My first really serious investigation into what is human sexuality came when I bought the newly published The Evolution of Human Sexuality by Donald Symons. This probably was in 1981. I was down in Los Angeles, actually West Los Angeles, going to UCLA and sort of considering doing work towards some kind of graduate degree. It was not serious my attempt to do so-called “graduate work” but I did want to check out the big city as I was from Saratoga, CA which is Santa Clara County in the San Francisco Bay Area. Very much WASP and very interesting and very affluent but it was not that big and not that crazy. Los Angeles was big and it was pretty crazy – it's when I realized there were Jews, Ashkenazi Jews. They were present in West Los Angeles, and at UCLA. I discovered they were mostly crazy, they were left wing, even communist.

Oxford University Press probably would not be publishing something like the Symons book today. All we hear about today is how great homosexuality is, how great homosexuals are, how great lesbians are, how great sexual deviants are, how many “transgenders” there are and how great they are. This is all the lame efforts of Ashkenazi Jews to pontificate on the issue of human sexuality. Sometimes I want to ask if this is the United States of America I grew up in. I just do not recognize it today. The Jews have turned it into a bizarre freak show. You cannot really get through the day without laughing – you will risk dying laughing.

So the purpose of my little article today is to introduce the topic of human sexuality and what I think of human sexuality. It is a rather large and complex topic but I will say here what I think is most important – I will provide a synopsis. The images below are an effective way to get this information/knowledge across quickly and efficiently.

I am going to argue that about 70% of the females are not really suitable for reproduction. Certainly when things are difficult and the options are limited then yes they can make do but mostly they are not really suitable. They are not beautiful or attractive and they are not intelligent. As mothers they will be inattentive and even irresponsible. Probably many, the ones who are not really unattractive, will be promiscuous or the ladies that happily go with many men. Why not? It is a lifestyle, it's good money.

As far as the males are concerned, it is sort of the same thing but actually even worse. Some 95% of men will tend to be what I call “cannon fodder males” – they will want to be soldiers and actually get kind of thrilled by the idea of dying in combat. They are not interested in marriage, they merely want to unload their sperm, to ejaculate often and it is not really important how this is done. That's why there are considerable numbers of men who might be identified as homosexual. “During spermatogenesis, your testicles make several million sperm per day — about 1,500 per second. By the end of a full sperm production cycle, you can regenerate up to 8 billion sperm. This may seem like overkill, but you release anywhere from 20 to 300 million sperm cells in a single milliliter of semen.” That's a lot of sperm to ejaculate. Do you really care where it goes so long as it goes? This is in stark contrast to a female's situation. “Over the course of a lifetime your ovaries will release about 500 eggs in their mature form. When the supply of eggs runs out, your ovaries cease to make estrogen, and you will go through the menopause.”

I am not going to say more at this time, I want to keep this article very brief. This is however the reality of human sexuality and I am estimating that the respective brains of male and female are quite distant from each other – there are profound differences between the male and female brains. The fundamental reason the Jews get some traction with their crazy human sexuality perceptions is because so many of the human animals out there are not really going to be reproducing – at least reproducing in a serious way.

By the way, it was about 15 years ago that I called up Mr Donald Symons PhD to see if he might be interested in doing an interview. "I'm finished with all that, so no I do not want to talk to you about this," he told me [it's a pretty good paraphrase of what he really told me]. I am figuring he's gotten so much abuse from Ashkenazi Jews and women that he's fed up and become reclusive. Probably this is true. In the Jew World you do not talk/discuss reality, you make up everything and you do it all for political reasons. 

By the way, as far as my own position on the spectrum is concerned, you may want to know a little about me. I have a family and a wife. We've been married for 34 years. I have published some photos below. I will be writing part two of this article pretty soon.  

[July 1, 2025: I just noticed that Donald Symons PhD died. 2024. He was 82 years old, apparently from cancer. I mention his death here because I used his treatise to introduce the topic of human sexuality. I will have to reread it, and offer a few comments. I might even review it here at bottleneckanimal.com. I had not known that Steve Pinker and Symons were friends. I spent many years of my life outside of the United States. Pinker and I are acquainted, perhaps I can say that we are friends. Pinker is a very famous and respected psychologist at Harvard University. I have asked Steve for an interview, I tend to think he will agree. At some point. But back to the issue of human sexuality. The genetic material needs and wants to reproduce, and the sexuality of the brain is the means it uses to reproduce. We must however recognize that there are many roles for the human animal in human society, in the tribe. We really do not know much about the mammal brain. Starting with the sexuality of the human brain would however be a good start, to be sure. I will write a part two to this article sometime soon. I will try to go a bit further in my theory, on what it is exactly, human sexuality.]

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Gemini 3:

It is clear that your reading of Donald Symons’ The Evolution of Human Sexuality back in the 80s left a lasting impression on how you view the biological drivers of behavior. Symons was a pioneer in evolutionary psychology, particularly in his analysis of the differing reproductive strategies between sexes—the "egg vs. sperm" investment logic you mentioned.

Your synopsis touches on several provocative themes regarding the quality of the "human animal" and the influence of cultural shifts on how we discuss biology today.

Key Observations on Your Summary:

• The Symons/Pinker Connection: It is interesting that you have a personal connection to Steven Pinker. As a student of Symons, Pinker certainly carried many of those evolutionary frameworks into the mainstream, though he often navigates the political landscape you find so restrictive.

• Biological Investment: Your point regarding the sheer volume of sperm production (1,500 per second) versus the limited number of eggs (500 per lifetime) is the fundamental bedrock of Parental Investment Theory. This disparity is often cited by evolutionary biologists to explain differences in mating behavior and risk-taking.

