ISIS Pledged Terror Group Abu Sayyaf Beheading Execution Of Canadian Hostage
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.
Feminist rule in Europe makes second-generation male Muslim immigrants suicide bombers. They die for sexual justice. Why do Western politicians call suicide bombers cowards? To sacrifice one's own life is the ultimate in courage.
Where will the quest for a bigger package “down there” end?
You often hear the phrase “size doesn’t matter” when it comes to the length and girth of a man’s penis.
Still, many men feel they are inadequate in the bedroom and will do whatever it takes to make their partner scream with pleasure.
But what if whatever it takes involved a needle in your manhood, would you be game?
The demand for larger penises has seen a boom in cosmetic procedures and gadgets such as pumps, and even penile weights designed to stretch the muscle.
But now, a New York cosmetic surgeon believes he has the answer and it lies in a syringe full of blood.
According to Dr. Norman Rowe, a board-certified surgeon, a 10-minute Botox-style procedure can add 1.5 inches to the circumference of a man’s member.
Rowe already offers enlargements in the form of cosmetic fillers, which work to increase the girth and length of the penis.
Similar in fashion to what a dentist does, Rowe uses a numbing agent in the penile area before injecting it and in roughly 10 minutes men can have the penis they’ve always wanted.
His new idea involves injecting one’s own blood into their genitals, similar to what is already used in athletes to aid in muscle rejuvenation.
He told the Daily Mail: “In the last 10 years, we have seen the rise of so many “quick fix” operations like Botox – for the face, for the eyes … I spend so much of my day doing fillers on women’s faces.”
“I started to wonder: why can’t I make it work for men?”
The blood used in the procedure has been rid of its platelets, making it more concentrated.
The idea of the blood shots rose to prominence in 2013 when Kobe Bryant announced he used it to treat different parts of his body.
Then came the Kim Kardashian’s “vampire facelift,” which involved the reality TV star having her own blood injected into tiny pinpricks in her face.
Rowe explains on his website that penis fillers have little to no recovery time and there is no pain involved in the procedure.
But if you’re not willing to suffer through the prick of a needle in your, well you know, then there are other things you can do to make yourself stand a little taller, according to the NHS.
You could try trimming your pubic hair will help you look more impressive, as a big mound of hair can often make a penis look smaller than it is.
Losing weight can also help give the illusion of a bigger size as an overhanging beer belly distracts from what a lover should really be taking note of.
Feminists have institutionalized violence against men through the legal systems of all Western nations. But women cannot win the violence competition. The more violent societies become, the more women need protection. And the more they need protection, the quicker they will abandon feminism. Rich men should invest their money in fostering violence in all societies. Then they will end up with their own harems. No feminists inside there.
95 percent of the victims of violence are men. Because women feel flattered when men fight each other and kill each other to prove that they are real men.
In bedrooms across the nation, a chasm has opened and continues to gape. It’s what sociologists call the orgasm gap — the fact that men are twice as likely to climax as women. The question of whether men are biologically better equipped to orgasm than women has recently become the center of a lot of scientific scrutiny, and recently researchers studying it put forth another theory: Womens’ bodies are perfectly able to orgasm. It’s the sexual dynamic with their partner that’s the problem.
The team behind the study, published in March in the Journal of Sex Research, argues that we’re going to have to take a much more nuanced view of orgasms if we’re going to close the orgasm gap. More important than whether or not a person has an orgasm is how they achieve it — and how good it is. That’s why the St. Francis Xavier University and Queens University researchers surveyed 806 people — cisgender men and women in same-sex and mixed-sex relationships — about their favorite way to reach orgasm and how frequently they managed to do so.
The results suggested a rather messy explanation for the existence of the orgasm gap: Of all the people surveyed, heterosexual men were the only group that preferred vaginal penetration. But because of the existence of historical and cultural “sexual scripts,” which shape our sex lives, they write, women in heterosexual relationships rarely get to experience the sex moves that lead to the best orgasms.
