Women are dirty, dirty people, according to science:
Researchers hypothesized women would look at faces and men at genitals, but, surprisingly, they found men are more likely than women to first look at a woman’s face before other parts of the body, and women focused longer on photographs of men performing sexual acts with women than did the males. These types of results could play a key role in helping researchers to understand human sexual desires and its [sic] ultimate effect on public health.
Stop the objectification!
Either somebody’s lying, the methodology sucks, or God really does hate teh gays:
[Researchers] used figures taken from two national surveys to estimate how many sex partners gay men and straight men and women have, and what proportion of gay men have insertive or receptive anal sex, or both.
They then set these figures against accepted estimates of how easily HIV is transmitted by vaginal and anal sex to calculate the size of the HIV epidemic in gay men and straight men and women.
The results showed that for the straight US population to experience an epidemic of HIV infection as great as that of gay men, they would need to average almost five unprotected sexual partners every year.
This is a rate almost three times that of gay men.
Britons are lame. Men and women “at war” on genetic level.
Why did I ever decide to be a programmer?
Are you looking at my bum? Cheeky bum-looker!
women focused longer on photographs of men performing sexual acts with women than did the males
We’re dirtier than women.
We’re so dirty, we get bored faster looking at dirty pictures.
Chauvinist.
Um, Dan? “Its” is correct in the blockquote. It’s only correct to use the apostrophe in the contraction for “it is.” Truly. If you inserted the “[sic]” above, you’ll want to take it out.
“[H]uman sexual desires and their” was my point, Attila-Girl.
Wez likes them faces cuz somes women got such purdy moufs.
So, next time a guy is focusing on your face, you know what THAT’S about.
Should we dudes stop wearing our genitals on the outside of our cargo shorts? Has it gotten that serious?
Nice zing, alp.
O
High praise thor.
L
Just to make thor jealous:
Michael Vick’s coming to town.
Want me to stop by and give him a hug for you?
That sounds like a lot of work.
But, as they say, hard work never killed… oops, bad cliche.
“Um, Dan? “Its†is correct in the blockquote. It’s only correct to use the apostrophe in the contraction for “it is.†Truly. If you inserted the “[sic]†above, you’ll want to take it out.”
He added [sic] because the subject is plural thus “its” should have been “their.”
Thanks for that update on the outerwear, Jim. Chicks dig Michael Vick almost as much as staring at my raw bag. Unzipped cargo shorts and a Vick prison tee and my wardrobe will be set for Spring.
L
Shit, forgot to change my name back.
Jim in KC… nah, just roll by and sing “who let the dogs out?”
I’m sorry, Dan. I look for the subject-verb thingamagreement, because I was sitting at a local coffee house, and this guy walked by in a sleeeveless . . . Awwww . . . there he goes again. How’s a girl supposed to proofread other people’s blogs under these conditions?
The results showed that for the straight US population to experience an epidemic of HIV infection as great as that of gay men, they would need to average almost five unprotected sexual partners every year.
This is a rate almost three times that of gay men.
Huh? Five partners is enough to start an epidemic? (I understand that they mean across the population). And five partners is three times the rate of gay men? Since when? How many subjects did they have, and what was the cross-section?