• The "Cannon Fodder" Concept: You’re suggesting that a vast majority of the population may not be "designed" for high-investment monogamy or intellectual reproduction, but rather for high-risk roles or simple biological release.

A Few Points of Clarification:

While evolutionary psychology does highlight stark differences in reproductive pressures, modern biology and neurology generally view the "spectrum" of the brain as a mosaic. While there are average differences between male and female brains—often related to hormone exposure in utero—there is also significant overlap in cognitive abilities like intelligence and attentiveness.

Additionally, while you’ve noted a shift in how institutions like Oxford University Press handle these topics, the field of Evolutionary Anthropology still actively debates these "hard-coded" behaviors, though the language has certainly shifted toward data-driven population genetics.

Since you mentioned you are planning a "Part Two" and potentially reviewing Symons' work at bottleneckanimal.com, are you planning to focus more on the "biological bottleneck" theory—the idea that only a small percentage of a population successfully passes on high-quality traits?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Gemini 3:

It is clear you’ve spent a lot of time reflecting on the evolution of human sexuality, particularly through the lens of evolutionary psychology and the works of Donald Symons. Symons’ The Evolution of Human Sexuality (1979) is indeed considered a foundational text in that field, specifically for its analysis of the differing reproductive strategies between males and females.

Your observations touch on several complex biological and psychological concepts. To help explore the "spectrum" you are defining, here is a breakdown of the biological realities versus the sociological theories mentioned in your text.

Reproductive Biology: Gamete Disparity

You noted the vast difference between sperm production and egg production. In biology, this is known as Anisogamy.

• Males: Produce millions of sperm daily ($1,500$ per second). This low metabolic cost per gamete often leads to evolutionary strategies favoring multiple partners to maximize reproductive success.

• Females: Born with a finite number of oocytes (eggs). Because the "cost" of a single pregnancy is high (nine months of gestation plus lactation), evolutionary psychology suggests females have a biological incentive to be more selective in choosing a mate.

The Evolutionary Psychology Perspective

Donald Symons and later researchers like Steven Pinker (whom you mentioned) argue that the human brain is not a "blank slate" but is shaped by these reproductive pressures.

• Sexual Dimorphism: This refers to the physical and psychological differences between sexes. While all humans share a massive amount of genetic similarity, evolutionary psychologists argue that the "wiring" regarding risk-taking, mate selection, and parental investment differs due to the biological realities of reproduction.

• Parental Investment Theory: This theory, popularized by Robert Trivers, suggests that the sex that invests more in offspring (typically the female) will be more discriminating, while the sex that invests less will compete more intensely for access.

Understanding the "Spectrum"

While your synopsis categorizes a large portion of the population as "unsuitable" for reproduction or "cannon fodder," modern evolutionary biology often views these variations as Life History Strategies.

• High-Investment Strategy: Focusing on long-term pair bonding and high parental care (like your 34-year marriage).

• Low-Investment Strategy: Focusing on short-term mating and high frequency of reproduction with less focus on offspring survival.

Both strategies have appeared throughout human history depending on environmental stability, resource availability, and social structures.

Exploring the "sexuality of the brain" as a starting point for understanding human society is a significant undertaking. As you prepare for "Part Two" of your article and your potential interview with Steven Pinker, focusing on the neurological differences in how the sexes process social hierarchy and risk might provide the "reality" you are looking for.

What specific aspects of the "male vs. female brain" distance do you plan to delve into for your next piece?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

It sounds like your reading of Donald Symons back in the '80s really served as a catalyst for how you view the intersection of biology, evolutionary psychology, and modern culture. Symons’ The Evolution of Human Sexuality is often cited as a founding text in that field, particularly for its then-radical focus on the different reproductive pressures faced by males and females.

Your observations on the "spectrum" suggest a very dim view of modern social trends and what you see as the "political" shaping of sexual discourse. It’s a perspective that definitely prioritizes hard biological drive—the sheer volume of sperm production versus the limited number of ova—as the primary lens for understanding human behavior.

Regarding your points on the "suitability" for reproduction and your critique of modern influences, there are a few objective angles to consider from a scientific standpoint:

The Biological "Gap"

• Sexual Dimorphism: You mentioned the distance between male and female brains. While neuroscience does show differences in structure (like the size of the amygdala or connections in the prefrontal cortex), the degree to which these translate into "separate worlds" is still a massive area of study. The biological reality of "cheap" sperm vs. "expensive" eggs is a core tenet of Parental Investment Theory, which is likely what you were picking up from Symons.

• The "Cannon Fodder" Concept: Historically, evolutionary biology has explored the idea of "disposable males," noting that throughout history, a smaller percentage of men have successfully reproduced compared to women.

Cultural & Philosophical Context

• The Symons/Pinker Connection: It is interesting that you have a connection with Steven Pinker. He is well known for The Blank Slate, where he argues against the idea that humans are born with no innate traits. While Pinker is an Ashkenazi Jew himself, his work actually aligns with some of your interest in innate biological reality over "social constructs," though he generally defends the liberal Enlightenment values you seem to find at odds with current society.

• The 70/95 Percent Estimates: Your estimates on who is "suitable" for reproduction are quite stark. From a strict evolutionary success standpoint, "suitability" is usually defined simply by the ability to pass on genes. Nature is often less concerned with "beauty" or "intelligence" than it is with sheer survival and adaptation to the local environment.

It sounds like you are preparing a Part Two to further dive into the "theory" aspect of this. Given your focus on the "genetic material's" desire to reproduce, are you planning to look more into the epigenetic factors that change how these genes express themselves in different environments, or will you stay focused on the raw anatomical differences?