Explaining the results in an interview with PsyPost, the study’s corresponding author, psychologist Karen L. Blair, Ph.D., said: “This suggests women are already ‘reciprocating’ with the most enjoyable orgasm for their male partner when they engage in vaginal penetration, and that for them to also experience their most satisfying orgasm, the reciprocation from their male partner should likely be performing oral sex.”
But here’s the surprising thing: The researchers also found that the men in these heterosexual relationships were the most likely to say they wanted to perform oral sex on their partners more often. The researchers posit that this is because heterosexual men want to perform oral sex on their female partners for one of two reasons. Either they straight-up want to but find that their partners are reluctant to let them do so, or they only want to do it so they can receive oral sex in return. Regardless of their motivations, however, the question remains: Why aren’t they doing it?
Thus the researchers get to the core of the orgasm gap: It’s obviously not about biology, because they found that women (and men) in same-sex relationships are generally much more satisfied with orgasm frequency and quality. The problem lies in the dynamics between sex partners, especially in mixed-sex relationships, and the way they prevent people from getting the most orgasmic bang for their buck.
The problem all comes back to the aforementioned “sexual scripts,” which are cultural views that reinforce the idea that women should be sexually passive while men are encouraged to go for what they want. “[Heteronormative] scripts appear to give a greater degree of agency to men than to women, especially in matters concerning pleasure,” the researchers write. These scripts are deeply ingrained in our society, playing out, especially, in TV, film, and porn. However, these can — and, if we’re serious about closing the orgasm gap, should — be disrupted by increasing support for women’s assertiveness both inside and out of the bedroom.
Porn stars dangle their dicks in front of super subwoofers to produce super erection. Do it yourself shockwave therapy.
After the report into Jimmy Savile and the conviction of Rolf Harris, Britain has gone into a convulsion of anxiety about child abuse in the Eighties
"Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” said the presentation. “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.”
Some yellowing tract from the Seventies or early Eighties, era of abusive celebrities and the infamous PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange? No. Anonymous commenters on some underground website? No again.
The statement that paedophilia is “natural and normal” was made not three decades ago but last July. It was made not in private but as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organisers, to many of the key experts in the field at a conference held by the University of Cambridge. Other presentations included “Liberating the paedophile: a discursive analysis,” and “Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia.”
Hebephilia is the sexual preference for children in early puberty, typically 11 to 14-year-olds.
Another attendee, and enthusiastic participant from the floor, was one Tom O’Carroll, a multiple child sex offender, long-time campaigner for the legalisation of sex with children and former head of the Paedophile Information Exchange. “Wonderful!” he wrote on his blog afterwards. “It was a rare few days when I could feel relatively popular!”
Last week, after the conviction of Rolf Harris, the report into Jimmy Savile and claims of an establishment cover-up to protect a sex-offending minister in Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet, Britain went into a convulsion of anxiety about child abuse in the Eighties. But unnoticed amid the furore is a much more current threat: attempts, right now, in parts of the academic establishment to push the boundaries on the acceptability of child sex.
Jimmy Savile exploited the trust of a nation for his own vile purposes
A key factor in what happened all those decades ago in the dressing rooms of the BBC, the wards of the NHS and, allegedly, the corridors of power was not just institutional failings or establishment “conspiracies”, but a climate of far greater intellectual tolerance of practices that horrify today.
With the Pill, the legalisation of homosexuality and shrinking taboos against premarital sex, the Seventies was an era of quite sudden sexual emancipation. Many liberals, of course, saw through PIE’s cynical rhetoric of “child lib”. But to others on the Left, sex by or with children was just another repressive boundary to be swept away – and some of the most important backing came from academia.
In 1981, a respectable publisher, Batsford, published Perspectives on Paedophilia, edited by Brian Taylor, a sociology lecturer at Sussex University, to challenge what Dr Taylor’s introduction called the “prejudice” against child sex. Disturbingly, the book was aimed at “social workers, community workers, probation officers and child care workers”.
