to stare straight ahead and mind your own business. An extension of this convention is to leave, whenever possible, at least one urinal between you and the next guy. That means if there are three urinals; use the one on either side if they're not already in use.

8. No Peaking


If you do find yourself standing next to someone at the urinal, resist the temptation to "check him out." This may be hard to do if he's the kind of guy who likes to hitch his thumbs in his back pocket and go hands-free. If you do happen to sneak a glance, it's advisable not to offer any comments.

9. Use Your Clean Hand to Turn On the Tap

For fastidious types, one of the conundrums of public washrooms is how to make it out without getting someone else's germs all over your hands. The reasoning is thus: If you have germs on your hands, those germs will be transferred to everything you touch. Yes, you can wash-up but when you turn off the tap you'll be in contact with the germs that somebody else left when they turned on the tap. There's really no perfect solution to the problem and if you're really concerned you can use a paper towel to turn off the tap. Ditto for the door handle. But one way we can reduce the amount of germ transfer is to simply agree to not touch anything with the hand you used to wipe your ass. That means flush, undo the stall latch and turn on the taps ONLY WITH YOUR CLEAN HAND.

10. NO FOOT FLUSHING!

One of the more perverse habits of fastidious types is to minimize germ contact by using their foot to flush the toilet; the idea being that whoever used the toilet last left his germs on the handle. The logical flaws of this strategy are obvious to even the minimally intelligent. The same guy who touched the handle also touched the door and the sink taps. Not even foot flushers go so far as to turn on the taps with their feet. Ironically, the only way the flush handle will have more germs than the door latch or the taps is if a previous user has flushed with his foot. The soles are absolutely riddled with germs and splashed urine. To place these same soles on the surface that someone else will be touching with his bare hands will guarantee that these germs will ultimately be transferred to every surface that this person subsequently touches before he washes. The strategy is self-defeating and morally reprehensible. If you're that germ-phobic, use a tissue as an intermediary between you and whatever surface you touch.

There you have it. The ten commandments of bathroom etiquette. To this list I could add numerous others but there is one overarching principle: Do as you would have others do. If you don't want to step in someone else's puke/poo/piss, then behave accordingly. If you don't want to be intimately involved with someone else's bowel movements, then don't fart loudly or shout out "Here comes the big one!"

A little class added to an otherwise crass bodily function is never a wrong move.

George Atkinson: Men DO Marry Their Mothers

Penis Picture and Article. Whether a man's mother went to college and pursued her own career seems to affect what sort of woman the man chooses for a wife, according to Christine Whelan, author of a new book entitled Why Smart Men Marry Smart Women. She says that high-achieving men (those who earn salaries in the top 10 percent for their age and/or have a graduate degree) are highly likely to marry a woman whose education level mirrors their mom's.

Whelan's research showed that nearly 80 percent of the high-achieving men whose mothers had college degrees married women with college degrees, and 19 percent of them married women with graduate degrees. Sixty-eight percent of high-achieving men agreed with the statement, "Smart women make better mothers."

"Successful men in their 20s and 30s today are the sons of a pioneering generation of high-achieving career women. Their mothers serve as role models for how a woman can be nurturing and successful at the same time," said Whelan, a University of Iowa sociologist. "One man I interviewed put it like this: 'If your mother is a success, you don't have any ideas of success and family that exclude a woman from working.' This Mother's Day, I think we should thank those moms for leading the way toward gender equality for a younger generation."

The study reinforces previous research in the field: "Younger men are much more egalitarian about marriage in general. They grew up with working mothers. Fifty-four million women work and an awful lot of those women are mothers. Their sons aren't looking for Leave It to Beaver in their own house," said researcher Randi Minetor, author of Breadwinner Wives and the Men They Marry.

George Atkinson: Women & Penis Size

"It's not how big it is, it's what you do with it..."
"It's not the size of the boat, it's the motion of the ocean..."

We've all heard those comments about male endowment but what do women really have to say about penis size? Read on and see how a bunch of feisty females responded to the perennial question:
"What's the perfect penis size?"

W said:
I don't know where you got those responses that penis size isn't important but the reality of it is size does matter to both the man and woman. A man with a large penis has the confidence that he can satisfy any woman and after all making love for the man is all about confidence. More and more research is showing that a larger penis does give more pleasure to a woman especially the girth of the penis. I have never seen a six inch or less dildo. Dildos are all designed large. Women brag about their mens size and I think that just making love with a man with a large penis makes them feel like more of a woman. Women seem to think something terrible will happen if they suddenly come clean that larger is better. I was just on a website from a university study showing that young college girls like larger penises. Maybe the next generation will be more honest.

Sweet Sarah said:
Each woman is different physically, so there's not really a "universal" perfect size. Me? I'm little, so my perfect size is probably 4-5 inches. But one of my friends is a little larger and she likes 5-7 inches. That being said... in my experience, size hasn't been the factor that ultimately made sex good or bad.

A Player said:
I like 'em the size of a nice big juicy cucumber.

A Good Time Girl said:
To me, size absolutely does NOT matter. I'm 4'11" and very petite, so I don't need a whole lot of penis to fill me up. There was one guy who was so small that I wasn't sure if we'd had sex after we were done. (He was probably a couple of inches long and skinny as a pencil.) But anything bigger than that is generally ok. It's true that there's some "size queens" out there (women who just love really big penises), but that seems to be more of a mental thing than a physical need.

A Sporty Girl said:
Girth is probably more important to me than length. Having said that, the perfect size for me is about 6 inches.