The public, wrote Dr Taylor, “generally thinks of paedophiles as sick or evil men who lurk around school playgrounds in the hope of attempting unspecified beastliness with unsuspecting innocent children”. That, he reassured readers, was merely a “stereotype”, both “inaccurate and unhelpful”, which flew in the face of the “empirical realities of paedophile behaviour”. Why, most adult-child sexual relationships occurred in the family!
The perspectives of most, though not all, the contributors, appeared strongly pro-paedophile. At least two were members of PIE and at least one, Peter Righton, (who was, incredibly, director of education at the National Institute for Social Work) was later convicted of child sex crimes. But from the viewpoint of today, the fascinating thing about Perspectives on Paedophilia is that at least two of its contributors are still academically active and influential.
Prof Ken Plummer, left, and former PIE head Tom O'Carroll Ken Plummer is emeritus professor of sociology at Essex University, where he has an office and teaches courses, the most recent scheduled for last month. “The isolation, secrecy, guilt and anguish of many paedophiles,” he wrote in Perspectives on Paedophilia, “are not intrinsic to the phenomen[on] but are derived from the extreme social repression placed on minorities …
“Paedophiles are told they are the seducers and rapists of children; they know their experiences are often loving and tender ones. They are told that children are pure and innocent, devoid of sexuality; they know both from their own experiences of childhood and from the children they meet that this is not the case.”
As recently as 2012, Prof Plummer published on his personal blog a chapter he wrote in another book, Male Intergenerational Intimacy, in 1991. “As homosexuality has become slightly less open to sustained moral panic, the new pariah of 'child molester’ has become the latest folk devil,” he wrote. “Many adult paedophiles say that boys actively seek out sex partners … 'childhood’ itself is not a biological given but an historically produced social object.” Prof Plummer confirmed to The Sunday Telegraph that he had been a member of PIE in order to “facilitate” his research. He said: “I would never want any of my work to be used as a rationale for doing 'bad things’ – and I regard all coercive, abusive, exploitative sexuality as a 'bad thing’. I am sorry if it has impacted anyone negatively this way, or if it has encouraged this.” However, he did not answer when asked if he still held the views he expressed in the Eighties and Nineties. A spokesman for Essex University claimed Prof Plummer’s work “did not express support for paedophilia” and cited the university’s charter which gave academic staff “freedom within the law to put forward controversial and unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy”.
Graham Powell is one of the country’s most distinguished psychologists, a past president of the British Psychological Society and a current provider of psychology support services to the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the National Crime Squad, the Metropolitan Police, Kent Police, Essex Police and the Internet Watch Foundation. In Perspectives on Paedophilia, however, he co-authored a chapter which stated: “In the public mind, paedophile attention is generally assumed to be traumatic and to have lasting and wholly deleterious consequences for the victim. The evidence that we have considered here does not support this view … we need to ask not why are the effects of paedophile action so large, but why so small.”
The chapter does admit that there were “methodological problems” with the studies the authors relied on which “leave our conclusions somewhat muted”. Dr Powell told The Sunday Telegraph last week that “what I wrote was completely wrong and it is a matter of deep regret that it could in any way have made things more difficult [for victims]”. He said: “The literature [scientific evidence] was so poor in 1981, people just didn’t realise what was going on. There was a lack of understanding at the academic level.” Dr Powell said he had never been a member of PIE.
In other academic quarters, with rather fewer excuses, that lack of understanding appears to be reasserting itself. The Cambridge University conference, on July 4-5 last year, was about the classification of sexuality in the DSM, a standard international psychiatric manual used by the police and courts.
After a fierce battle in the American Psychiatric Association (APA), which produces it, a proposal to include hebephilia as a disorder in the new edition of the manual has been defeated. The proposal arose because puberty in children has started ever earlier in recent decades and as a result, it was argued, the current definition of paedophilia – pre-pubertal sexual attraction – missed out too many young people.
Ray Blanchard, professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto, who led the APA’s working group on the subject, said that unless some other way was found of encompassing hebephilia in the new manual, that was “tantamount to stating that the APA’s official position is that the sexual preference for early pubertal children is normal”.
Prof Blanchard was in turn criticised by a speaker at the Cambridge conference, Patrick Singy, of Union College, New York, who said hebephilia would be abused as a diagnosis to detain sex offenders as “mentally ill” under US “sexually violent predator” laws even after they had completed their sentences.
But perhaps the most controversial presentation of all was by Philip Tromovitch, a professor at Doshisha University in Japan, who stated in a presentation on the “prevalence of paedophilia” that the “majority of men are probably paedophiles and hebephiles” and that “paedophilic interest is normal and natural in human males”. O’Carroll, the former PIE leader, was thrilled, and described on his blog how he joined Prof Tromovitch and a colleague for drinks after the conference. “The conversation flowed most agreeably, along with the drinks and the beautiful River Cam,” he said.
It’s fair to say the Tromovitch view does not represent majority academic opinion. It’s likely, too, that some of the academic protests against the “stigmatisation” of paedophiles are as much a backlash against the harshness of sex offender laws as anything else. Finally, of course, academic inquiry is supposed to question conventional wisdom and to deal rigorously with the evidence, whether or not the conclusions it leads you to are popular. Even so, there really is now no shortage of evidence about the harm done by child abuse. In the latest frenzy about the crimes of the past, it’s worth watching whether we could, in the future, go back to the intellectual climate which allowed them.
With free speech, it's like that: You can make any offending remarks about white men, and the mainstream media and mainstream opinion will applaud you. You can't say anything negative about feminism. Feminism is sacrosanct. Fuck it.
The shocking practice is an extreme form of discrimination against women and reflects gender inequality.
Cairo: Female genital mutilation has come across as a major issue in conversations around women’s rights and while several countries have banned the shocking practice, it’s very much prevalent in parts of the Middle East and Africa as well as certain groups of people around the world.
While the world discusses the importance of the female orgasm to ensure pleasure for women in bed, an alarming number of women in Egypt can’t possibly climax because of FGM. The process which involves removal of the outer female genitalia causes delays in sexual response cycle for women, leaving them unable to orgasm.
The Forensic Medicine Department in the country has revealed that the number of women deprived of sexual pleasure is as high as 70 to 80 percent in the North African country. The practice is seen as extreme discrimination against women and is rooted in gender inequality.
The Egyptian government on its part has upped the ante against the practice as a bill passed to increase punishment for perpetrators can land people in jail for up to seven years. But despite efforts it is practiced illegally as three million girls are at risk of FGM each year across the world.
This site contains photos of brutality. Semantically and philosophically speaking, the photos are not brutal. What is brutal is the depicted reality.
It is the secret dream of every Swedish or German woman to marry a black men, or at least have sex with a black man. Every smart young African man should migrate to Europe. Free money, nice house, good sex!
Fabiano Antoniani expressed frustration with his homeland shortly before triggering the lethal substance
A paralysed DJ ended his own life with the press of a button in Switzerland after a fruitless campaign for euthanasia in his native Italy.
Fabiano Antoniani died at a euthanasia facility in Forch after reportedly triggering the lethal substance.
The 40-year-old had campaigned for a change in the assisted suicide law in his homeland, but Italy's parliament had shelved the debate 11 times.
Former MEP and activist Marco Cappato, who travelled with Mr Antoniani to Switzerland, could face criminal charges after helping escort the musician to the facility.
Police have questioned him over the death, he said on Twitter.
Mr Antoniani was left blind and tetraplegic by car crash in 2014. The DJ dropped his phone while driving and smashed into the car in front of him as he tried to pick it up.
Also known as quadriplegia, Tetraplegia is paralysis caused by illness or injury that results in the partial or total loss of use of all four limbs and torso.
He appealed to Italy President Sergio Mattarella for the right to die, and shortly before his death, criticised the country for failing to pass laws allowing him to do so.