A Thinker said:
I've had more problems with too large than too small. Perfect? 4-6 inches, with medium girth. Here's the pros and cons on small. The cons? There's trouble keeping it inside me during intercourse - and constantly having to "re-set" the table breaks the rhythm of things. The pros? Having a smaller penis means fuller insertion, and thus, more friction on the clitoris. Plus, smaller penises are easier to give head to. So my preference is on the smaller size. Here's the cons of too big (girth especially). It can be physically uncomfortable, and it makes me feel inadequate - like I can't take on more of him. Plus, having to build up slowly to full insertion breaks the rhythm of a sexual encounter. I haven’t had a ton of experience with too big, but in general I found more problems with them than pleasure or fulfillment. Could have been my partner, though, not his organ...

A Good Time Girl said:
8" long, 6" around is good for me... but if you know how to use what you've got, it goes a LOOOOOOOOOONG way!

A Player said:
You really want to rock our world? Follow this simple advice: start us off with oral sex. And if you make a few groans of pleasure while you're down there so we think you're enjoying it, this will dramatically enhance our excitement and pleasure. When your woman is ready for sex, ask her which sexual position she prefers. Trust me, all women have their favorite position. Mine is being on top and having my boyfriend use his hands to stimulate me; this is one of the best ways for women to climax during actual intercourse. It gives us control and feels great -- and with this position, it doesn't really matter what size he is. Also, if you're handy with a vibrator, try that out. Talk about fun!

A Thinker said:
The guy I've been seeing is 35 and he's great in bed - but since he didn't know the particular fact I'm about to share with you, I'd assume that most other guys don't know it, either. Here goes: There are verrrrry few nerves up inside the vagina. The best way I can describe it is like a novacained lip - we can feel pressure (from your cock moving around inside us, or just from the way it expands that space) but there's not much surface feeling. The sensitive nerves you want to pay attention to are around the the vast pink area between the lips. That whole entire area is just crazy with feeling. You might wonder, then: how do women have orgasms thru sex? Well, I asked a friend who's a sex therapist and she confirmed that very few women can have orgasms directly thru intercourse. Many are faking it - they think they're the only women who can't, and they want to please their guy. Want to be amazing in bed? Trust me: learn how to make a woman come with your hand or your mouth - and be eager to do it often. She'll be putty in your hands forever. If you're eager to make a woman come, your value in her mind goes up like 20 billion points. Seriously. It's because most guys don't bother, or they're just clueless. This isn't to say that sex doesn't feel great. It does. We love it. But a guy who knows to make us come orally FIRST, and then has sex with us - that's a guy who really knows what he's doing. Just by knowing that, you'll beat out 75% of the guys out there. And then the women will follow you around.

GK said:
As a woman, I am going to be honest with any and every male. The answer to if size counts: NO!!! It's all about how you work it that counts. You can be hung as a horse and still can't satisfy a woman. You can be as small as an inch worm, but if you know the right spots to hit it, then it shouldn't be a problem. When having sex with a woman, there should be communication. Once you both can understand each other's likes and dislikes, then the sexual experience can be truly rewarding with each other. Size does not count, however I would prefer a well endowed male who can take care of business.

CC said:
Okay, guys. Here's some general information. 1. Four to eight inches is considered the normal range of penis size for adult males. 2. Five and a half inches is the average length of the adult penis. 3. There is no correlation between penis size and height; size of the foot, hand, nose or any other body part because there is no 'bone' in the penis, contrary to the popular euphamism. 4. There is very little correlation between penis size and ethnicity. Black guys are slightly larger than white guys, and Asian guys are very slightly smaller than white guys - there's not a big difference. 5. Width IS more important that length as far as making women happy, BUT copulation isn't what most women care about anyway. We like touching and caressing and being treated like we matter and not like a body on a slab. 6. Most importantly, penis size has nothing to do with who you are as a person and what you can accomplish with your life. You are important, not because of your penis size, but because of what you do with the gifts God gave you. Be a man. Be unselfish. Do good and make people's lives better. 7. Treat people with respect. Stop dehumanizing each other and stop thinking of people as objects for your pleasure.

JG said:
Each and everyone of you is a product of natural selection. Guys, that means that your daddies, and their daddies, and their daddies... were PICKED (ie selected) by the women of their time. If they didn't like what they saw or felt in dick size, presumably they would have left and found someone else. Another way of putting it is, you are the product of past desirables, which would include your dick. So if the "average" range of dick sizes is between say 5 and 7 inches, then that indicates that females have been selecting that size on average for thousands of years. If the ONLY thing that mattered was a big dick, then all males would currently be very large (10 inches or more?) since past females would have selected only the biggest size. Strangely, but as a matter of fact, you have (past) females to thank for whatever size you are now. I know that most of this will be waisted on most of you. Statistically for every "large" male there is a similarly sized female. Big penis genes can also produce big vaginal canals.

LL said:
All this talk about "am I big enough? Am I too big? Am I normal." I've got news for you, everone is different. Take it from me there are women out their who like small dicks. Just like there are women who like big ones. If you take the time to get to know the woman a little instead of trying to jump in her panties from the moment you meet her, maybe your size won't matter so much. As long as you're willing to put the time in to please her in other ways. There are women who will say "I need it to be really big" but that's only her preference. There are some who think 5 to 6 inches is just right. Women are just as different as men and if one makes you feel bad because you don't have what she wants then she probably wasn't worth the time anyway. What matters is, "does your size please you?" "Does it make you feel good about yourself?" If what you have doesn't please you, then it won't please anyone else because you'll be so worried about your size that your technique will suffer. And technique is a BIG part of what goes into pleasing a woman. So please get over it and move on. Learn how to use what you've got and you'll be successful with the women.