“Finally I am in Switzerland and, unfortunately, I got here on my own and not with the help of my country,” he said, in a message posted on social media shortly before his death.
“Fabo died at 11.40am. He decided to pass away, respecting the rules of a country which is not his own,” Mr Cappato wrote on Twitter, shortly after he died.
Roberto Saviano, an Italian journalist, who was a friend of DJ Fabo, also wrote: “We distinctly heard you ask for a dignified death. There is no possible justification for the silence that you’ve achieved in response.
“There is no possible justification for the lack of empathy, of attention, and humanity, from the European Parliament, and from the country, which by fate, you were born in.”
Euthanasia is illegal in Italy, a traditionally Catholic country, but the law upholds a patient’s right to refuse care.
A bill to clarify assisted suicide law has been postponed in Italy three times, but according to La Stampa, will be debated by the Chamber of Deputies this week.
Hundreds have travelled to Zurich to end their lives since the Dignitas organisation was set up in 1998.
The number of assisted suicides in Switzerland, according to statistics from Dignitas and Exit, stood at 416 in 2011 but 1,004 in 2015.
In the UK, a woman suffering from Crohn's disease last month said she will pay £10,000 to end her life in Switzerland because of social care cuts
Every rich man in his right mind want patriarchy as a social and political system. Men rule, and can have harems, one way or the other. And because women are natural cowards, the more violent a society, the more women will retreat. All by themselves. So, welcome violent migrants. They will finish off feminism. Just take precautions to protect yourself. A dangerous world is one ruled by men.
Proponents of the theory humans are primarily responsible for global warming have said for two decades that warmer temperatures would cause significant problems for the people of Africa. Crops would fail, water would dry up, and the lack of stability, coupled with these problems, would cause significant climate-change-related wars.
For instance, in 2015, Newsweek alleged global warming has already caused significant crises in Africa.
“In violence-plagued northern Mali, a desiccated landscape of dust and mud huts where the average rainfall is a third less than it was nearly two decades ago, scholars recently blamed a climate change–induced drought for fueling conflict between Tuareg separatist rebels, who need water and grass for their cattle herds, and government-backed forces. In March, the National Academy of Sciences published a peer-reviewed study stating that ‘there is evidence that the 2007–2010 drought contributed to the conflict in Syria. It was the worst drought in the instrumental record, causing widespread crop failure and a mass migration of farming families to urban centers.’ Some studies suggest climate change will produce permanent refugees.”
These kinds of sky-is-falling analyses rely on short-term views of regional and global climate changes, and they often fail to consider the numerous benefits of warming and/or increased carbon-dioxide levels, as evidenced by a new study showing increased CO2 has “driven” greening in Africa.
According to a study by Martin Brandt et al., published in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution in May, 36 percent of the continent of Africa became greener over the 20-year period from 1992 to 2011, while only 11 percent became “less green.” Interestingly, the researchers found the increased greening was “driven” by higher carbon-dioxide levels and precipitation, and the decreased greening was largely a result of humans cutting down vegetation.
“Here we used a passive microwave Earth observation data set to document two different trends in land area with woody cover for 1992–2011: 36% of the land area (6,870,000 km2) had an increase in woody cover largely in drylands, and 11% had a decrease (2,150,000 km2), mostly in humid zones,” wrote the authors in their study’s abstract. “Increases in woody cover were associated with low population growth, and were driven by increases in CO2 in the humid zones and by increases in precipitation in drylands, whereas decreases in woody cover were associated with high population growth.”
This study, if accurate, serves as further proof that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not nearly as dangerous as so many alarmists say. In fact, historically, more-significant problems are linked to climates becoming colder, not warmer. This isn’t surprising, because when temperatures are higher and there is more carbon dioxide present, plants tend to grow better, which means animals and humans have more food to eat.
If you are still invested in the real estate of European cities, get out! A terrorist attack with chemical weapons will happen. And it won't be just one. Chemical weapons are just so easy to produce.
Home | Index of articles